The article had no points and was filled with hyperbole, innuendo and false assertions. How does one discuss this nonsense?
The Republican Party has a greed guru. In fact the son of America’s most prominent tinfoil hat addict named his son after her. Her teaching has provided a philosophical rationale that allows Republicans to take from the poor and give to the rich. In a nutshell, her philosophy is that government exists to serve the rich, because they and they alone are worthy of government support. Her ideas are not new. If we examine them closely we can see that see that similar thinking is responsible for the some of the greatest atrocities in modern history. Will history repeat itself?
Nothing but a vast pile of idiot bile here dude; this article contains little if any truth, it makes outrageous assertions it cannot support with any facts based on historic record and makes wild eyed idiot claims that border on insanity. If you want to have a coherent rational debate, provide a rational coherent argument and we can have at it.
Obviously you are still naive and confused at the difference between hyperbole and opinion, and fact.