HOME | DD
BluePhoenixx — Che Meme
Published: 2012-07-10 01:42:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 7839; Favourites: 75; Downloads: 609
Redirect to original
Description
This is the prime example of liberal ignorance.Related content
Comments: 343
The GIR funding was the result of Negligence from several of Charlie Wilson's subordinates who did not follow through with him. Reagan merely allowed Wilson to have his side War with the Commies, and it went well until those morons began to bungle things.
As for the Contras, there is as much evidence for as against Regan actually authorizing it as it played out.
It is an issue that most people would be wise to be critically agnostic about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No one is pure and innoncent.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
And yet its not okay for Che to be an ion of the left but its okay for Reagan to be an icon of the right. Both were monsters. There actions went further than being "less than pure and innocent". They are both guilty of atrocities.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Reagan is not an Idol for right wing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes he is. Some right wing people use Reagan as their idol the same way some left wing people use Che as their idol. Not all right wing people you understand but some.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In Czechistan no one know about existence of any Reagan, but they're right wing without him and without any other idol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm clearly talking about in America. And the existence of right wing people in Czech republic (Czechistan? What? Are you celebrating your ignorance of something) does not somehow exclude the fact that there are SOME right wing people who idolise Reagan in the same way that there are SOME left wing people who idolize Che. Your attempt at trolling has been a failure. Thanks for playing though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was proving your point...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then why were you arguing against it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So that makes it ok for the left wing to suck Che's dick? Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Of course not. But it doesn't make it any better for the right to suck Reagans dick. You think its bad for the left to put Che on a podium and worship him without understanding his life or actions and I just want to point out the right do that as well, with Reagan, who was equally a monster with blood on his hands. Also, Che never killed gays, next time, try not using fallacious arguments or believing everything you read online.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who said it's ok to suck Regan's dick?
Why am I even engaging in your red herring argument anyways? Merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against the topic at hand.
I'm sure you know everything about Che Guevara and I'm sure you don't buy into any of the watered down history used to rally misguided anarchists who turn a blind eye to Che's monstrosities. No, you're much too smart for that, right? Just in case you're not, let me educate you about his anti-gay actions.
What people like to leave out when discussing Che is not just a man who randomly executed countless people in cold blood but a man who used this new found government to inflict tyranny on vulnerable people who had nothing to do with his specific cause. He abused his power to try and rid the world of things undesirable, notably, rock n' roll and homosexuality.
The system fought for by Guevara and his associates, established the UMAP labor camps to incarcerate gay people, among other groups (including effeminate men). He was trying to rid his nation of homosexuality, which he believed to somehow be a byproduct of capitalism. In these UMAP labor camps, gays were tortured, at times leading to their death, and suicide was frequent.
So sure, we can pretend that of all the people Che killed, none of them were gay. In that case, you may be right that he didn't murder gays. But gays were certainly murdered and tortured because of him.
Argue semantics all you want, the message is still true. Maybe it's you who shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Did you really have to send a mini essay whinging about my perfectly valid comment. How am I changing the topic of discussion? Both the right and the left iconize and idolize idiots. That's my point. Sorry if that mere point went way over your head.
Sorry to burst your ill-informed bubble but there is a lot of debate about Che's UMAP camps with most scholars agreeing that no, he did not incarcerate men for being gay or effeminate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha perfectly valid comment? Red herring arguments are not valid comments. There's a reason why it's called a logical fallacy. You point didn't go over anyone's head, it's just a shitty point.
Yes, I'm ill-informed because I didn't come to the same conclusion as you. Lot's of "scholars" think that the holocaust didn't happen either. I'm going to go ahead and not take the word of someone like you about Che when you have his dick firmly stroking the back of your throat. You look at him through rose colored glasses and plug your ears when anyone challenges your beloved Che.
You're not changing any minds here. Move along.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
How the fuck is it a red herring? It's connected to the point. Literally all I am saying is that both right wing and left wing people idolize idiots and you bitch and cry to no end. Writing me short novelettes about how evil and shit I am. You have added into your collection of favourites pictures of Reagans. You scoff at dumbasses who love Che but I'm sure plenty of your troglodyte friends love Reagan. Reagan, who illegally funded the contras and gave arms to the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Some left wing people idolize a man who build UMAP camps and banned rock music and some right wing people idolize a man who funded South American, human rights abusing rebel groups and funded Iranian, Islamic terrorists. Literally my only comment was "right wing people do this too" and you respond kicking and screaming and accuse me of using fallacies that incidentally you know nothing about. You want to talk fallacies? How about straw man fallacies? I.e you saying I love Che? Straw man fallacy right there. Trying to twist my argument into something its not (or maybe you're generally too stupid to grasp the argument).
"Lot's of "scholars" think that the holocaust didn't happen either." - Are you comparing people who don't think Che didn't kill gay people (he didn't) to holocaust deniers? Che was an evil piece of shit who did a lot of awful shit, however killing gays was not one of them. Literally read any article about Cubas policies towards homosexuality (sorry reading something that isn't a magazine or the comments of a youtube video may be a little hard for you) and you'll see that Che did not put gays in UMAP camps. Infact the only scholar who has even suggested this has been Jorge Castaneda, a rabid anti-communist whose "facts" are literally dismissed by every major historian. You Americans have such a dumb misguided mistrust in intellectual authority. When all major historians agree that Che didn't put gays in UMAP camps, you don't believe it? Why?
The people who say that Che put homosexuals in camps are the same people who say he put aids suffers in camps. That should tell you about the sort of people who believe Che put homosexuals in camps. Morons.
"I'm going to go ahead and not take the word of someone like you about Che when you have his dick firmly stroking the back of your throat" - straw man, straw man, strawwww mmmmaaannnn. Why, because I actually know my history, refuse to believe lies? Yeah because actually reading books and believing in the factual evidence surrounding someone's live really equated to sucking their dick doesn't it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How is it a Red Herring? You have no idea what a Red Herring actually is, do you? You don't seem like the type of person who would click on a link if I gave you one and read up on something you're ignorant of. So I'll make it easy for you and do your homework by pasting the definition below:
"The idiom 'red herring' is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue... the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman , which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic."
The point is simple. You're only crying about Reagan to divert the discussion away from precious Che. Assuming we're comparing apples to apples between Reagan and Che (we're not) and assuming everything you believe about Reagan is true, does that make what Che did Ok? What if you were having a discussion about Charles Manson and someone jumped in by saying, "Oh yeah!? Well Jack the Ripper did the same thing!! So why aren't you talking about him, huh?!?" You would look at that person like a fucking idiot, right?
Ronald Reagan is irrelevant to this discussion no matter how much you want to justify the Left's ignorant obsession with Che.
"Writing me short novelettes about how evil and shit I am."
What are you talking about?
"You have added into your collection of favourites pictures of Reagans."
Where?
"You want to talk fallacies? How about straw man fallacies? I.e you saying I love Che? Straw man fallacy right there."
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of your view of Che, not a straw man. The irony is killing me. Apparently you don't know what a Straw Man is either... And you're gonna pretend to educate me on fallacies? lol
"Are you comparing people who don't think Che didn't kill gay people (he didn't) to holocaust deniers?"
Yes.
"When all major historians agree that Che didn't put gays in UMAP camps, you don't believe it? Why?"
Like I said, I'm not going to take your word for it. How about you show me all of these major historians you're talking about and show me what they said.
"'I'm going to go ahead and not take the word of someone like you about Che when you have his dick firmly stroking the back of your throat' - straw man, straw man, strawwww mmmmaaannnn."
Again, not a straw man. Ad Homonym probably, but not a straw man. At that point I was making fun of your obsession with dick sucking.
"Why, because I actually know my history, refuse to believe lies?"
Well, you think you know your history and you think you don't believe lies...
"Yeah because actually reading books and believing in the factual evidence surrounding someone's live..."
Such as? (Also life*)
"...really equated to sucking their dick doesn't it?"
Im pretty sure you used that same logic on people who defend Reagan. You can't have it both ways.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
"Such as? (Also life*)" - When you can't debate there arguments, point out there grammar mistakes (also, Im Swedish, English isn't my first language). See Conflicting Missions by Piero Gliejeses. Read Machos, Maricones and Gays: Cuba and homosexuality by Ian Lumsden. Read any article concerning Cuban's policies towards homosexuality.
Not to deliberately argue from authority but having studied philosophy of logic for a great period of my Uni career, I can say with a lot of certainty that I know a little bit more about fallacies than you do. The straw man is based on the misinterpretation of your opponants argument. Which is what you're doing by acting like I'm argueing in favour of Che. You build up a fake argument and debate that because you have no real facts on your side to argue in favour of your bullshit argument that Che deliberately imprisoned homosexuals. So far I have pointed out articles, authors and historians who show how this is bullshit. You on the other hand have not given me shit. How about YOU give ME historians who argue that this IS true. Where did you come by this information? How do you know that it's an objective truth?
"The point is simple. You're only crying about Reagan to divert the discussion away from precious Che" - STRAW mmmmaaannnnnn. Like I said, you build up the argument you want to hear. The argument that you want to hear is that I love Che. That would be an easier argument for you to debate. But it isn't my argument. I don't like, support or agree with Che and there is plenty of evidence on the real stuff that he did do, including violating human rights in UMAP camps. Yet you demand that I do love Che because you either don't understand or can't debate my original argument. That's why you've create this little bullshit narrative. Perhaps in 'Merica, you only truly hate someone when your willing to swallow any bullshit lies without hesitation someone feeds you about said person but typically, you can dislike someone while still being sceptical about random, totally unfounded unsupported claimants made about them.
"What if you were having a discussion about Charles Manson and someone jumped in by saying, "Oh yeah!? Well Jack the Ripper did the same thing!! So why aren't you talking about him, huh?!?" - But I never said "Why aren't you talking about him (Reagan)." I was saying meanwhile, while the left idolizes Che, the right idolizes Reagan. Which is a valid point. If we were having a discussion about people idolizing Manson and I said meanwhile people also idolize Jack the Ripper, that would be a totally valid point.
"Are you comparing people who don't think Che didn't kill gay people (he didn't) to holocaust deniers?"
"Yes." - Then congratulations. You're a total idiot. The holocaust is a totally undeniable fact. We have witnesses, documents etc. Where's the similar proof for your bullshit narrative that Che killed homosexuals?
"and assuming everything you believe about Reagan is true, does that make what Che did Ok?" - What do you mean assuming everything I believe about Reagan being true? Are you trying to contest that Reagan did not fund the contras or funded Islamic terrorists? Are all Americans this ignorant? Because the stereotype is out there and you correspond pretty nicely with the "dumb misinformed American" ideal. Also, strawwww maaaaannnn. Where did I say that makes Che okay? That's not my argument. So why do you still continue to demand that it is?
Like I said before, the people who believe that Che imprisoned homosexuals, are the same people who believe Che imprisoned AIDS suffers. This is how stupid, gullible, misinformed and moronic these people are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"When you can't debate there arguments, point out there grammar mistakes..."
The grammar mistake was a side note after the argument was already debated. But nice try.
Piero Gliejeses is not an objective source. His analysis of Cuba is consistently one-sided and paints a far more courageous and righteous picture than reality dictates. Ian Lumsden is even worse! His bias against and hatred for the US is palpable. He doesn't even try to hide it in his writing.
"Read any article concerning Cuban's policies towards homosexuality."
I have.
"...I can say with a lot of certainty that I know a little bit more about fallacies than you do."
Clearly you don't. In fact, you know nothing about my education or my fields of study. You can't say anything about me with certainty. And even though you say you aren't deliberately arguing from authority, by pointing out that you are aware that you are arguing from authority shows otherwise.
"The straw man is based on the misinterpretation of your opponants argument."
The straw man is based on the DELIBERATE misinterpretation of your opponent's* argument to argue a point that nobody is making, not simply misunderstanding your opponent's point of view. That's simply a misunderstanding, not a logical fallacy. I've already admitted my fault in that assumption of your views and stopped asserting that point the misunderstanding was corrected.
"You build up a fake argument and debate that because you have no real facts on your side to argue in favour of your bullshit argument..."
Now THIS is a straw man. Pretending that my argument is built around the narrative that you are a Che supporter is laughable.
"So far I have pointed out articles, authors and historians who show how this is bullshit."
Not really. Your sources are garbage and even if they weren't you just now presented them. Up until your latest comment, it was all your own conjecture.
"'The point is simple. You're only crying about Reagan to divert the discussion away from precious Che' - STRAW mmmmaaannnnnn. Like I said, you build up the argument you want to hear."
Again. Not a straw man. Your very first comment had nothing to do with Che and only referred to Reagan. How are you not trying to divert attention away from Che or at least the ignorance of the left?
"The argument that you want to hear is that I love Che. That would be an easier argument for you to debate."
Yet another perfect example of your own straw men. That's not even close to the truth and I have already addressed this. Refer yourself a few lines up and read it again if you have to.
"But it isn't my argument."
...I never said it was.
"Yet you demand that I do love Che because you either don't understand or can't debate my original argument."
You're obviously not even reading my comments if that's what you think I'm saying. I hope I've made myself clear by now that my argument does not revolve around your support of Che.
"...either don't understand or can't debate my original argument."
I understand your original comment just fine. It wasn't that insightful, so don't flatter yourself. I simply have no interest in debating red herrings. I've told you that already.
"Perhaps in 'Merica, you only truly hate someone when your willing to swallow any bullshit lies without hesitation someone feeds you about said person..."
Your xenophobic, ad hominem attacks don't get you very far.
"But I never said "Why aren't you talking about him (Reagan)."
I know. I was using hyperbole to make a point.
"I was saying meanwhile, while the left idolizes Che, the right idolizes Reagan."
No, if you said it like that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. All you wanted to do is attack the right for idolizing Reagan as is evident by your insults.
"If we were having a discussion about people idolizing Manson and I said meanwhile people also idolize Jack the Ripper, that would be a totally valid point."
It would be an irrelevant point.
"Then congratulations. You're a total idiot."
Another ad hominem? What a shocker.
"The holocaust is a totally undeniable fact. We have witnesses, documents etc. Where's the similar proof for your bullshit narrative that Che killed homosexuals?"
The point you brought up was that there are scholars who disagree that the labor camps incarcerated gays. The point I was making when I said that there are lots of scholars who deny the holocaust is that your point is shitty. You will always find people who will disagree about the facts even when they are as concrete as the holocaust.
"What do you mean assuming everything I believe about Reagan being true? Are you trying to contest that Reagan did not fund the contras or funded Islamic terrorists?"
I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know everything you believe about Reagan. You seem to hate him quite a bit though and I'm pretty sure everything you've heard about Reagan isn't true just like you're saying that everything I've heard about Che isn't true. Or are you going to be a hypocrite and say that you know that everything you have heard from the internet about Reagan is the truth?
"Are all Americans this ignorant? Because the stereotype is out there and you correspond pretty nicely with the 'dumb misinformed American' ideal"
More bigoted xenophobia I see. Also, how many ad hominem attacks is that so far?
"Also, strawwww maaaaannnn. Where did I say that makes Che okay? That's not my argument. So why do you still continue to demand that it is?"
Yet again... not a straw man. Ironically you just created another straw man right there. I asked you a question, I didn't say that you think that makes Che ok. I asked you IF you think what Che did was ok. YOU EVEN QUOTED ME ASKING THE QUESTION. SO now you are stuffing your new straw man on the basis that I "demanded" that you think it does make it ok. Lol!
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
"The grammar mistake was a side note after the argument was already debated. But nice try." - I'm talking about the point made in that particular sentence of the grammatical mistake. You didn't address that argument and instead you decided to critique my grammar. Like a twelve year old kid on facebook. Good going
"Now THIS is a straw man. Pretending that my argument is built around the narrative that you are a Che supporter is laughable." and "I asked you a question, I didn't say that you think that makes Che ok." and "Yet another perfect example of your own straw men. That's not even close to the truth and I have already addressed this. Refer yourself a few lines up and read it again if you have to"
but yet...
"I'm going to go ahead and not take the word of someone like you about Che when you have his dick firmly stroking the back of your throat" and "You're only crying about Reagan to divert the discussion away from precious Che". Yeah, no straw man argument at all built up around the DELIBERATE misinterpretation of my argument and fictional narrative that I support Che. Nope. None what so ever. Mate, it's a fucking strawman.
"I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know everything you believe about Reagan. You seem to hate him quite a bit though" - Errr yeah I hate him and with good reason too (you seem to act like "hating him" is unreasonable). He funded the contras and armed terrorists. This isn't something "I read on the internet" fyi, it was an important and well known political scandal that took place in the 1980s that involved Reagan. If you knew anything about your county's own history you'd know this.
"Read any article concerning Cuban's policies towards homosexuality."
I have." - Oh really? And yet you present no evidence or articles to support this. What were they called? Who wrote them?
"Not really. Your sources are garbage and even if they weren't you just now presented them. Up until your latest comment, it was all your own conjecture." - Well hey, at least my sources exist. I felt no need in my last messages to use conjecture because I thought pointing out that no major historians or articles on Cubas attitude towards homosexuality supports this happening was enough but apparently not. In history, if something is not supported by major historians as being a historic objective fact then it's most likely fictitious, but apparently you didn't learn that in your history class, which is not suppressing since 'Mericas education system is utter shit (ohh noes, Im being xenophobic because I'm critical of an aspect of Merica).
"The point you brought up was that there are scholars who disagree that the labor camps incarcerated gays. The point I was making when I said that there are lots of scholars who deny the holocaust is that your point is shitty." - No there isn't. Enough with your tin foil hat paranoid nonsense. A very small percentage of scholars believe that the holocaust was a myth and every historian that believes this is very clearly biased. Many connected with neo-Nazi foundations. Meanwhile, a very large percentage of historians believe that Che imprisoned gays. These scholars come from partisan adamantly pro-che AND anti-Che positions as well as the purely objective and impartial. Like I said before, where's YOUR evidence? So far you'd given me exactly zero evidence and yet demand and insist that I carry the burden of evidence while bragging about how much research you've done but giving no data or documentation to support this.
"Piero Gliejeses is not an objective source. His analysis of Cuba is consistently one-sided and paints a far more courageous and righteous picture than reality dictates. Ian Lumsden is even worse! His bias against and hatred for the US is palpable" - Yeah because being critical of the American government and the tyranny it has done world wide totally equals hating America. Lumsden is critical about the USA but he is not pro-Che by any means. Why would he feel the need to lie or not be objective about this one aspect when in over aspects of Che he is very critical and condemning? But hey, if you want some more sources, then read Gay and Lesbian Rights in Cuba, published by the Cuba Solidarily Campaign or read Cuba Libre by Peter Marshall. Dont worry, I have plenty more sources. But go ahead. Since you apparently know soooooo much about this please link me to many of the sources you've read which declare that Che did knowingly and with intent imprison gay people(fyi redneck friends you heard it from and Glenn Beck don't count as sources). I have asked you twice now for some sources but yet I have received nothing.
"Another ad hominem? What a shocker." - Someone call the irony police.
"It would be an irrelevant point." - And yet, still a perfectly valid one and certainly one not worth the amount of whinging from you directed at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm gonna be honest. I didn't read any of your comment past the first few paragraphs. We're just going round and round debating semantics and logical fallacies and I've wasted too much of my time with you already. You still don't know what a straw man is though. You should look it up and educate yourself on it.
When all is said and done, if I'm wrong about the killing of homosexuals, I'm fine with admitting it and removing it from my arguments. But it doesn't change the message if the post. The point remains true, and that's something even you can't deny.
And sure, Reagan might have done some shitty things (not as shitty as Che, that's for sure) but you don't see conservatives wearing shirts with his face on it turning him into a pop icon.
Finally, since I see your last comment as I type out my response, let me quickly respond to it.
"'It would be an irrelevant point.' - And yet, still a perfectly valid one and certainly one not worth the amount of whinging from you directed at it."
A relevant point is a valid point. Period.
Have the last word, I know that's really all you want.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
"Have the last word" - Well since you insist. No but really. I don't want the last word, that was not what I aiming for. What I wanted was for you to stop being so stubborn on your ignorance about the history of countries and people you know nothing about. I've been to America and I observed a lot of people being so incredibly ignorant about history and well... literally the entire globe. They just ran their mouth off about any and every topic that popped into their heads without knowing what the hell they were even talking about. It was embarrassing for me to watch and it bothers me when people insist they are right about a topic they know nothing about. Like you do for example.
You maintained that you understood about Che's UMAP camps, that you'd read articles about them and compared me to a holocaust denier for saying that it wasn't a historical truth that Che imprisoned homosexuals. Now you're saying you were wrong? Why be so stubborn in the first place if you don't know what you're even talking about (and let's be honest here, you don't do you buddy? You haven't read a single thing about UMAP camps and haven't shown me even a drop of evidence in favour of your bullshit argument). Why do you Americans feel the need to wave about your ignorance like a flag despite knowing full well they don't know anything about what they're arguing about? Why do you do that?
"And sure, Reagan might have done some shitty things (not as shitty as Che, that's for sure)" - Literally, Iran is FUCKED because of what Reagans administration did. (Seeing as you're American I don't suppose you know much about Iran other than it's where evil Moooslims come from). But following the fall of the Shah in 1979, The Revolutionary Guards came to power. To this day they terrorise Iran, enforce fundamentalist law and oppress and kill people. They were only able to come to power because of Reagan giving them weapons. Meanwhile more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 killed in the contra war in Nicaragua. Funded by Ronald fucking Reagan. So no actually, Reagan is just as bad, if not worse than Che.
"You still don't know what a straw man is though. You should look it up and educate yourself on it." - Says the man who has proven he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about in terms of UMAP camps but still manages to run his mouth off anyway. Also, yes, yes you were using the straw man fallacy. Over and over and over again in fact. For the thousands fucking time. You twisted my argument and tried to make me out to be supporting Che (which, once again, I do not). I can point to numerous quotes of you saying/doing this. And yet you still deny using the straw man fallacy. Fucking incredible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hope you feel better. Bye now
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
we live in a weird world don't we
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We live in a world of power hungry hypocrites
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is especially the prime example of your very own ignorance ! Che is actually the symbol of "Revolution" !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is not the point of a revolution to bring hope and freedom to the people?
If this game of semantics works with people like you, you might want to rethink which one of us is ignorant.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Whatever, I'm too fucking lazy to argue so I'm outta this pointless debate. I'm serious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Che's diary:
The negros, those magnificent samples of the african race have kept their racial purity through the scarse fondness they have for bathing, have seen their lands invaded by a new species of slave: the portuguese. The poverty and contempt joins them in the daily fight, but the different way of facing life separates them completely, The negro, sluggish and daydreamer, spends his little earnings in any frivolity or in getting drunk, the european has a tradition of work and saving that chases him to this end of America and forces him to progress, even despite his own individual aspirations"
Letter to hi father - "I have to confess, father, that I discovered I enjoy killing people"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Finally, a bit of clarity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People are blinded by their abstract idealism, and their utopian attitude towards Ernesto El Serna's ridicules.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Uneducated commies will lost their mind, oh, they don't have any...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
what evidence does it say about what you're saying here?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Read his diary or biography, you'll see that nothing is white and black.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Che isn't Reagan, you uneducated consumer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Eto ocen plachoi argument, nazivat kazdova kunzumerom i esto k tamu neobrazovanym.
Pracidai evo autobiografiu, i uvidis pravdu.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Что сделал эль Че: превратил Кубу в первую латиноамериканскую страну с уровнем жизни выше чем в Африке. До сих пор это единственный остров во всех Карибах к жизни пригодный.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Haha yes, I'm the uneducated one. From the guy who has pedobear as his avatar and thinks regain did those things. The irony is palpable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you, 30 years old jobless virgin, don't even know that symbol of Russia's ruling party is bear, because "United Russia" was created by americants, to drain the wealth of a Russia in to USA, to pay you unemployment relief.
I mean, what kind of Russian will use such stereotype? It's like create party in America and use hamburger, fat dork or cannibal hillbilly as its symbol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whatever you say pedobear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is that you introduced yourself?
You so ugly woman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're still commenting, pedobear?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
youtu.be/JgMUtGJMAfs
youtu.be/miOWJ4rKb_g
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
are you guys actually switching the conversation to your profile pictures than the actually topic?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Che was not a racist, it was his young youth when he was racist. After his trek in South America when he announced himself a transformed man and even denounced the racism. The killings he did were to him casualties of war and no different than any other war. Che's views were to fight for freedom including blacks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All I see are justifications for terrible actions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>