now I have the conversation to show that you admit, but you are playing dumb

Wtf?

I never said you didn't give an example LOL

No, you didn't

But you need to back up the example.

I said : McCarthyism

You just admitted it's an example

Mhm.

I never said it wasn't.

Someone could join and see this and not have a clue what is being argued about because all this is: "back up your example"

"No u"

I'm asking for facts on your accusation of "Capitalist purges" which so far, you've only given me Ideological bans.

Are you a Jew kicker or a Jew licker?

hoh

You asked for purges, now you backpedal.

WHAT?

And ideological purge isn't a purge ?

We had everything set up but then the pres nuked everything and left

Banning from government isn't the same as shooting 720,000 people.

You're claiming that the ideological bans are as bad as the Great Purge.

I'm asking for facts on the purges you claimed were performed by Capitalists.

There were not 720,000 people

You've done nothing but give McCarthyism as an example (which was reversed as it was declared illegal)

there 600,000 + out of which majority where pardoned.

Yet exited

https://russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/stalins-purges/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/russia/stalinpurgesandpraisesrev1.shtml

A prost by a journalist, very relevant

even more

https://m.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/10-facts-stalins-great-purge.html

do you have any clue what a reliable source in this context mean ?

I can't post pics here

RIP

Instead of attacking my sources, prove them wrong.

Using articles for arguments is g a y

You're denying every source I give because you know them to hold truth. You attack the credibility instead of attacking the claim, because the claim is true.

Well, the first article s backed by nothing. Has literally no sources

Scipio

Lol

second one is the same

But if you don't use them, then you get stuck in a stale mate of denial so w t f do you do

What's this about