NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16391

well
actually the republicans are more the fascist type.
democrats are more the communist/sociolist type.

"Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism - are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for it, but we know it is dangerous."
- The asshole that wrote this piece of shit.

Disrespect is not fascism. Tapping phones, searching computers, and watching the movement of everyone is. The patriot act is the most fascist bill ever passed in the senate, by repbulicans.
We are pro-choice, we'll allow gay marriage. We want civil liberities.
I'm proud to be a liberial fascist. At least I'm not a repbulican nazi.
Oh by the way, instead of picking up the fucking bible, pick up a history book for a change.

fascism: 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

Get it through your head you ignorrent little kid Ultra- Liberalism and Fascism can never exist side by side. If your an angry litte tree hugger just because republicans are smarter, more organized, and richer then you then just admit it but dont go preaching some hypocritical bs that no one but you will follow.

Repbulicans often times are not rich. They're stupid back-woods rednecks, who hump their cousins.
Of course they're also fat capitalist pigs.

Don't we just love our obscenely-biased web sites. This one, in particular, sharply to the right.

We have just another 'tard who likes to throw around buzzwords and ideas with no real understanding of the meaning behind them.

The New Fascists?
NOT ON MY INTERNET!

So then we're all agreed that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party needs to split in two because of the frighting extremism that is evolving?
Good. That's what I thought.

This guy is rediculous, he talks about being proud to be a democrat in the 60's, but says he hates the democratic party now because a few protesters spit on the honor guard. Now assuming that the protesters are affiliated with the democratic party, he still must have forgotten all the protesters that spit on troops in his beloved 60's.

Also, he explains how the democratic party is corrupt because a democrat lawyer and a private investigator not even involved in the race tried to get a prostitute to lie about the republican candidate.

Oh, and apparently lying about getting a blow job is worse than lying about going to war.

And what is he going on about with that Naomi Campbell part? It seemed to me that he was trying to make a point that liberals are just dysfunctional people without ever really giving an example.

Also can anyone give me an example of this political rage he rants about, the only democrats I have seen display political rage are:
1) Al Gore who doesn't hold any positions anymore and has plenty of reason to be mad.
2) Howard Dean who was crushed politically in the democratic primary.
3) Zell Miller who got so mad that he had to join the Republican Party.

Leftists are by nature fascists because leftists are always correct in any
judgement, and therefore have no use for non-leftists.

And as they are always correct, any end justifies the means to their ends.
And the ends that they have are to replace the organic systems of the world
with systems developed by their intelligencia. In other words, all will be told
what is correct and "good".

Rightists, at least the capitalist ones, are interested only in money, and
realize that the organic systems of the world NEED to manage themselves to
be healthy. Rightists that are not capitalists are not rightists,.. they are
tyrants, and indistinguishable from leftists (all of whom are tyrants by nature)
except in their rhetoric.

The left will always have a harder time promoting their agenda, because it
bucks the basic rules of the universe, thereby giving them much more to do
than their "opposition". This "extra work" will always exhaust the left before
they can become a major force.

The right lives within the universe. The left seeks to create their own
universe.

The left will always be there, and it will perform it's function, that of rust,
fungus and the insect. It's role is to point out holes and weaknesses in
human constructions, by corrosion and infestation.

Long live the left, as they show humanity the virtues of combating corruption
and debasement.

you ignore the fact that rightwingers, even capitalistic ones, on the whole tend to be more authoritarian than leftwingers. the libertarian right is a tiny part of the right, whereas the libertarian left has been gaining ground since the end of stalinism, after a couple decade hiatus. in other words, you are going to have a tough time showing that the vast majority of rightwingers are not rightfully part of the right.

but then again, when have facts ever gotten in the way of anything before?

Right-wing is to fascism is to police state

what Left-wing is to socialism is to welfare state

/end of thread

[SIZE=4][COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Leftists are by nature fascists because leftists are always correct in any
judgement, and therefore have no use for non-leftists.



I am slanted very much to the left, and I think I speak for most "leftists" when I say that I believe that anyone can be wrong and that government must be ran with this in mind. I feel that the government should allow people to make their own decisions about what is right and what is wrong.

I believe that someone should be able to choose whether they marry someone of their own gender.
Even though I would advise against an abortion, I know that it should not be my choice or the choice of the government, but be the choice of the individual.
I believe that Democracy is the best form of government, but also believe that a sovereign government should choose for itself.
I also believe that a vote for Bush is a grievous mistake, but would rather see the nation endure more troubles than watch it forsake the ideals that it was founded on.

kvell is pretty much right

id prefer a welfare state to a police state anyday tho

hmmm
a police state in which all new ideas and all freedoms are put down for being 'safe' or a welfare state in which noone is rich and everyone is taken care of while having social advancements in our civilisation...

hmm what a hard choice guys.
pft.
if you guys wanna be stuck with the same ideas going around in circles for the sake of safety(which you will never be, thats how life works) then go for it. anyone who gives up freedom to be safe doesnt deserve it in the first place.

heres the definition of fascism i have

fas•cism

Pronunciation: (fash'iz-um), [key]
—n.
1. (sometimes cap.) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

hmmm , surely that doesnt sound like the administration we have now ;)

the only thing thats been wrong with the idea of communism or socialism is the bastard leaders who decide to use it to their own benefits.
the reason they are dirty words is because of the leaders who took the idea of worker empowerment and used it to benefit themselves and an elite few.
take the nazi's, they ran on a workers rights platform and it helped their economy greatly..but then came the 'kill the jews' (a personal ideaology of a few men). take communism, in theory its great and does make sure the masses are taken care of..until stalin came along and used it for his own personal benefit. if russia hadnt spent all of its money on warfare, and used it for the people as it was intended, the USSR might still be around.

I am slanted very much to the left, and I think I speak for most "leftists" when I say that I believe that anyone can be wrong and that government must be ran with this in mind. I feel that the government should allow people to make their own decisions about what is right and what is wrong.

I believe that someone should be able to choose whether they marry someone of their own gender.
Even though I would advise against an abortion, I know that it should not be my choice or the choice of the government, but be the choice of the individual.
I believe that Democracy is the best form of government, but also believe that a sovereign government should choose for itself.
I also believe that a vote for Bush is a grievous mistake, but would rather see the nation endure more troubles than watch it forsake the ideals that it was founded on.

Leftists do not believe in markets, therefore choice is available only within the constraints dictated by the "intelligencia", not by supply and demand (the organic systems) within society.

Your choice of "moral indicators" shows your preoccupation with sex (same sex marriage), sex (abortion), and dystopia. All the typical obsessions of the adolescent. And all leftists are adolescents, regardless of chronological age.

The choice of a country to choose anything but "democracy" (loosely defined) is a sentence of dysfunction society and servitude for it's people. A country can indeed have what appears to be a benign dictatorship and still work as a "democracy" (thus being less "dysfunctional" than any other govrnmental form), if the dictator allows for democratic behaviors within the society, but no form of government can be non-dysfunctional without having democractic behaviors.

No person (or populace) chooses to be dysfunctional. It is always applied on them from "above". And the "modern" equivalent of the king, the architypical overlord, is the leftist "people's counsel".

Funny, this idiot rants on about facism in the democrats while an ad for 3 conservative books for $1 flashes to the left of the article and one of the books is by Ann Coulter. Just thought I'd mention that.

Funny, this idiot rants on about facism in the democrats while an ad for 3 conservative books for $1 flashes to the left of the article and one of the books is by Ann Coulter. Just thought I'd mention that.

Ann Coulter? People actually listen to that lunatic?

I am a Moderate Pirate. I loot and plunder same as the Democrats and Republicans, only I am honest about it. The Pirate Party is the place to be at. We are currently working on the issues with our country, District 268, to make it better.

OK, so when you feel like it the Democrats are "extreme liberals", but when you want to make them look really bad, you call them "fascists". Make up your mind, child.

Haha, rightwingers get tired of being called fascists, so now they throw the label back. :p

No one likes being called a fascist (except for United White Front) but you have to admit, the modern neo-con GOP drives pretty damn close to fascism.

There are legitimate gripes within the modern liberal movement, but posting this stupid rant by a conservative pretending to be a Democrat so he can write a heart-wrenching expose on the decline of his grand party is not helpful.

you ignore the fact that rightwingers, even capitalistic ones, on the whole tend to be more authoritarian than leftwingers. the libertarian right is a tiny part of the right, whereas the libertarian left has been gaining ground since the end of stalinism, after a couple decade hiatus. in other words, you are going to have a tough time showing that the vast majority of rightwingers are not rightfully part of the right.

but then again, when have facts ever gotten in the way of anything before?

That is patent nonsense. The left is much more "authoritarian", in that you're either "one of them" or "the fuzz" (to use an ANCIENT term that sounded quite good in that spot!).

The left is centered on the "choice to do whatever one wants".
The right is centered on the "choice to do whatever is productive".

The right sees the left as libertine children.
The left sees the right as "strict pappas" (aka "the MAN").

And the left are libertine children,.. and what is it they say about childhood interpersonal relations,... none are as cruel, unforgiving, vicious and peer-pressure sensitive as children. See any leftist movement anywhere for examples.

Then again, the right ARE "strict pappas". Someone's got to keep the kids developing within sensible bounds. See any productive society anywhere for examples.

Just remember kiddies,... all things tend right with age.

Draw comfort from your lack of majority influence (as no [functioning] society is run by children) and in your inevitable move rightward.

It WILL be alright,.. you WILL learn. And you WILL like it.

"Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism - are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for it, but we know it is dangerous."
- The asshole that wrote this piece of shit.

Disrespect is not fascism. Tapping phones, searching computers, and watching the movement of everyone is. The patriot act is the most fascist bill ever passed in the senate, by repbulicans.
We are pro-choice, we'll allow gay marriage. We want civil liberities.
I'm proud to be a liberial fascist. At least I'm not a repbulican nazi.
Oh by the way, instead of picking up the fucking bible, pick up a history book for a change.

How do civil liberties and fascism exist together? If by outlawing conservative speech as youve said in other threads isn't that itself a violation of civil liberties?

Parodies. :rolleyes:

The left is centered on the "choice to do whatever one wants".
The right is centered on the "choice to do whatever is productive".
Bingo. Now who's authoritarian?

Then again, the right ARE "strict pappas". Someone's got to keep the kids developing within sensible bounds. See any productive society anywhere for examples.
Again, who is the authoritarian one now?

Just remember kiddies,... all things tend right with age.
True. And then you die, and are replaced by young liberals. Thus has been happening for many many years...and look how far we've come. :)

Draw comfort from your lack of majority influence (as no [functioning] society is run by children) and in your inevitable move rightward.
Liberals barely vote. Thus America is more left-leaning than it appears.

It WILL be alright,.. you WILL learn. And you WILL like it.
Now that's just getting sexual. :eek:

OK, so when you feel like it the Democrats are "extreme liberals", but when you want to make them look really bad, you call them "fascists". Make up your mind, child.

Extreme liberals ARE fascists.

Fascists prize "holding together" and "holding onto power" over all things.

That describes extreme leftists (or any leftist, actually) pretty well.

Haha, rightwingers get tired of being called fascists, so now they throw the label back. :p

No one likes being called a fascist (except for United White Front) but you have to admit, the modern neo-con GOP drives pretty damn close to fascism.

There are legitimate gripes within the modern liberal movement, but posting this stupid rant by a conservative pretending to be a Democrat so he can write a heart-wrenching expose on the decline of his grand party is not helpful.

Heh he he he he.... It's true.. Any time ANYONE forms a club (the ancient symbol of the fascisti) to feel a bit of camaraderie, they are instantly attacked as fascists..! :D

The modern left looks more like the old brown-shirts to me. But that's just my opinion.

Meh...I am in the middle. I dont have to deal with these labels. And in truth, i'd rather have a left wing anything in charge than what you have now.

Fascists prize "holding together" and "holding onto power" over all things.

That describes extreme leftists (or any leftist, actually) pretty well.

Dude, that describes politicians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The left is centered on the "choice to do whatever one wants".
The right is centered on the "choice to do whatever is productive".


Bingo. Now who's authoritarian?


Quote:
Then again, the right ARE "strict pappas". Someone's got to keep the kids developing within sensible bounds. See any productive society anywhere for examples.


Again, who is the authoritarian one now?


Quote:
Just remember kiddies,... all things tend right with age.


True. And then you die, and are replaced by young liberals. Thus has been happening for many many years...and look how far we've come.


Quote:
Draw comfort from your lack of majority influence (as no [functioning] society is run by children) and in your inevitable move rightward.


Liberals barely vote. Thus America is more left-leaning than it appears.


Quote:
It WILL be alright,.. you WILL learn. And you WILL like it.


Now that's just getting sexual.

You seem to see "authoritarian" as a bad thing..!

Being "authoritarian" does not define one as being "fascist".

Being fascist is defined by valuing "holding together for power" above all things.

Having "authority" is a good thing, as the quality of "authority" is granted to an author by those who see the author as having value to them.

I understand the adolescent need to buck authority, and to see all authority as "evil", but that doesn't make it so.

And luckily, for society as a whole, young liberals are always "controlled" by their elder conservatives. And that will always continue.

Leftists are too stupid (another function of adolescence) to vote, but they are very noisy (yet another function of adolescence). Most of the populace are old enough to have already moved to the right. All societies are MORE rightist than they appear, though the "strict pappas" allow the kids their fun and illusions.

Dude, that describes politicians.

hear hear! no one group can have the sole rights to those attributes!

Meh...I am in the middle. I dont have to deal with these labels. And in truth, i'd rather have a left wing anything in charge than what you have now.

Of course you would...

Because you've been TOLD to think that..!

It ain't cool to not be in the with the cool kids..! Get real dawg..!

Where's your piercing..!? You do have a piercing, right..!?

Of course you would...

Because you've been TOLD to think that..!

It ain't cool to not be in the with the cool kids..! Get real dawg..!

Where's your piercing..!? You do have a piercing, right..!?

say what?

and no, i havent been told, my family is old guard republican.

and no. i dont have a piercing. and i hang out with other fellow Ph.d's kid.

Extreme liberals ARE fascists.
Look up "liberal" and look up "fascist". You'll see that they're pretty much opposites. Fascism is based on state control of people's lives. Liberalism is about letting people control their own lives.

Well, obviously he wont. Given the level of intelect he has shown thus far, I just would bother.

"Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism - are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for it, but we know it is dangerous."
- The asshole that wrote this piece of shit.

Disrespect is not fascism. Tapping phones, searching computers, and watching the movement of everyone is. The patriot act is the most fascist bill ever passed in the senate, by repbulicans.
We are pro-choice, we'll allow gay marriage. We want civil liberities.
I'm proud to be a liberial fascist. At least I'm not a repbulican nazi.
Oh by the way, instead of picking up the fucking bible, pick up a history book for a change.
angsty people on both sides need to chill. You do realize that the patriot act only extended the powers the government had with drug charges to terrorism charges? Still as frightened?

i dont have a piercing. and i hang out with other fellow Ph.d's kid.


Ahhh....don't we all....

Why don't we just say statist instead?

It seems to me that....

(welfare) liberals use the power of the state to redistribute wealth and to reshape society into something approximating their vision of utopia...

right\conservative\etc use the power of the state to enforce social norms, expand the military, etc

It seems to me also that niether one will ever succeed in any of their goals...

Look up "liberal" and look up "fascist". You'll see that they're pretty much opposites. Fascism is based on state control of people's lives. Liberalism is about letting people control their own lives.

Which strain of liberalism? Liberalism in the modern sense does not allow people to control their lives economically, which is about as important as those on the right attempting to control who you sleep with.

Classical liberalism isn't about control. Welfare liberalism, social conservatism IS about control.

Look up "liberal" and look up "fascist". You'll see that they're pretty much opposites. Fascism is based on state control of people's lives. Liberalism is about letting people control their own lives.

If the extreme of liberalism is socialism/communism (correct me if im wrong), then how is that not fascism. Liberalism does not equal libertarianism. Liberals are convinced they are right, and if you dont agree with them, you are "close minded" or some other dumb term. Therefore, in the extreme liberal society, you will be told what is right and wont be allowed to disagree with that. Sounds sort of like fascism to me.

If the extreme of liberalism is socialism/communism (correct me if im wrong), then how is that not fascism. Liberalism does not equal libertarianism. Liberals are convinced they are right, and if you dont agree with them, you are "close minded" or some other dumb term. Therefore, in the extreme liberal society, you will be told what is right and wont be allowed to disagree with that. Sounds sort of like fascism to me.


Liberalism isn't libertarianism because during the early 1900's socialists\progressives bastardized the word 'liberal'. Sonsabitches! :p

If the extreme of liberalism is socialism/communism (correct me if im wrong), then how is that not fascism.

because socialism and communism are the primary enemies of fascism. the first group that fascists attack are whoever the organized socialists in the country are.

Quote: Siljhouettes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Extreme liberals ARE fascists.


Look up "liberal" and look up "fascist". You'll see that they're pretty much opposites. Fascism is based on state control of people's lives. Liberalism is about letting people control their own lives.

They are indeed opposites. But I'm not talking about LIBERALISM,.. I'm talking about the left.

Fascism's behavior is to sublimate all things to some principle(s) that has been decided upon by a "clique" (be it a majority or minority) to the exclusion of all other things.

Liberalism is not what "the left" is about, which is why I intentionally do not describe the left as liberals. Liberal thought is open to honest observation of the universe and learning from it. The left is about remaking the universe in the image of some arbitrary "intelligencia", regardless of the inherent nature of the universe that is observable.

I adore liberals. I despise the left.

The left is inherently fascist because it will do anything necessary to bring about it's "perfect universe" (world utopia). It is this "do anything" aspect that makes it fascist in nature.

The right, on the other hand, seeks to work with and within the systems of the universe to promote it's rather modest goals of making living on this planet a bit better continually with the tools and "measures" (yardsticks) available (using the minimal tool force possible and the simplest measures available).

Once again, liberals, as long as they confuse liberalism and leftism, will be lead and exploited by their leftist "brothers" as consenting slaves.

Quote: Persues
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Of course you would...

Because you've been TOLD to think that..!

It ain't cool to not be in the with the cool kids..! Get real dawg..!

Where's your piercing..!? You do have a piercing, right..!?



say what?

and no, i havent been told, my family is old guard republican.

and no. i dont have a piercing. and i hang out with other fellow Ph.d's kid.

Heh he he... I'm very happy for you.

Your fellow Ph.D's, I do hope, have figured out how to use the shift key.

:D

Why don't we just say statist instead?

It seems to me that....

(welfare) liberals use the power of the state to redistribute wealth and to reshape society into something approximating their vision of utopia...

right\conservative\etc use the power of the state to enforce social norms, expand the military, etc

It seems to me also that niether one will ever succeed in any of their goals...

Hear hear..!! :D

No fascist entity, of any flavor, can succeed through time.

The leftist flavor (inherently fascist as it is centered entirely around the un-reality of it's concepts) will always fracture from the internal noise (friction) created by it's actual human components.

The rightist flavor (very potentially fascist as it cannot seem to resist the temptation to use non-real measures [yardsticks] to base it's actions on) will always fracture from pissing people off that it claims as "it's people".

So the question is how to minimize the "sexy attraction" of fascism in general.

Any ideas..? :)

Quote: Free SovietsQuote:
Originally Posted by Chakul
If the extreme of liberalism is socialism/communism (correct me if im wrong), then how is that not fascism.

because socialism and communism are the primary enemies of fascism. the first group that fascists attack are whoever the organized socialists in the country are.

You, my friend, are mad (aka insane).

Heh he he he he... I can't believe you actually said that. Heh he he..

They are simply competing varieties of fascists.

Wake the hell up, you loon. Heh he he he... :D

You, my friend, are mad (aka insane).

Heh he he he he... I can't believe you actually said that. Heh he he..

They are simply competing varieties of fascists.

Wake the hell up, you loon. Heh he he he... :D

see, the thing is, i actually know something about the history and ideology of fascism. as well as the history and ideology of various forms of socialism. unlike somebody else here. so you'll have to pardon me for disagreeing about which of us has to "wake the hell up".

QUOTE=Free Soviets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You, my friend, are mad (aka insane).

Heh he he he he... I can't believe you actually said that. Heh he he..

They are simply competing varieties of fascists.

Wake the hell up, you loon. Heh he he he...

see, the thing is, i actually know something about the history and ideology of fascism. as well as the history and ideology of various forms of socialism. unlike somebody else here. so you'll have to pardon me for disagreeing about which of us has to "wake the hell up".

Your belief in your superiority in regards to the subject of fascism is not the issue here.

I simply state my belief that socialism/communism (aka "the left") is merely a competing variety of fascism, in competition with the "non-leftist" variety.

Your hubris in deriding others opinions simply because you are of the "intelligencia" makes you an obvious fascist yourself, in my book.

May you find pleasure in your snide superiority. I do, as you illustrate my point very well indeed, and bring me much amusement in doing so.

Thank you..! :D

Your hubris in deriding others opinions simply because you are of the "intelligencia" makes you an obvious fascist yourself, in my book.

which again proves that you don't have the slightest clue what the word means and are using it as a generalized insult as was popular with hippies and punk-rockers.

deriding the factually incorrect opinions of others is no vice. what are you, some kind of anything goes, wishy-washy, "if it feels good, do it" liberal (fascist)?

as orwell wrote in 1984, freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #48]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your hubris in deriding others opinions simply because you are of the "intelligencia" makes you an obvious fascist yourself, in my book.


which again proves that you don't have the slightest clue what the word means and are using it as a generalized insult as was popular with hippies and punk-rockers.

deriding the factually incorrect opinions of others is no vice. what are you, some kind of anything goes, wishy-washy, "if it feels good, do it" liberal (fascist)?

as orwell wrote in 1984, freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.

Heh he he he... Your superiority is impressive, oh masterful overlord..!

I believe what I believe.

You have-absolute-certainty with what you "know".

Your certainty is your weakness, which you see as strength, which makes you a proselytizing fanatic.

That makes you a fascist in my book.

"You must KNOW as I KNOW, or be nothing" is the screed of the fascist.

That is your screed.

You think you have no beliefs, only "what you know", as to believe is the act of the inferior.

And you are of the superior class, not the inferior.

The inferiors must be exterminated, as they are the grit in the machinery of the grand design of the superior.

You are indeed a fascist.

The practical effects of both facism and socialism are the same- the limiting of individual power and the expansion of government power.

just so we're clear here, which of the following statements that you have put forward are you holding to be true?

1) the democatic party is fascist
2) all leftists are fascist
3) by definition, no rightwingers can be authoritarian
4) fascists prize power above all things
5) all members of the left prize power, unlike members of the right
6) authoritarianism is a good thing, and is not fascist
7) fascists desire to sublimate all other things to some principle they have decided upon
8) the right is a bunch of live and let live hippies who never try to force their way on dissenters
9) there are rightwing fascists
10) socialists and communists were killed first by fascists because they were competeing sects of fascism
11) certainty is fascism
12) facts do not trump beliefs
13) i (free soviets) want to exterminate people who disagree with me

The practical effects of both facism and socialism are the same- the limiting of individual power and the expansion of government power.

only if socialism is definitionally a dictatorial ideology, or even a statist one. but it isn't.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets]

(( My responses in red. Iakeokeo :) ))

just so we're clear here, which of the following statements that you have put forward are you holding to be true?

1) the democatic party is fascist
Not all of it. Nor all of the republican party.

2) all leftists are fascist
Yes.

3) by definition, no rightwingers can be authoritarian
"Authoritarian" is not to me a bad thing, necessarily. It merely denotes "acting with authority", which is granted by those who "read" the author's work and agree that it is a good thing.

4) fascists prize power above all things
Yes. Power to exclusively determine all distibutions of resources.

5) all members of the left prize power, unlike members of the right
That is two questions.
All leftists (members) are fascists. See #4.
Rightists can be fascists. See #4.

6) authoritarianism is a good thing, and is not fascist
Authoritarianism degenerates to fascism if authority is not granted by the "readers" of the author's work.

7) fascists desire to sublimate all other things to some principle they have decided upon
Yes.

8) the right is a bunch of live and let live hippies who never try to force their way on dissenters
Heh he he he.. Uh,.. no. Heh he he...!

9) there are rightwing fascists
Yes.

10) socialists and communists were killed first by fascists because they were competeing sects of fascism
Yes. And civil wars are the most vicious.

11) certainty is fascism
Essentially. It rather depends on what the object of certainty is, of course.

12) facts do not trump beliefs
Opinions and partial observations posing as Facts are not facts.
Nothing "trumps" actual fact.

13) i (free soviets) want to exterminate people who disagree with me
Yes. Opposition is not a whetstone to your opinions. It is a blunting stone to your sword of certain righteousness.

So the question is how to minimize the "sexy attraction" of fascism in general.

Any ideas..? :)

I think thats what America is already happening in a democratic society. The votes usually swing democratic or republican, one term to the next. (Or more or less).

Just to add, that not ALL democrats or republicans are far lefties or far righties. But there are the few minorities who are,anyhow.

Iakeokeo. Can you not use Dark Red Font. It kind of makes you like a robot. And it's scaring me. :D

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #52]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedmanville
The practical effects of both facism and socialism are the same- the limiting of individual power and the expansion of government power.

only if socialism is definitionally a dictatorial ideology, or even a statist one. but it isn't.

Socialism is definitionally dictatorial, in that the individual is subservient to the "dictator" of the collective.

I like benign dictatorships. I dislike malevolent dictatorships.

But to deny that socialism is not a dictatorship is beyond revisionistic.

[QUOTE=Greedy Pig #54]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

So the question is how to minimize the "sexy attraction" of fascism in general.

Any ideas..?

I think thats what America is already happening in a democratic society. The votes usually swing democratic or republican, one term to the next. (Or more or less).

Just to add, that not ALL democrats or republicans are far lefties or far righties. But there are the few minorities who are,anyhow.

Iakeokeo. Can you not use Dark Red Font. It kind of makes you like a robot. And it's scaring me.

Heh he he he he...!! I'm no robot. Though many people accuse me of being related to Bender.

But the red stays..

..as does the ComicSansMS font.

And I pretty much agree with you on what you said. :D

[QUOTE=Free Soviets]

(( My responses in red. Iakeokeo :) ))
11) certainty is fascism
Essentially. It rather depends on what the object of certainty is, of course.

more later, but just how certain are you that leftists are fascists? or that i personally want to exterminate people who disagree with me? etc. and from whence does this certainty arise?

Socialism is definitionally dictatorial, in that the individual is subservient to the "dictator" of the collective.

that is just untrue. a good chunk of the socialist movement historically has held the opposite - that the collective, being made up of individuals, must be subservient to all of the individuals in it, and that the individuals in it must have the ability to withdraw from a particular collective if they don't like how things are going there.

Fascists such as Peron in Argentina were actually more willing to give real power to real people than either of our institutionally obligated parties are.
They were in a sense Populists. The last serious Populist in the US, Huey Long, was assassinated. That's how we treat real opposition here.

that is just untrue. a good chunk of the socialist movement historically has held the opposite - that the collective, being made up of individuals, must be subservient to all of the individuals in it, and that the individuals in it must have the ability to withdraw from a particular collective if they don't like how things are going there.


I'm not aware of any socialist collective where the members of that collective have the ability to withdraw from it.

only if socialism is definitionally a dictatorial ideology, or even a statist one. but it isn't.

It would be absured to argue that socialism isn't a statist ideology when a large heft of power is vested in the state.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #57]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=Free Soviets]

(( My responses in red. Iakeokeo ))
11) certainty is fascism
Essentially. It rather depends on what the object of certainty is, of course.



more later, but just how certain are you that leftists are fascists? or that i personally want to exterminate people who disagree with me? etc. and from whence does this certainty arise?

Not certain at all about individuals. But all leftists follow a philospohy that is inherently fascist. Therefore "leftists" (those proclaiming leftism) are fascists in intent, if not in their entire person.

You are a leftist, and as such want those who disagree with you to vanish.

Leftists hate any real-world grit in their cafefully constructed unreal machines. And any dissenters or contrarians are that grit.

I'm certain of nothing when it comes to individuals, as people can hold nearly infinite amounts of contradictions in their heads at once, and yet "profess" to be perfectly consistent.

I see you as I see you only through what you volunteer to show me. There can certainly be no certainty in my observations of you from that source of information.

But what's your REAL question..? :D

I'm not aware of any socialist collective where the members of that collective have the ability to withdraw from it.

which means either you don't know many socialist collectives, or that you are using one or both of the words 'socialist' and 'collective' differently than i do. i suspect all three personally.

socialism is the broad group of related ideas that are united by a desire to create a society that primarily functions for the benefit of all members of that society instead of primarily benefitting a tiny elite at the expense of everyone else. it emphatically does not mean state control of industry, as the fastest growing socialist tendency around today is competely anti-statist.

a collective is one of the functional group units of libertarian socialist theory - essentially any more-or-less permanent organization working to accomplish some goal or maintain some project. in most cases it is roughly equivalent to the capitalist idea of a firm, though run on the principles of egalitarianism and worker self-management.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #48]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your hubris in deriding others opinions simply because you are of the "intelligencia" makes you an obvious fascist yourself, in my book.


which again proves that you don't have the slightest clue what the word means and are using it as a generalized insult as was popular with hippies and punk-rockers.

deriding the factually incorrect opinions of others is no vice. what are you, some kind of anything goes, wishy-washy, "if it feels good, do it" liberal (fascist)?

as orwell wrote in 1984, freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.

Heh he he he... Your superiority is impressive, oh masterful overlord..!

I believe what I believe.

You have-absolute-certainty with what you "know".

Your certainty is your weakness, which you see as strength, which makes you a proselytizing fanatic.

That makes you a fascist in my book.

"You must KNOW as I KNOW, or be nothing" is the screed of the fascist.

That is your screed.

You think you have no beliefs, only "what you know", as to believe is the act of the inferior.

And you are of the superior class, not the inferior.

The inferiors must be exterminated, as they are the grit in the machinery of the grand design of the superior.

You are indeed a fascist.


I am so sick of that god damn red lettering. Have you ever thought people don't want to red the shit you write? And if they want to, they don't want to go into a seizure.

which means either you don't know many socialist collectives, or that you are using one or both of the words 'socialist' and 'collective' differently than i do. i suspect all three personally.

socialism is the broad group of related ideas that are united by a desire to create a society that primarily functions for the benefit of all members of that society instead of primarily benefitting a tiny elite at the expense of everyone else. it emphatically does not mean state control of industry, as the fastest growing socialist tendency around today is competely anti-statist.

a collective is one of the functional group units of libertarian socialist theory - essentially any more-or-less permanent organization working to accomplish some goal or maintain some project. in most cases it is roughly equivalent to the capitalist idea of a firm, though run on the principles of egalitarianism and worker self-management.

Hmmm...I suppose yuou're correct about that isofar as it applies to libertarian socialists...sort of like living on a Kibbutz? This does not apply, however to the way nation-states practice socialism, which is the most common way socialism is referred to. When most people state that they're a socialist, normally they advocate it for an entire geographical region of government, not a group who voluntarily comes together to share what they produce. I'm all for any voluntary organization that comes together to meet the needs of its members.

Leftists do not believe in markets, therefore choice is available only within the constraints dictated by the "intelligencia", not by supply and demand (the organic systems) within society.

Your choice of "moral indicators" shows your preoccupation with sex (same sex marriage), sex (abortion), and dystopia. All the typical obsessions of the adolescent. And all leftists are adolescents, regardless of chronological age.

The choice of a country to choose anything but "democracy" (loosely defined) is a sentence of dysfunction society and servitude for it's people. A country can indeed have what appears to be a benign dictatorship and still work as a "democracy" (thus being less "dysfunctional" than any other govrnmental form), if the dictator allows for democratic behaviors within the society, but no form of government can be non-dysfunctional without having democractic behaviors.

No person (or populace) chooses to be dysfunctional. It is always applied on them from "above". And the "modern" equivalent of the king, the architypical overlord, is the leftist "people's counsel".

While I may be obsessed with sex, there are few males in their early 20s who aren't, abortion has little to do with sex in my mind. It is a reproductive choice, not a sex choice. It is as sexually oriented as a Cesarian section. It is the conservatives who apply a sexual connotation, as they consider it necessary to ban abortion to promote sexual responsibility. And if, when you say dystopia, you mean that I believe this country will be hurt if Bush is elected, you are right.

I am a finance/economics double major and you better believe that I believe in markets.

And as for your talk about dysfunctional governments, I agree that democracy is the truest form of government, but how many developed countries have had their government enforced by another nation. That doesn't work, a democracy must be an internal, organic thing, it cannot be given.

Whats the big deal? Arn't "Hatred and corruption" the seeds of all political partys?

I am so sick of that god damn red lettering. Have you ever thought people don't want to red the shit you write? And if they want to, they don't want to go into a seizure.

I'm sick of people who don't use the shift-key, or any punctuation.

But I've come to "love the burn". :D

[QUOTE=Sussudio #66]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Leftists do not believe in markets, therefore choice is available only within the constraints dictated by the "intelligencia", not by supply and demand (the organic systems) within society.

Your choice of "moral indicators" shows your preoccupation with sex (same sex marriage), sex (abortion), and dystopia. All the typical obsessions of the adolescent. And all leftists are adolescents, regardless of chronological age.

The choice of a country to choose anything but "democracy" (loosely defined) is a sentence of dysfunction society and servitude for it's people. A country can indeed have what appears to be a benign dictatorship and still work as a "democracy" (thus being less "dysfunctional" than any other govrnmental form), if the dictator allows for democratic behaviors within the society, but no form of government can be non-dysfunctional without having democractic behaviors.

No person (or populace) chooses to be dysfunctional. It is always applied on them from "above". And the "modern" equivalent of the king, the architypical overlord, is the leftist "people's counsel".



While I may be obsessed with sex, there are few males in their early 20s who aren't, abortion has little to do with sex in my mind. It is a reproductive choice, not a sex choice. It is as sexually oriented as a Cesarian section. It is the conservatives who apply a sexual connotation, as they consider it necessary to ban abortion to promote sexual responsibility. And if, when you say dystopia, you mean that I believe this country will be hurt if Bush is elected, you are right.

I am a finance/economics double major and you better believe that I believe in markets.

And as for your talk about dysfunctional governments, I agree that democracy is the truest form of government, but how many developed countries have had their government enforced by another nation. That doesn't work, a democracy must be an internal, organic thing, it cannot be given.

Sorry about the sex-addiction thing. You'll grow out of it. Or not. :)

The left will never see (they can't because it violates the "prime directive" of total control) that a sub-society should be able to determine how it's wants it's local society to be based on.

The left imposes it's "morals" on "locals".

Surprisingly, this is the same agrument from the left. How strange.

The point of the article at the top of this thread is the FREEDOM is MORE IMPORTANT than DEMOCRACY.

And I agree with the "organic growth of local democracy" thing. But sometimes a country is so oppressed that, regardless of the wishes of the populace, it's just not possible to "advance" as a society without external assistance.

Democracy can not be given, but it can be allowed to grow in tilled soil.

Whats the big deal? Arn't "Hatred and corruption" the seeds of all political partys?

Yes. Hatred of "the evil opposition" and Corruption of "the already perverse opposition".

well
actually the republicans are more the fascist type.
democrats are more the communist/sociolist type.

I'd hardly call democrats communists or socialists. America has no left wing parties (at least not in the mainstream and since there are only 2 main parties...)

Extreme liberals ARE fascists.

Fascists prize "holding together" and "holding onto power" over all things.

That describes extreme leftists (or any leftist, actually) pretty well.

In case you haven't noticed Iakeokeo, the Republican party is the more focused party, while the Democrats let their members be more independant minded voters. (Repubs own the "holding together" bit)

Also with redistricting in Texas, impeachment of Clinton and now voting rigging worries its the Repubs who are making bigger and bigger grabs at the throne.

It would be absured to argue that socialism isn't a statist ideology when a large heft of power is vested in the state.

Socialism is holding the state accountable for the well-being of its citizens by increasing its level of responsibility in the form of government programs so OF COURSE there will be more government involvement.

Anything less would mean that the government would be shirking its responsibilities to the citizens.

Authoritarian governments hold the people under its thumb while still depending on their productivity.

Socialist government policies are quite the opposite. The citizenry demand that the government do its bit, thereby the CITIZENS hold the GOVERNMENT under THEIR thumbs and get something out of their taxes that is tangible.

This way, the government is halted from becoming a domineering force and is turned into one that is working for its people because they demand it.

I've always felt that a democracy can't stay stable without at least a moderate level of socialist policies. Not only does it improve the quality of life of the citizens but it gets them more politically involved since its the only way they will be able to protect their valued government programs. Which is a good thing, naturally (to be involved in the political process, I mean).

[QUOTE=Upitatanium #72]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Extreme liberals ARE fascists.

Fascists prize "holding together" and "holding onto power" over all things.

That describes extreme leftists (or any leftist, actually) pretty well.


In case you haven't noticed Iakeokeo, the Republican party is the more focused party, while the Democrats let their members be more independant minded voters. (Repubs own the "holding together" bit)

Also with redistricting in Texas, impeachment of Clinton and now voting rigging worries its the Repubs who are making bigger and bigger grabs at the throne.

I'm (once again!) not talking about parties..!

The Democracts are a rightist party, masquerading as a 1/16th-inch-left of the republicans centrist party.

The Republicans are a rightist party, masquerading as a 1/16th-inch-right of the democrats centrist party.

How far right each is depends on the person of each party that you come into contact with. They are actually perfectly identical in terms of the left/right scale.

Neither represent or even pretend to represent the left.

The left is the disease ridden crack whore of the American political field.

[QUOTE=Upitatanium #73]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedmanville
It would be absured to argue that socialism isn't a statist ideology when a large heft of power is vested in the state.



Socialism is holding the state accountable for the well-being of its citizens by increasing its level of responsibility in the form of government programs so OF COURSE there will be more government involvement.

Anything less would mean that the government would be shirking its responsibilities to the citizens.

Authoritarian governments hold the people under its thumb while still depending on their productivity.

And that is what makes it evil. The state should not be based on something as subjective as "well being" of human beings, as that's a completely arbitrary and shifting scale.

The role of government is to sustain an environment where "LIFE and LIVING" can happen.


Socialist government policies are quite the opposite. The citizenry demand that the government do its bit, thereby the CITIZENS hold the GOVERNMENT under THEIR thumbs and get something out of their taxes that is tangible.

This way, the government is halted from becoming a domineering force and is turned into one that is working for its people because they demand it.

And what inevitably results is that the citizens, after having become lazy sponges, DEMAND more "sustenance" of the government, which they are given, thus creating more sponges, until the "productive" people can no longer support them, and they move away (or are eaten by the proliteriat), and the entire society, faced with collapse, degenerates into dictatorship and servitude.

But there is a bright spot. Eventually the entire system collapses and reality (capitalism) returns. It usually starts this return badly, but evolution is a rough freakin' road.


I've always felt that a democracy can't stay stable without at least a moderate level of socialist policies. Not only does it improve the quality of life of the citizens but it gets them more politically involved since its the only way they will be able to protect their valued government programs. Which is a good thing, naturally (to be involved in the political process, I mean).

I agree with the contributions of the left. They DO indeed contribute a sense of "humanitarianism" while they are a tiny "compassionate" minority,.. until and if they come to power,.. at which point the society begins it's degeneration.

[QUOTE=Upitatanium #72]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Extreme liberals ARE fascists.

Fascists prize "holding together" and "holding onto power" over all things.

That describes extreme leftists (or any leftist, actually) pretty well.


In case you haven't noticed Iakeokeo, the Republican party is the more focused party, while the Democrats let their members be more independant minded voters. (Repubs own the "holding together" bit)

Also with redistricting in Texas, impeachment of Clinton and now voting rigging worries its the Repubs who are making bigger and bigger grabs at the throne.

I'm (once again!) not talking about parties..!

The Democracts are a rightist party, masquerading as a 1/16th-inch-left of the republicans centrist party.

The Republicans are a rightist party, masquerading as a 1/16th-inch-right of the democrats centrist party.

How far right each is depends on the person of each party that you come into contact with. They are actually perfectly identical in terms of the left/right scale.

Neither represent or even pretend to represent the left.

The left is the disease ridden crack whore of the American political field.

I really think you should be looking at parties and the groups they have behind them and are using to manipulate power.

Repbulicans often times are not rich. They're stupid back-woods rednecks, who hump their cousins.
Of course they're also fat capitalist pigs.
While Democrats are simply faggots who hump 5 year old boys.
Of course they're also rich, white, cigar smoking, adulterous, capitalist pigs too.

[QUOTE=Upitatanium #76]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=Upitatanium #72]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Extreme liberals ARE fascists.

Fascists prize "holding together" and "holding onto power" over all things.

That describes extreme leftists (or any leftist, actually) pretty well.

In case you haven't noticed Iakeokeo, the Republican party is the more focused party, while the Democrats let their members be more independant minded voters. (Repubs own the "holding together" bit)

Also with redistricting in Texas, impeachment of Clinton and now voting rigging worries its the Repubs who are making bigger and bigger grabs at the throne.

I'm (once again!) not talking about parties..!

The Democracts are a rightist party, masquerading as a 1/16th-inch-left of the republicans centrist party.

The Republicans are a rightist party, masquerading as a 1/16th-inch-right of the democrats centrist party.

How far right each is depends on the person of each party that you come into contact with. They are actually perfectly identical in terms of the left/right scale.

Neither represent or even pretend to represent the left.

The left is the disease ridden crack whore of the American political field.

I really think you should be looking at parties and the groups they have behind them and are using to manipulate power.

Why..?

What does that tell you,.. and isn't the POINT of politics to manipulate power..?

Right now I'm a democrat (yes,.. believe it or not a registered democract as I have been my entire life), but someday I may trash these idiots that run my party for the other idiots that run the other side.

If I do, I have faith that they will be Americans, and not be influenced by leftists. They never have been,.. they most probably never will be.

The left HATES that they can't get their foot in the door in America, and complain in their usual way about how "undemocratic" America is.

They can't get their foot in the door because AMERICA HATES THE EVIL THAT IS THE LEFT and gives them no legitimacy because of that simple fact.

That is not undemocratic, it is merely American. You would not force a jewish temple to admit a nazi as a congregant. Why would anyone force leftists on America..?

And yes,.. I take that last analogy as exact. America will not abide the left (inherently fascist) in their society in anything but a minor "advisory" role.

This "diluted left" is here only to innoculate us against the viral disease that we might "catch" from the rest of the world.

(( Xenophobic enough for you..! :) ))

But there is a bright spot. Eventually the entire system collapses and reality (capitalism) returns. It usually starts this return badly, but evolution is a rough freakin' road.

Yes, they return to the 'better' Capitalist government which goes by the principles that profit is the meaning of life so much better than the Left Wing counterparts.
Also there is a reason Communism was Public Enemy Number 2 (Perhaps a different number) under the Nazi Party in germany. :) :sniper:
And if you're arguing that the Left Wing in general is wrong then prepare for people who are poor to die in the streets, because you're going to have to get used to it. :(

However I accept that I'm new to the boards and so my opinion may not matter to you.
-Ross

[QUOTE=ThyWillBeDone #79]
Quote Iakeokeo:
But there is a bright spot. Eventually the entire system collapses and reality (capitalism) returns. It usually starts this return badly, but evolution is a rough freakin' road.

Yes, they return to the 'better' Capitalist government which goes by the principles that profit is the meaning of life so much better than the Left Wing counterparts.
Also there is a reason Communism was Public Enemy Number 2 (Perhaps a different number) under the Nazi Party in germany.
And if you're arguing that the Left Wing in general is wrong then prepare for people who are poor to die in the streets, because you're going to have to get used to it.

However I accept that I'm new to the boards and so my opinion may not matter to you.

Good to see you Thy..! :)

Good to see another adolescent leftist. Yet another one to watch transition rightward through the years. Enjoy your journey..!! :D

May you never live under a leftist government. My prayer for you.

If you'ld like to explain why you think that the poor will die in the streets if I think the left is "wrong" (as opposed to where they tend to die NOW, in the streets of leftist run cities), I'd love to hear about it.

(( My theory: they tend to die that way now because they have been enabled into such a state of dependence by the mommie-state in these places [leftist run cities] that they are weakened, physically and emotionally, into a condition where violence and disease and exposure can actually kill them. In a country where simply saying "Hi. Can you suggest a way that I might get cleaned up, find something to do that would get me some honest cash to spend on food, and perhaps someone to talk to about how to make my life a bit better than this?" to people at almost any "official" looking building, it's really amazing that it happens. ))

Thanks little one. :)

Hello, it's TWBD on another nation, my proper one. :)
Thanks for the welcome, although I understand the second part could be considered insulting I don't really care because I'm in a good mood.
And thanks for caring, even if it was in a kind've Right Wing way, if I ever come to the conclusion that you're right then I'll let you know, if not I'll debate with you to my final breath.

If you'ld like to explain why you think that the poor will die in the streets if I think the left is "wrong" (as opposed to where they tend to die NOW, in the streets of leftist run cities), I'd love to hear about it.

You mean free health care doesn't actually save people, news to me!
I'd like to think that the United Kingdom is reasonably Left so I'll use that as an example, even if perhaps not the perfect one, or best.
But maybe they do have an unusually high death rate...

Lol, like the nick-name, very endearing. :cool:
-Ross

[QUOTE=The Mighty Golden Sun #81]
Hello, it's TWBD on another nation, my proper one.
Thanks for the welcome, although I understand the second part could be considered insulting I don't really care because I'm in a good mood.
And thanks for caring, even if it was in a kind've Right Wing way, if I ever come to the conclusion that you're right then I'll let you know, if not I'll debate with you to my final breath.

Quote:
If you'ld like to explain why you think that the poor will die in the streets if I think the left is "wrong" (as opposed to where they tend to die NOW, in the streets of leftist run cities), I'd love to hear about it.

You mean free health care doesn't actually save people, news to me!
I'd like to think that the United Kingdom is reasonably Left so I'll use that as an example, even if perhaps not the perfect one, or best.
But maybe they do have an unusually high death rate...

Lol, like the nick-name, very endearing.

What free health care..? Although people do GET free health care, at the expense of the productive ones, by simply walking into an emergency room.

Oh,.. in the UK.

There is a reason that the "UK" could be pronounced "Yuck", you know.

Hopefully you'll be a nice productive member of society, and not need rescuing. But if you do, trust me, or not (heh he he he), you've got the American people right behind you, ready to fish your ass out of the drink and prop you up until you either get yourself killed in a drug deal gone wrong, die in your own vomit, or get real and work within reality because living is worth living.

And what is you like about my nickname..? :D

What free health care..? Although people do GET free health care, at the expense of the productive ones, by simply walking into an emergency room.

That's why you have appointments, the systems not perfect but better than people who can't afford it having to pass by in ambulances hospitals which could've saved their life, don't you agree?

There is a reason that the "UK" could be pronounced "Yuck", you know.

You're just annoyed I found an example, Lol.

Hopefully you'll be a nice productive member of society, and not need rescuing. But if you do, trust me, or not (heh he he he), you've got the American people right behind you, ready to fish your ass out of the drink and prop you up until you either get yourself killed in a drug deal gone wrong, die in your own vomit, or get real and work within reality because living is worth living.

Lol.
I didn't understand that, were you implying that America usually bails the U.K out of situations or that it usually bails Leftists out?
Or I could live within reality, just one where everybody is ok rather than a select few.


And what is you like about my nickname..?

No, when you called me 'little one' it was very... Apt, seemed kind've right if you compare post sizes.

-Ross

[QUOTE=The Mighty Golden Sun #83]
Quote:
What free health care..? Although people do GET free health care, at the expense of the productive ones, by simply walking into an emergency room.

That's why you have appointments, the systems not perfect but better than people who can't afford it having to pass by in ambulances hospitals which could've saved their life, don't you agree?

Wouldn't it be nice if those selfish doctors, nurses, technicians, makers of equipment and drugs, and their ilk would work for minimum wage..!?

Wouldn't that drop the price of a hospital stay..! Of course it would. The greedy bastards.

Now YOUR assignment for this week is to figure a way to make them accept their new salaries. Get back to me on that one by next thursday. It's worth no extra credit, of course, as this IS a leftist class-room.


Quote:
There is a reason that the "UK" could be pronounced "Yuck", you know.

You're just annoyed I found an example, Lol.

An example of what? A quasi-solution to the "healthcare crisis"..? OK,.. you found one. Great job. :)


Quote:
Hopefully you'll be a nice productive member of society, and not need rescuing. But if you do, trust me, or not (heh he he he), you've got the American people right behind you, ready to fish your ass out of the drink and prop you up until you either get yourself killed in a drug deal gone wrong, die in your own vomit, or get real and work within reality because living is worth living.

Lol.
I didn't understand that, were you implying that America usually bails the U.K out of situations or that it usually bails Leftists out?
Or I could live within reality, just one where everybody is ok rather than a select few.

No,.. that it will usually try to bail those who have been warped by their enabling leftist "advocates" out of whatever crisis they've landed themselves in, unless they are just too far gone, or go critical somewhere unseen.


Quote:
And what is you like about my nickname..?

No, when you called me 'little one' it was very... Apt, seemed kind've right if you compare post sizes.

I don't care much about post size. It's not about SIZE,.. it's about how you use it. Don't set yourself for silly comparative games of inconsequencial anatomical extremities,.. er,... of meaningless points of contention.

Leftists are by nature fascists because leftists are always correct in any judgement, and therefore have no use for non-leftists.

And as they are always correct, any end justifies the means to their ends.
And the ends that they have are to replace the organic systems of the world
with systems developed by their intelligencia. In other words, all will be told
what is correct and "good".

Rightists, at least the capitalist ones, are interested only in money, and
realize that the organic systems of the world NEED to manage themselves to
be healthy. Rightists that are not capitalists are not rightists,.. they are
tyrants, and indistinguishable from leftists (all of whom are tyrants by nature)
except in their rhetoric.

The left will always have a harder time promoting their agenda, because it
bucks the basic rules of the universe, thereby giving them much more to do
than their "opposition". This "extra work" will always exhaust the left before
they can become a major force.

The right lives within the universe. The left seeks to create their own
universe.

The left will always be there, and it will perform it's function, that of rust,
fungus and the insect. It's role is to point out holes and weaknesses in
human constructions, by corrosion and infestation.

Long live the left, as they show humanity the virtues of combating corruption
and debasement.

Get a dictionary. Leftism is about freedom, NOT tyranny. Take a look at all of the far right wing governments ever. They're all about limiting personal freedom so that people can be made subject to the state. This includes the current conservatives, Latin American dictatorships installed by Republican administrations, Nazi's, Japanese Nationalist party, British Puritains (from whom the whole phraseology of Left vs. Right derives) all of them are tyrannical. The strict regulation of personal freedom is, for all intents and purposes, the defining characteristic of Rightism. Sure Russia had a tyrranical government, but that was more a function of its origin's in a bloody military revolution than in its philosophical origin.

Liberalism = Liberty
Conservatism = Control

Quote: Siljhouettes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Extreme liberals ARE fascists.


Look up "liberal" and look up "fascist". You'll see that they're pretty much opposites. Fascism is based on state control of people's lives. Liberalism is about letting people control their own lives.

They are indeed opposites. But I'm not talking about LIBERALISM,.. I'm talking about the left.

Fascism's behavior is to sublimate all things to some principle(s) that has been decided upon by a "clique" (be it a majority or minority) to the exclusion of all other things.

Liberalism is not what "the left" is about, which is why I intentionally do not describe the left as liberals. Liberal thought is open to honest observation of the universe and learning from it. The left is about remaking the universe in the image of some arbitrary "intelligencia", regardless of the inherent nature of the universe that is observable.

I adore liberals. I despise the left.

The left is inherently fascist because it will do anything necessary to bring about it's "perfect universe" (world utopia). It is this "do anything" aspect that makes it fascist in nature.

The right, on the other hand, seeks to work with and within the systems of the universe to promote it's rather modest goals of making living on this planet a bit better continually with the tools and "measures" (yardsticks) available (using the minimal tool force possible and the simplest measures available).

Once again, liberals, as long as they confuse liberalism and leftism, will be lead and exploited by their leftist "brothers" as consenting slaves.
If you were talking about Leftism and not Liberalism... WHY DID YOU SAY "LIBERALISM"?

Your description of fascism is a description of authoritarianism in general - by definition the opposite of liberalism. Socialism is about total control of the economy. Fascism is about total control of people's lives. Socialism can exist under dictatorship or a liberal government.

Being willing to "do anything" doesn't make one fascist. A parent will often say that they will "do anything" for their child. Does this make them fascist?

Your definition of "the right" doesn't really say anything at all. The way I see it, your politics - that is the reactionary right - seeks to subsidise big business (anti-free market) and regulate our personal lives.

Libertarianism is right-wing, but it's freedom.

If the extreme of liberalism is socialism/communism (correct me if im wrong), then how is that not fascism. Liberalism does not equal libertarianism. Liberals are convinced they are right, and if you dont agree with them, you are "close minded" or some other dumb term. Therefore, in the extreme liberal society, you will be told what is right and wont be allowed to disagree with that. Sounds sort of like fascism to me.
This is childishly partisan. Not all liberals say you're "close minded" you dont agree with them. I might as well say that conservatives think you're a "traitor" if you don't agree with them.

In an extreme liberal society, freedom of speech would be total.

Just remember kiddies,... all things tend right with age.

Draw comfort from your lack of majority influence (as no [functioning] society is run by children) and in your inevitable move rightward.

It WILL be alright,.. you WILL learn. And you WILL like it.

Actually, age itself is not the main determinant of political leanings.
The rich and well educated tend towards the right because as the benificiaries of privilege they know that a powerful government will serve them better, or a weak government in the service of powerful businesses that they own.

Middle Class and poor educated tend towards the left because they are aware of the dangers posed to them should a government enact authoritarian laws and give itself strong regulatory power over private citizens.

Poor and uneducated tend towards the right because stupid ideas are easy to encapsulate in simple sounding slogans. They stop listening when educated leftists try to correct them.

In short anyone with more than half a brain and less than half a million dollars a year votes liberal.

Not certain at all about individuals. But all leftists follow a philospohy that is inherently fascist. Therefore "leftists" (those proclaiming leftism) are fascists in intent, if not in their entire person.

You are a leftist, and as such want those who disagree with you to vanish.

Leftists hate any real-world grit in their cafefully constructed unreal machines. And any dissenters or contrarians are that grit.

I'm certain of nothing when it comes to individuals, as people can hold nearly infinite amounts of contradictions in their heads at once, and yet "profess" to be perfectly consistent.


Everything you're describing is emblematic of the current right wing administration. Kerry doesn't make people sign loyalty oaths to enter his speeches. When presented with evidence on why invading Iraq with one fifth the manpower that his father used his response was that he was not relying on facts but on "instinct."

Rightists are the ideology driven unrealists. Take this statement by a Bush aide to a New York Times reporter:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Rightists know nothing of reality if they think that it's something that they invent.

Actually, this seems to present an insight into your political leanings. You seem to think that reality is something that you can just make up, like when you said that YOU define fascism to mean communism regardless of the fact that the two are almost polar opposites. You define left to mean right, attach all the sins of the actual right to your "left" and expect the rest of us to go along with it.

[QUOTE=Domici #85]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Leftists are by nature fascists because leftists are always correct in any judgement, and therefore have no use for non-leftists.

And as they are always correct, any end justifies the means to their ends.
And the ends that they have are to replace the organic systems of the world
with systems developed by their intelligencia. In other words, all will be told
what is correct and "good".

Rightists, at least the capitalist ones, are interested only in money, and
realize that the organic systems of the world NEED to manage themselves to
be healthy. Rightists that are not capitalists are not rightists,.. they are
tyrants, and indistinguishable from leftists (all of whom are tyrants by nature)
except in their rhetoric.

The left will always have a harder time promoting their agenda, because it
bucks the basic rules of the universe, thereby giving them much more to do
than their "opposition". This "extra work" will always exhaust the left before
they can become a major force.

The right lives within the universe. The left seeks to create their own
universe.

The left will always be there, and it will perform it's function, that of rust,
fungus and the insect. It's role is to point out holes and weaknesses in
human constructions, by corrosion and infestation.

Long live the left, as they show humanity the virtues of combating corruption
and debasement.

Get a dictionary. Leftism is about freedom, NOT tyranny. Take a look at all of the far right wing governments ever. They're all about limiting personal freedom so that people can be made subject to the state. This includes the current conservatives, Latin American dictatorships installed by Republican administrations, Nazi's, Japanese Nationalist party, British Puritains (from whom the whole phraseology of Left vs. Right derives) all of them are tyrannical. The strict regulation of personal freedom is, for all intents and purposes, the defining characteristic of Rightism. Sure Russia had a tyrranical government, but that was more a function of its origin's in a bloody military revolution than in its philosophical origin.

Liberalism = Liberty
Conservatism = Control

No dictionary can tell me my beliefs. Do they tell you yours? Of course they do, although you would refer to your dogma as "leftist ideology" handed down to you by your masters.

I also suggest you look at the world. It will give you plenty of examples of reality.

May you be happy in your philosophy, until it proves to you you are it's pawn. Which will happen.

Do your best to help the people of this planet, in whatever way you can. And in doing so you will see reality,.. and it will not be as you thought as a child.

[QUOTE=Siljhouettes #86]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Quote: Siljhouettes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Extreme liberals ARE fascists.


Look up "liberal" and look up "fascist". You'll see that they're pretty much opposites. Fascism is based on state control of people's lives. Liberalism is about letting people control their own lives.

They are indeed opposites. But I'm not talking about LIBERALISM,.. I'm talking about the left.

Fascism's behavior is to sublimate all things to some principle(s) that has been decided upon by a "clique" (be it a majority or minority) to the exclusion of all other things.

Liberalism is not what "the left" is about, which is why I intentionally do not describe the left as liberals. Liberal thought is open to honest observation of the universe and learning from it. The left is about remaking the universe in the image of some arbitrary "intelligencia", regardless of the inherent nature of the universe that is observable.

I adore liberals. I despise the left.

The left is inherently fascist because it will do anything necessary to bring about it's "perfect universe" (world utopia). It is this "do anything" aspect that makes it fascist in nature.

The right, on the other hand, seeks to work with and within the systems of the universe to promote it's rather modest goals of making living on this planet a bit better continually with the tools and "measures" (yardsticks) available (using the minimal tool force possible and the simplest measures available).

Once again, liberals, as long as they confuse liberalism and leftism, will be lead and exploited by their leftist "brothers" as consenting slaves.


If you were talking about Leftism and not Liberalism... WHY DID YOU SAY "LIBERALISM"?

Your description of fascism is a description of authoritarianism in general - by definition the opposite of liberalism. Socialism is about total control of the economy. Fascism is about total control of people's lives. Socialism can exist under dictatorship or a liberal government.

Being willing to "do anything" doesn't make one fascist. A parent will often say that they will "do anything" for their child. Does this make them fascist?

Your definition of "the right" doesn't really say anything at all. The way I see it, your politics - that is the reactionary right - seeks to subsidise big business (anti-free market) and regulate our personal lives.

Libertarianism is right-wing, but it's freedom.

You'll have to show me where I initiated any discussion of "liberalism", as I don't use that word unless prompted.

A parent MUST be a fascist..! Their JOB is to have as much control as possible over the development (and survival) of their offspring until the kids "adulthood".

Fascist parents are FASCIST PARENTS. Fascist governements are FASCIST GOVERNMENTS..!

Humanity is equipped to productively accomodate fascist parents. Humanity is NOT EQUIPPED to productively accomodate fascist governments.

Unless they're benign fascists (benign dictatorships),.. but that's ALWAYS a temporary condition, just as being a fascist parent is.

.."Your definition of "the right" doesn't really say anything at all. The way I see it, your politics - that is the reactionary right - seeks to subsidise big business (anti-free market) and regulate our personal lives."..

That is a (not unexpected) leftist hallucination. I'm much too simple a soul to think about subsidizing anything, or regulating anyone's life.

My only contention is that any real and lasting society must be based on individual private property ownership and the right to hold it. Period. The right to hold property does not mean absolute freedom to do anything with it, or that that is the only right. Just that is is the basis priciple on which society must be based if it is to continue for any length of time.

You are more than free to put me in under the "reactionary right" label,.. but it really doesn't mean anything to me. I have no idea what it means.

If having this particular paranoid hallucination helps you understand the world better, you're welcome to it.

My own personal paranoid hallucination is that there are those out there that would destroy my society by taking our rights to all property away for "the common good as enumerated by the great wise one".

It's a harmless hallucination, as long as it's not true. But it's a powerful preparation and mind-sharpening tool if it IS true. :)

[QUOTE=Domici #89]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Not certain at all about individuals. But all leftists follow a philospohy that is inherently fascist. Therefore "leftists" (those proclaiming leftism) are fascists in intent, if not in their entire person.

You are a leftist, and as such want those who disagree with you to vanish.

Leftists hate any real-world grit in their cafefully constructed unreal machines. And any dissenters or contrarians are that grit.

I'm certain of nothing when it comes to individuals, as people can hold nearly infinite amounts of contradictions in their heads at once, and yet "profess" to be perfectly consistent.

Everything you're describing is emblematic of the current right wing administration. Kerry doesn't make people sign loyalty oaths to enter his speeches. When presented with evidence on why invading Iraq with one fifth the manpower that his father used his response was that he was not relying on facts but on "instinct."

That's nice but meaningless. You may compare me to anyone you wish.


Rightists are the ideology driven unrealists. Take this statement by a Bush aide to a New York Times reporter:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Believe what you believe. An "..I know you are but what am I!" childs game is very unbecoming for one of your stature.


Rightists know nothing of reality if they think that it's something that they invent.

Heh he he he... one "invents" reality by molding clay into a cup. Now you're just being silly.

Actually, this seems to present an insight into your political leanings. You seem to think that reality is something that you can just make up, like when you said that YOU define fascism to mean communism regardless of the fact that the two are almost polar opposites. You define left to mean right, attach all the sins of the actual right to your "left" and expect the rest of us to go along with it.

I don't care if you go along at all. I'm just stating my viewpoint.

Fascism doesn't MEAN communism. Communism IS fascism, to me.

You can't even get the words right. Why should anyone trust you with anything else..?

May you promote the welfare and enjoyment of as many people as you can while you are on this planet, and come to see one day that basing a society on "the word of the leader" is an evil.

We probably agree on that last point. :)

We just have different ways of seeing that "the leader" is kept in check.

Iakeokeo has been banned.

Thank you for conversing with me, as I enjoyed it immensely.

The left, once again, proves itself incapable of handling dissent, even in areas where only words are involved.

May you all enjoy this censored leftist wasteland, as long as you're not too "interesting".

Bye-bye now...! :D

Iakeokeo has been banned.

Thank you for conversing with me, as I enjoyed it immensely.

The left, once again, proves itself incapable of handling dissent, even in areas where only words are involved.

May you all enjoy this censored leftist wasteland, as long as you're not too "interesting".

Bye-bye now...! :D[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Iakeokeo, I think the problem was that for all the oversized colour fonts you'd use in your posts, you were, more or less, always posting the same one-note message. It was uninteresting after hearing it over and over again. The font size got silly, too. People don't like reading stuff that way, it's like you're shouting into someone's ear.

I actually am sorry if you've been banned, why don't you tell us about being banned on a new thread? There are others here who'd back you up, I'm sure. Don't act all hurt, that's not like you - start a new threads and tear those pinko commies (and I count myself among them) a new one!

Get back on that bicycle and pedal, son.

[QUOTE=Dobbs Town #Something]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeo-OK
Iakeokeo has been banned.

Thank you for conversing with me, as I enjoyed it immensely.

The left, once again, proves itself incapable of handling dissent, even in areas where only words are involved.

May you all enjoy this censored leftist wasteland, as long as you're not too "interesting".

Bye-bye now...!

Iakeokeo, I think the problem was that for all the oversized colour fonts you'd use in your posts, you were, more or less, always posting the same one-note message. It was uninteresting after hearing it over and over again. The font size got silly, too. People don't like reading stuff that way, it's like you're shouting into someone's ear.

I actually am sorry if you've been banned, why don't you tell us about being banned on a new thread? There are others here who'd back you up, I'm sure. Don't act all hurt, that's not like you - start a new threads and tear those pinko commies (and I count myself among them) a new one!

Get back on that bicycle and pedal, son.

Heh he he.... :D

The very point of the "one-notedness" was to satirise the "one-notedness" of those who can't distinguish between "the root beliefs" a person holds and the person themselves, and the fact that we may well be on the same side, from slightly different dirrections, yet the self-proclaimed stereotype that we profess can still keep us from mutually working toward our (unrealized) common goal.

..and the font/color choice "complaint" is a canard. Heh he he... Iakeokeo was "terribly worried" about offending people's "fashion sense".

If "fashion sense" were a ban-able offence, the NON-USE of the shift-key and punctuation (not to mention NO WHITE SPACE) seen in SO MANY people in these fori would be cutting people down left, right and cneter..! :)

Anyway,.. as you can see, they apparently don't ban by way of IP address, so Iakeokeo "may" continue looking in and occassionally posting observations, but the "ranting" will probably not continue as there are apparently WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE IN POWER here that just don't get satire and sarcasm. :D

Iakeokeo, who IS NOT ME! <choke>, says: "See'ya 'round, good one!",.. I would think,.. though,.. as I'm not him <choke>,.. I can't actually say that with any "certainty". <cough>

Iakeokeo will leave it to "other's" to, like the "decendents" of Robin Hood, to pick up the "tights and fletch" (font and color), and rob from the rich and give to the poor, as he did.

Though,... that's just my opinion of what he'd think,.. because, uh,... I'm not him. <atchoo-bullshnoot-cough-hack>

:D

You'll have to show me where I initiated any discussion of "liberalism", as I don't use that word unless prompted.
Here:

Extreme liberals ARE fascists.
Fascist parents are FASCIST PARENTS. Fascist governements are FASCIST GOVERNMENTS..!

Humanity is equipped to productively accomodate fascist parents.
I'm so glad my mother is not a fascist.

.."Your definition of "the right" doesn't really say anything at all. The way I see it, your politics - that is the reactionary right - seeks to subsidise big business (anti-free market) and regulate our personal lives."..

That is a (not unexpected) leftist hallucination. I'm much too simple a soul to think about subsidizing anything, or regulating anyone's life.

My only contention is that any real and lasting society must be based on individual private property ownership and the right to hold it. Period. The right to hold property does not mean absolute freedom to do anything with it, or that that is the only right.
If you are "too simple a soul to think about subsidizing anything, or regulating anyone's life" then are you a Libertarian? Why do you support Bush, he is against what you stand for (well, what you are standing for in this particular post [it tends to change]).

I'm no communist. I like private property rights. I agree with you there.

My own personal paranoid hallucination is that there are those out there that would destroy my society by taking our rights to all property away for "the common good as enumerated by the great wise one".

Well, at least you admit that it's a paranoid hallucination.

And BTW, communist theory actually states that workers, collectively, should own all property. Not some aloof elitist group.

[QUOTE=Dobbs Town #94]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeo-OK
Iakeokeo has been banned.

Thank you for conversing with me, as I enjoyed it immensely.

The left, once again, proves itself incapable of handling dissent, even in areas where only words are involved.

May you all enjoy this censored leftist wasteland, as long as you're not too "interesting".

Bye-bye now...!

Iakeokeo, I think the problem was that for all the oversized colour fonts you'd use in your posts, you were, more or less, always posting the same one-note message. It was uninteresting after hearing it over and over again. The font size got silly, too. People don't like reading stuff that way, it's like you're shouting into someone's ear.

I actually am sorry if you've been banned, why don't you tell us about being banned on a new thread? There are others here who'd back you up, I'm sure. Don't act all hurt, that's not like you - start a new threads and tear those pinko commies (and I count myself among them) a new one!

Get back on that bicycle and pedal, son.

Heh he he he,... OK,.. so I lied. I'm BACK..! :D

My "fashion statement" use of font/color is a silly issue, and not why I was banned.

I was banned because the moderators got tired of "pacifying" the intolerant complainers with any measure less than banning.

I may well start another thread with some sort of narrative describing my odd path to banning, but it's really very simple a story. Because of the "escalating anxiety level" of the left in the last few days, and their feeling of approaching power (a Kerry win), they stepped up their complaining "noise" of their "enemies" to the powers that be in these forums to "do the right (left?) thing", and silence their supposed opposition.

I happen to believe that any topic can be examined from any number of, or one, "viewpoint(s)". Just as a fractal is infinitely "interesting" regardless of viewing scale, ANY topic can be infinitely explored from any single "one-note" viewpoint.

If you don't find my responses, or "provocations", interesting,.. then don't respond to them.

Very simple really. :D

[QUOTE=Siljhouettes #96]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You'll have to show me where I initiated any discussion of "liberalism", as I don't use that word unless prompted.


Here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Extreme liberals ARE fascists.

"EXTREME" liberals are fascists, in my opinion..!

And I was "prompted to use the word liberal by some preceding sentence (not from me) regarding some definitional question/statement about "EXTREME liberals".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Fascist parents are FASCIST PARENTS. Fascist governements are FASCIST GOVERNMENTS..!

Humanity is equipped to productively accomodate fascist parents.


I'm so glad my mother is not a fascist.

Oh,.. but she was..! By definition..! My definition, of course,.. but by definition, none the less. :)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
.."Your definition of "the right" doesn't really say anything at all. The way I see it, your politics - that is the reactionary right - seeks to subsidise big business (anti-free market) and regulate our personal lives."..

That is a (not unexpected) leftist hallucination. I'm much too simple a soul to think about subsidizing anything, or regulating anyone's life.

My only contention is that any real and lasting society must be based on individual private property ownership and the right to hold it. Period. The right to hold property does not mean absolute freedom to do anything with it, or that that is the only right.


If you are "too simple a soul to think about subsidizing anything, or regulating anyone's life" then are you a Libertarian? Why do you support Bush, he is against what you stand for (well, what you are standing for in this particular post [it tends to change]).

I'm no communist. I like private property rights. I agree with you there.

Am I a libertarian? You tell me. You judge. By what I've said, would YOU describe me as a libertarian..? Under which WORD/LABEL I'm described is not THAT interesting to me. What interests me is our discussing what we each believe, and why.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
My own personal paranoid hallucination is that there are those out there that would destroy my society by taking our rights to all property away for "the common good as enumerated by the great wise one".

Well, at least you admit that it's a paranoid hallucination.

And BTW, communist theory actually states that workers, collectively, should own all property. Not some aloof elitist group.

It IS a paranoid hallucination, by definition, but, as with the old saying, "Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T MEAN their NOT out to get you"..!! :D

I admit my hallucination,.. while so many of the left will not admit theirs.

And communist theory has NEVER proved out in reality, which is how I personally judge the "worth" of a theory.