He Murdered 70 Million People

[shadsf342]

hitler killed 6 million jews, plus another 4 million or so from the war casualties from his nazi/german army.

stalin killed 20 million of his own people, with line-up wall fireing squad executions, torture camps, and starvation

chairman mao, killed from 70 to 100 million of his own people with mass executions, poverty, and the diliberate spread of disease.

history was written by the victor, we talk about hitler who was actually the least worst out of them, and mao, most have never hurd of!!!!

[Trollandson]

Mao was a sick sick Person!!! 

[nsdtr01]

determined people can accomplish alot whether good or bad

[SandorClegane1]

Wow Thats Nutz!

[JakeBartlam]

you're changing topics, avoiding my questions, everything someone who refuses to see the truth does. You have circular arguments and i refuse to comment on this video again.

[JakeBartlam]

lets face it, you can't prove the garden of eden. You can't prove the bible is true, you can't prove god exists

[pjos111]

Look around you and you can see GOD everywhere.

[JakeBartlam]

you said the rest of the bible has been proven, please prove the garden of eden.

[JakeBartlam]

@Lichtspielhaus234 the ONLY evidence you have given me is Jericho. The article says the evidence neither confirms nor denies any theories. Just like a random rock neither confirms nor denies the bible. Making your evidence useless.

[JakeBartlam]

"Because the rest of the Bible has been proven historically and archeologically."

[JakeBartlam]

@Lichtspielhaus234 no, only a little of the bible has been proven, like the fact that egypt and rome exist. The only evidence you give me is useless, and you know that. Please prove to me how the garden of eden is historically and archaeologically proven, if you say that it has

[JakeBartlam]

@Lichtspielhaus234 so why does the finding of jericho prove the rest of the bible to be true, when obviously you also say a book can have historically and archaeologically parts in just one section but can be completely false in the rest of the book?

[JakeBartlam]

@ previous comment: change historically and archaeologically parts to historically and archaeologically proven parts

[JakeBartlam]

@Lichtspielhaus234 it is a yes or no question. answer it please

[JakeBartlam]

you still didnt answer it, you just called it stupid

[JakeBartlam]

@Lichtspielhaus234 you didnt answer the question.

[JakeBartlam]

@Lichtspielhaus234, you never gave any evidence, saying you gave more evidence doesn't actually mean anything. Ok, so you could copy and paste that part of the bible to any other book making the rest of the book automatically true?

[JakeBartlam]

im sorry if that is your one evidence for god that is just sad. So the mere find jericho is evidence for all of the bible? It doesn't matter what the belief was, some people believed in the bibles findings of jericho. Your making a special case argument, "no other books mentioned Jericho as the bible did" your saying the only book jericho proves true is the bible, and thats BULLSHIT

[JakeBartlam]

ok lol, FINALLY going to bed

[JakeBartlam]

no response? case closed i guess

[JakeBartlam]

EVEN IF sections were added on later. so if i just wrote something in a book about jericho, it would magically come true is what you're saying. THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

[JakeBartlam]

that would mean the mere find of jericho would prove every book that has jericho in it true

[JakeBartlam]

doesnt matter if its holy or not, youre saying as long as it says jericho is a city in the book that confirms the rest of the book!

[JakeBartlam]

you didn't answer the question, yes i am sorry that you can't answer basic questions without proving yourself wrong.

[JakeBartlam]

im avoiding my own question? LOLOL ok yea your the one who didnt answer the question fucktard. the bible is not any book because it is accurate. It is accurate because it is not any book. wow ok, 16 years and you sound like any dipshit redneck in mississippi. fuck this argument, you refuse to listen to me, so im going to refuse to listen to you

[JakeBartlam]

if you do not answer that specific question in your next comment im leaving

[JakeBartlam]

so any book that mentions jericho is true?

[JakeBartlam]

thats like saying that because england is in harry potter than that proves the accuracy of harry potter. Just because there is one thing true in the book does not mean everything is true.

[JakeBartlam]

no, it never said it proves the accuracy of the bible. it says it neither confirms or denies, which means it does not do anything. YOU must provide another source of evidence because this one is useless

[JakeBartlam]

Ok let me just stop you there. THIS RIGHT HERE, is the only evidence you have given. I have proven it wrong three times. IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY THIS NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES!! that means it is useless and you must provide MORE INFORMATION

[JakeBartlam]

please offer me REAL evidence in your next comment or this will be my last comment.

[JakeBartlam]

yes, i can and all my evidence is backed up with facts

[JakeBartlam]

I dont accept it because it's not real evidence. I have shown you that your evidence did not prove anything. When I did this, you changed the subject. JUST LOOK BACK at the texts, when i showed you your evidence didn't prove anything, you changed the subject to something else. why is our conversation being deleted? here is the link AGAIN mnsu(.)edu/emuseum/archaeology /sites/middle_east/jericho.htm l

[JakeBartlam]

The bible is fictional also. prove to me it is not

[JakeBartlam]

please tell me what you see on earth that tells you god made it

[JakeBartlam]

its not evidence unless you can trace it directly back to god

[JakeBartlam]

ok, you refuse to stick to one subject, and never give actual evidence, you only say that i wont accept it because i dont want to. thats like giving me pastrami and saying its evidence for a star and whenever you try to disprove it i say you just aernt accepting the evidence.

[JakeBartlam]

stop changing the subject! do you or do you not believe harry potter is true or not?

[JakeBartlam]

you can clearly see the error in your statement

[JakeBartlam]

ok, so because england is in harry potter, harry potter is true

[JakeBartlam]

if you can not explain how it came from god, please tell me the reason you believe it

[JakeBartlam]

NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES THE POSSIBILITY. that means it does not prove or disprove it. jesus christ how can it get any simpler!?

[JakeBartlam]

no, it doesn't prove either way, meaning that your evidence was useless

[JakeBartlam]

and to answer that question where did god come from? you don't know, and neither does anyone else. no one knows where the universe came from, so stop jumping to conclusions and ruining lives

[JakeBartlam]

whew well i finally got you in an easy to beat format argument. I have to admit you were a tough fighter, definitley the best ive seen. But it's impossible for you to win in this argument lol.

[JakeBartlam]

but you cant make the connection with existence and god! you can't explain why or how god created it. You just called my question stupid because you can't answer it. In reality if you can't answer my question you dont have a reason to believe in god

[JakeBartlam]

please tell me what makes you believe god created the universe

[JakeBartlam]

Explain how you know for sure god created it, because you claim it is. Explain why god created it, and a flying spaghetti monster with an infinite mind did NOT create it.

[JakeBartlam]

so explain how you know it is god who created it.

[JakeBartlam]

THIS RIGHT HERE!! refuting it right here mnsu(.)edu/emuseum/archaeology­/sites/middle_east/jericho.htm­l

[JakeBartlam]

explain how you know the evidence came from god

[JakeBartlam]

lol 16 years and you can't even answer that question. what a waste of a life.

[JakeBartlam]

youre still avoiding the question. please prove how physical matter comes from god

[JakeBartlam]

ok now im seriously going to bed.

[JakeBartlam]

lol, wait for it..... hes gonna change topics again.....

[JakeBartlam]

ok, please prove how the physical matter comes from god

[JakeBartlam]

wow CHANGING TOPICS AGAIN!!! i can't deal with this, im going to bed lol. i have calculus to do tomorrow. You know, finding REAL answers to REAL problems. You just changed off the topic to Mao Zedong, you cant say you didnt change the subject RIGHT THERE

[JakeBartlam]

exactly

[JakeBartlam]

ok, tell me how this physical matter comes from god

[JakeBartlam]

please offer the evidence you have that the bible is true, the first evidence you gave i gave you a website where it was proven that the walls werent even destroyed in the right thousand years.

[JakeBartlam]

ok, so no one can know anything for 100% sure unless its a label or idea. Please tell me how you know god exists without just guessing

[JakeBartlam]

i have proven all of your evidence to be false also. you have no stance on which left to take, so it would be predictable if you did not reply

[JakeBartlam]

if the bible is true there would be no freshwater fish, it would all be mixed with saltwater. Freshwater fish prove the bible is wrong in at least one story

[JakeBartlam]

so, a jonas lived in a whale for 3 days? really? the last time i checked that was pysically impossible

[JakeBartlam]

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[1][2] The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence." PAY ATTENTION TO THE LAST PART. i have already proved the bible wrong previously and ill do it again now

[JakeBartlam]

you can't prove a negative. i could say prove unicorns don't exist. You couldn't do it. I don't need to prove a god exists, thats your job. You have to provide evidence for your claim or there is no reason to believe it.

[JakeBartlam]

oh, now its the well im not going to look at what you have to say now that i can see that you're right, im just going to ignore you because i can say i have more experience

[JakeBartlam]

universetoday(.)com/guide-to-s­pace/stars/age-of-stars/

great, class is now over. Thats how you calculate the age of stars. Case closed

[JakeBartlam]

oh now your switching topics again! LOL. geez you dont realize youre almost proven wrong until it sinks in. Why don't you take astronomy 101 and see how to calculate the age of stars. if you've researched for 16 years maybe you can find out how astronomers find the REAL ANSWER.

[JakeBartlam]

no, FAITH IS BELIEF WITHOUT REASON. and i just proved how it is almost statistically IMPOSSIBLE with THE FACTS I PROVIDED that life is not on other planets. There, a great reason. I would be happy to believe in god if you had real evidence with a good reason.

[JakeBartlam]

they are very accurate, widely accepted facts by educated scholars by the way. And each astronomer can see the same answer through their own telescope.

[JakeBartlam]

no, faith is belief without reason. I have a reason to believe there is life on other planets due to statistical probability, not a fictional book

[JakeBartlam]

yea, the bible says the earth was created in 7 days, you either believe it or you don't. there is scientific evidence this did not happen in seven days. if you say each day could have been millions of years, then you might as well just say jesus could have been asparagus.

[JakeBartlam]

ok here is where you go back to the first topic that i already proved you wrong on. im going to stop arguing with you if you are just going to forget what i told you 30 seconds ago.

[JakeBartlam]

also thats just the age of the earth. and no, dinosaur age has nothing to do with darwinism, we measure it from carbon dating. plenty of people have done the math, it is around 6000 years, sorry buddy. the oldest star in the milky way is 13.2 billion years old. i think the estimate is a little closer than that. i dont think that many people could have messed up their math by 13.2 BILLION YEARS if it is just a 6000 year estimate

[JakeBartlam]

there are between 100 billion and 400 billion other stars, in just the milky way galaxy, there are hundreds of billions of other GALAXIES in our observable universe. there might be life once on the moon and mars! tell me how ridiculous it would be that we were the only life form out there. what a waste of space

[JakeBartlam]

ok, you moved to a diff topic since i proved you wrong on the first one but thats ok, im in for a double whammy. Let me tell you we don't know many planets on other stars, since they are so hard to see. The probability of life on another planet is astronomically large, let me tell you the numbers in the next text because there is not enough room to tell you how big the chances are that there is life on other planets.

[JakeBartlam]

class is now over :D

[JakeBartlam]

but you are still wrong, even if i proved you one way. parts of the bible are true, parts are false. Egypt definitley existed lol, and the earth is definitley older than the bible implicitly says.

[JakeBartlam]

for the predicted calculations narrower and narrower i was talking about the real age of the earth

[JakeBartlam]

The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything

also it has been predicted, and the calculations have gotten narrower and narrower, not further back

[JakeBartlam]

its an estimate from calculations. if you want me to point out more things wrong in the bible i will tell you

[JakeBartlam]

thank you for making this so much easier. carbon dating proves dinosaurs existed 6 million years ago before the date Ussher predicted, making the entire bible false. YES!!!

[JakeBartlam]

yes, and it doesnt have to be exact, let me tell you that. there are certain life zones around a star that support life. Obviously we wouldn't be on any other planet because OBVIOUSLY that planet couldn't support life to begin with. use common sense!

[JakeBartlam]

because if they did they would be guessing. lol What Ussher did was just an estimate, its around the right number but not exact.

[JakeBartlam]

yes but the problem is which parts of the bible is true and which are false?

[JakeBartlam]

In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. ("Get a grip on evolution" by David Burnie)

[JakeBartlam]

mnsu(.)edu/emuseum/archaeology­/sites/middle_east/jericho.htm­l

your "evidence" has been disputed and is probably wrong.

[JakeBartlam]

no, the bible is neither validated by historical or archaeological documentation, seeing as no scribe wrote about jesus in non holy books and carbon dating proves the bible wrong.

[JakeBartlam]

thank you for eagerly awaiting. I can perfectly give an example by a deck of cards. What are the chances you will get all spades? very, very low. What are the chances you will get a queen of hearts, 2 of diamonds, jack of clubs, etc. same chances. What youre doing is seeing the hand youve been dealt and saying what are the chances i got this hand. Well, YOU HAD TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN A HAND!!!! the universe is not perfect, it is the product of a bunch of random events.

[JustNotConvinced]

Our language allows us to communicate certain ideas and know certain things that the rest of the animal kingdom, so far as we know, cannot. We can question why we came to be, we are aware that we will die, we can communicate love to one another, we create art (paintings, drawings, scupltures, music, poetry, literature, film, etc.). We have the institution of science, we seek to learn about our natural world. I don't know about dominion, but I view human life as more important for those reasons.

[JakeBartlam]

ok fine i wont disagree, ill just ask you another question. How do you know god created it? and please explain the logic behind how nothing can exist without a creator.

[JakeBartlam]

what if you were measuring it by who had the longest necks? then the giraffes would be the most superior animal on earth. That would mean the earth was made specifically for giraffes. and how do you know god exists?

[JustNotConvinced]

I don't remember saying that we are in any way superior to animals. And I'm actually vegan for the exact reason. So what do you mean by superiority?

[JustNotConvinced]

We are intelligent in different ways though. One thing that seems to make us stand apart from other animals is our sophisticated use of language. Sure other primates can learn basic sign language and things like this but as humans we're in a category all our own. Human beings are remarkable animals, indeed, on that I think we can agree.

[JustNotConvinced]

But if God is coming to his conclusion from the pain and suffering caused by these so called evil actions then he is drawing his conclusion from the same data which we ourselves can observe. He is, in this scenario, merely the first to discover what causes the most pain but he is not required to find because as you said things are evil because they cause suffering. I think you're using the word "taught" too loosely, but yes, we can learn it from the natural world. No god required.

[JustNotConvinced]

It's arrogant because it necessarily implies that anyone who disagrees with yousince you got your information straight from Goddisagrees with God. The implications of that idea are vast. You'd have to consider anyone who disagrees with you on doctrine to be someone who is mere of "lesser faith" than you.

[JakeBartlam]

the pain and suffering are of great concern, but that does not mean there is a god. You make no sense.

[JakeBartlam]

please read what i posted below

[JakeBartlam]

you should get your morality from experience and your own judgement only, not from what someone else tells you. Everyones opinion should be the course of least harm for everyone. If you are trying to cause harm for more people than necessary you should be put in jail. Also the atheist has the upper hand. you have to provide evidence for your claim or there is no reason to believe it.

[JakeBartlam]

gotta love the youtube arguments

[JustNotConvinced]

I've said at least 3 times already: right and wrong are a part of emergent qualities of actions which take place in the natural world. Rape is wrong because we can see it's brutal negative effects. I don't have to be told this, it's observable.

[JustNotConvinced]

There is a difference between fearing your own punishment and having compassion for your fellow human being and not wanting them to suffer the pain of say rape, or having life cut short. They are obviously different because one is selfish and base while the other comes from an appreciation of life and wanting others to experience the same. And remember, we're only talking about the basis of our own moral decisions (i.e. why we don't condone rape).

[JustNotConvinced]

Life is precious because it is so rare. We are only the only intelligent species that we know of and in what me be an act of personal bias we value intelligent life because of that. But that doesn't mean that I don't value this life, in fact since atheists believe that there is no after life it can be argued that perhaps we value this life more preciously than some theists because we believe that is is all that there is.

[JustNotConvinced]

So wait then: are things wrong because God says so or does God (in this case for sake of argument assuming his existence) say things are wrong because their wrongness is inherent?

[JustNotConvinced]

And you don't think you interpret scripture different from the original writers at all? You've got it 100% right? Not only do you have no evidence to support this but it's nothing short of arrogant. You have it right because you "truly believe" does that mean that anyone who's interpretation differs from yours doesn't "truly believe"?

[JustNotConvinced]

I am in no way going of subject. If you advance your interpretation of scripture as a part of your argument for morality then your interpretation of scripture becomes a valid part of the discussion.

[JustNotConvinced]

Please, stop with the ad hominim attacks. You obviously know nothing of my past or whether or not I was a Christian and you have no evidential basis for it so leave it out of the conversation. It doesn't help advance your argument and it doesn't weaken mine it just makes you a practicer of logical fallacies.

As for true morality and who gives it, I've already explained this.

[JustNotConvinced]

I absolutely have defined true morality, my comment right above yours does nothing but. True morality is morality which arises from a respect of what is right and wrong and not because of fear of punishment or guilt (which is how you just explained your own morality).

[JustNotConvinced]

Who gives morality? Why does morality have to be something which is given? Why can't it be an emergent quality of the universe? We know that pain is bad because we have experienced it and we haven't like it. We therefore attempt to make moral decisions based on what will minimize pain in the world. It's really that simple.

[tzephon]

JustNotConvinced: "I absolutely have defined true morality"

You've actually only defined a subjective morality. What makes your definiting of morality "objective"?

[JustNotConvinced]

My point being that you are presenting what is merely your interpretation as if you're God's little doppleganger.

[JustNotConvinced]

While to point out that the text of the Bible objectively has been changed over the years (especially if you're reading an english translation) would be fruitless I will say that you're begging the question again. You're assuming that your interpretation is correct. And you're in fact assuming it's more correct than the interpretation of church leaders who lived much closer to the events than you and could read the manuscripts in their original language.

[tzephon]

"While to point out that the text of the Bible objectively has been changed over the years"

Your statement sounds like hyperbole. Without respect to translations, how has the text of the Bible changed? The Dead Sea scrolls would indicate that the original texts remain essentially unchanged for more than two thousand years.

[JustNotConvinced]

Put simply: the manuscripts we have don't agree with each other. Entire passages were added and could very well have been taken out of the originals (particularly of the gospels) and we would have no way of no way of knowing because we don't have a single original copy of any book of the Bible.

And the old testament cannon was fluid until about 400 BC, so it changed.

[tzephon]

There are some 24000 manuscripts for the New Testament and they have more cohesion than any ancient document. So what disagreement in manuscript evidence are you talking about? Spelling?

The Old Testament canon was still being written before about 400 BC, but that does not equate to "fluid".

[JustNotConvinced]

I didn't say is a gene of course it's not one gene, but human nature comes from the way we think the way we attack problems. That comes, undeniably, from genes. Regardless of worldview, genes decide how our brains work that's why families can have a history of mental illnesses and why twins reared separately still have similar mannerisms and thought processes.

[JustNotConvinced]

They don't exhibit certain behaviors all the time but it's not because they are good, it is because they fear punishment. That, in a nutshell, is what I think Christian morality amounts to. And that, is what I mean by not true morality. Please stop being so accusatory.

[JustNotConvinced]

By true morality I mean morality that isn't just based on avoiding punishment but on not wanting to do that which causes pain because it causes pain. If you're only good because you think someone is always watching you are you really good? Children will typically be fairly well behaved when they know they're being watched but when they think they can get away with something they do it anyway.

[JustNotConvinced]

Rape is wrong because it causes severe trauma to the person being raped. Lives are ruined by violent rape experiences and since this is the only life I believe we get I think that this life is precious. Therefore: rape is wrong. Your reason is simply you don't rape because it's wrong? Do you see how that's not really answering my question?

[JustNotConvinced]

That's an unbacked and circular argument. There's not a single premise there that doesn't assume it's own validity. You have no evidence for a universal moral law. Even interpretations of scripture have change dramatically over the course of the history of Christianity. Modern evangelical christianity is in many ways a recent thing and yet you argue with immutable authority.

[JustNotConvinced]

How about this: if you didn't think that God disapproved of rape and there were only the natural consequences of rape to make it evil would it still be evil? And to take it one step further: is the only reason you don't rape really because you believe in God? If so, I'd say yours is ersatz morality and not true morality.

[tzephon]

Do you suppose that Christians believe that murder is wrong simply because it is written as one of the 10 commandments?

Or do you suppose that Christians believe that murder is wrong because it is written in their conscience, just as it is written in yours?

[JustNotConvinced]

Well, when people argue that without God there could be moral code that's essentially what they're saying.

In Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil he shows that morality comes from our genes (we are a social species and we wouldn't last long killing each other off) and society (laws and moral teachings of which religion can be a part but is not required). If you want to say that everyone has the same moral code "written" on them, you're going to have to provide evidence of that.

[tzephon]

JustNotConvinced: "If you want to say that everyone has the same moral code "written" on them"

This is also what Michael Shermer must be saying by suggesting morals are written in our genes. On either side of the issue it is generally excepted that murder, lying, stealing, etc are wrong with some exceptions. Surley you can observe this on your own without me providing evidence to you which you already have, just by using your God given morality.

[JustNotConvinced]

Hitler was an atheist? Really?

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

-Adolf Hitler

[JustNotConvinced]

I don't need to reinforce anything because it's not a belief that makes a positive claim I don't believe in God that's it. I don't assert that he doesn't exist only that I don't know find any reason to believe that he does. And for the last time: no, accepting evolution has nothing to do with why I don't believe in God. Human reasoning was always dependent on human beings not some supernatural ordinance. Fact is we're genetically similar enough that our sense of reason is going to be similar too

[JustNotConvinced]

I don't believe in God because i don't find any of the arguments for his existence to be convincing but I was a Christian who accepted evolution for 2 years of my life so no, it has nothing to do with it.

And I don't think that morality is up to the individual, I think that solid and objective definitions of what is right and wrong can be derived by simple human reasoning based on how much pain they cause. Like rape, I don't not rape people because I think God told me to it's wrong on it's own.

[excatholics]

Mao certainly was a Darwinist. Just research his conversation he had with Edgar Snow and how Mao unapologetically justified Darwinism for "disposing" of animals/humans, just as one disposes of their rubbish/garbage. Even Snow, a hardline atheist/Darwinist, was shocked when Mao said one needs to break a few eggs to make an omelette, referring to the slaughter of millions of people.

[JustNotConvinced]

You're just wrong. The Theory of Evolution, like all scientific theories, is agnostic when it comes to the existence of God in that it makes no mention of him existing or not. It therefore does not exist purely as a replacement for God and it certainly says nothing about moral codes of any kind.

[FOBmuzungu]

Thanks for this info...GB

[JustNotConvinced]

Well first of all why is the theory of evolution responsible for providing morals? I've never once heard of someone rejecting general relativity because it offers no moral compass so why is evolution so different?

And second: Mao was a Lamarckian evolutionist not a Darwinist.

[JustNotConvinced]

Why is Charles Darwin even mentioned in the description? He has literally nothing to do with Mao. And, if I can anticipate: the validity of his theory has absolutely nothing to do with Mao either.

[hiyosilver100]

And communism is merely an economic system. It is the sociopathic, despotic leadership within communism that kills people.

[Warners0]

Part of the theory of evolution is natural selection, which teaches that certain races are chosen to survive. This theory is also called survival of the fittest. This is why these dictators treat these people this way.

[JustNotConvinced]

Where you go wrong first is when you claim that natural selection "teaches" anything. By no means is it in an inherent part of the theory that we should be as cruel as natural selection, Richard Dawkins has said in that if any morality can be derived from evolution is only in the inverse.

And in evolution nothing is "chosen" the best at reproducing reproduce, and that's it.

And : Mao was not a "Darwinist" he believed in Lamarckian evolution which said nothing of the survival of the fittest.

[tzephon]

Lamarckian evolution does not exclude survival of the fittest.

[mousey1952]

Very good video, and I appreciate that Glen Beck has called this lady what she is on national tv, a communist