Civics 101

[Trijack]

This video is a must see.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Jack

[Greyfox]

This video is a must see.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Jack

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Thank you. An excellent review and a food for thought message.

[Warren Henry]

Anyone who views that clip and looks seriously at what has happened/is happening in this country should be frightened about the future.

Up until now, the process has been gradual. Now, "our leaders" are quickening the pace.

WAKE UP!!

[boxcar]

Anyone who views that clip and looks seriously at what has happened/is happening in this country should be frightened about the future.

Up until now, the process has been gradual. Now, "our leaders" are quickening the pace.

WAKE UP!!

You bet they are! They're trying to seize the moment with, arguably, the most radical leftist in office in this nation's history (save possibly for FDR). This is why they will be be trying to seize as much power in the next 3-1/2 years as possible. The more they're successful, the more rights we lose.

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

I bet if everyone watched that video "change will have come"

Thanks for that link

[DJofSD]

Wow! Can't get any more straightforward than that.

A must for every high school student studing civics/America history.

[mostpost]

What is the point of this thread. Any educated person know that the United States is a Constitutional Republic. That is the form and structure of our government. We are a Democracy as regards to how we select the people who will run our Republic. Despite your fevered imagination, no one is trying to change this. At least no Democrats are....I'm not at all sure about Republicans, especially Neo Cons. After all it was a Republican administration which initiated illegal wiretaps, torture, incarceration without legal resource, and rendition to secret prisons. All this while maintaining a Republic.

[Show Me the Wire]

What is the point of this thread. Any educated person know that the United States is a Constitutional Republic. That is the form and structure of our government. We are a Democracy as regards to how we select the people who will run our Republic. Despite your fevered imagination, no one is trying to change this. At least no Democrats are....I'm not at all sure about Republicans, especially Neo Cons. After all it was a Republican administration which initiated illegal wiretaps, torture, incarceration without legal resource, and rendition to secret prisons. All this while maintaining a Republic.


wrong!

Bush followed FDR's (D) precedents. At least Bush's interment camp was on foreign soil and wasn't built to hold legal residents and actual citizens.

I guess FDR wasn't educated by your standards.

[mostpost]

The video posted by Trijack states that Rome went from a Republic to a Democracy to an oligarchy. This is false. The government of Rome was never a Democracy as that term is defined in the video. The people of Rome never had the power to vote directly on any issue. The transition from a Republic to an Oligarchy took place when Julius Ceasar, Crassus and Pompey formed an extra legal triumvirate. Through political intrigue and civil war Julius Caesar emerged as Dictator of Rome. After his assassination a period of civil war ended with the establishment of "The Roman Empire".

[DJofSD]

What is the point of this thread. Any educated person know that the United States is a Constitutional Republic. That is the form and structure of our government. We are a Democracy as regards to how we select the people who will run our Republic. Despite your fevered imagination, no one is trying to change this. At least no Democrats are....I'm not at all sure about Republicans, especially Neo Cons. After all it was a Republican administration which initiated illegal wiretaps, torture, incarceration without legal resource, and rendition to secret prisons. All this while maintaining a Republic.
Amazing.

A 10 minute video that states nothing more than facts with no interpretation within the current politcal environment is seen as an opportunity to lambaste the prior administration.

You don't need any reason to make things difficult or confrontational, do you?

[Show Me the Wire]

But that is not what you posted. You specifically, stated no Democrats wanted to change the system, but you were not sure about the Republicans due to Bush's administration's actions.

I called you on your attack on Bush policies, as the same could be said for a famous Democratic administration, FDR's and to the current Obama administration, because Obama has adopted Bush's war policies.

[mostpost]

wrong!

Bush followed FDR's (D) precedents. At least Bush's interment camp was on foreign soil and wasn't built to hold legal residents and actual citizens.

I guess FDR wasn't educated by your standards.
FDR was wrong to inter Japanese Americans during WWII. But FDR didn't torture them, and he didn't send them to secret prisons abroad.

Are you saying the fact that FDR did it is reason not to criticize Bush for acting in an illegal matter? Fine, I'll come to your house, steal your TV, and when I'm caught, I'll say "I know it was wrong to steal SMTW's TV but other people have stolen TVs and not been punished, so why should I. :faint:

[Show Me the Wire]

FDR was wrong to inter Japanese Americans during WWII. But FDR didn't torture them, and he didn't send them to secret prisons abroad.

Are you saying the fact that FDR did it is reason not to criticize Bush for acting in an illegal matter? Fine, I'll come to your house, steal your TV, and when I'm caught, I'll say "I know it was wrong to steal SMTW's TV but other people have stolen TVs and not been punished, so why should I. :faint:


Didn't torture them :lol: :lol: :lol: . Do you also think FDR didn't use eavesdropping. :D

Do some research and learn something.

No, I am not defending Bush's or Obama's policies on the basis of FDR. Only showing the flaw in you logic accusing the republicans of wanting change and not the democrats for the same behavior.

[mostpost]

Amazing.

A 10 minute video that states nothing more than facts with no interpretation within the current politcal environment is seen as an opportunity to lambaste the prior administration.

You don't need any reason to make things difficult or confrontational, do you?
First of all the video is not real good with the facts. I have already discussed the "Rome went from a Republic to a Democracy to an Oligarchy Fallacy. I will discuss the Naziism and Communism are the same nonsense. Second, all the comments from you and your cohort are of the "sky is falling and it's all Obama's fault variety.

[mostpost]

Didn't torture them :lol: :lol: :lol: . Do you also think FDR didn't use eavesdropping. :D

Do some research and learn something.

No, I am not defending Bush's or Obama's policies on the basis of FDR. Only showing the flaw in you logic accusing the republicans of wanting change and not the democrats for the same behavior.
Show me proof that FDR tortured or ordered torture of Japanese Americans held at camps such as the One at Santa Anita.

I'm sure FDR did use eavesdropping. I do not know if he did so legally or illegally. I know Bush did so illegally and legally.

[Show Me the Wire]

Show me proof that FDR tortured or ordered torture of Japanese Americans held at camps such as the One at Santa Anita.

I'm sure FDR did use eavesdropping. I do not know if he did so legally or illegally. I know Bush did so illegally and legally.

I didn't say the torture happened at Santa Anita. Neither did I imply FDR tortured legal residents or citizens. Are you implying Bush did?

Does the physical location where torture is used or on who it is used on, make it torture or not torture? Not to me it doesn't.

[PaceAdvantage]

and rendition to secret prisons.You mean, just like Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/cia_interrogations/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.I hear Bush also pledged to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured...but shit happens, you know?

Mostpost, you are a laugh riot sometimes! :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

mostpost ordered a book about which end is up, but if got lost in the mail. :lol:

Hey, go buy a copy of Arguing with Idiots by Glen Beck.
Send me the receipt and I will pay for it. You just have to read it.

[mostpost]

mostpost ordered a book about which end is up, but if got lost in the mail. :lol:

Hey, go buy a copy of Arguing with Idiots by Glen Beck.
Send me the receipt and I will pay for it. You just have to read it.
I have no intention of ever reading anything by Glenn Beck. But I may hang around the local Barnes & Noble and if anyone drops a receipt for Beck's book, I will be sure and send it to you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Black Ruby]

I have no intention of ever reading anything by Glenn Beck. But I may hang around the local Barnes & Noble and if anyone drops a receipt for Beck's book, I will be sure and send it to you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You'll probably find one quicker if you hang around Paperweights 'R Us.

[mostpost]

You mean, just like Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

I hear Bush also pledged to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured...but shit happens, you know?

Mostpost, you are a laugh riot sometimes! :lol: :lol:
From the story you linked:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.

ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said
That is an important difference. NEVERTHELESS, I don't think the Obama administration should be using rendition either The fact that they are does not absolve Bush for doing so.

[DJofSD]

I have no intention of ever reading anything by Glenn Beck. But I may hang around the local Barnes & Noble and if anyone drops a receipt for Beck's book, I will be sure and send it to you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:bang:

FUNNY.

FRIGHTENING.

TRUE.

It happens to all of us: You're minding your own business, when some idiot informs you that guns are evil, the Prius will save the planet, or the rich have to finally start paying their fair share of taxes.

Just go away! you think to yourself -- but they only become more obnoxious. Your heart rate quickens. You start to sweat. You can't get away. Your only hope is...

...this book.

Glenn Beck, author of the #1 New York Times bestsellers An Inconvenient Book and Glenn Beck's Common Sense, has stumbled upon the secret formula to winning arguments against people with big mouths but small minds: knowing the facts.

And this book is full of them.

The next time your Idiot Friends tell you how gun control prevents gun violence, you'll tell them all about England's handgun ban (see page 53). When they tell you that we should copy the UK's health-care system, you'll recount the horrifying facts you read on page 244. And the next time an idiot tells you that vegetable prices will skyrocket without illegal workers, you'll stop saying "no, they won't" and you'll start saying, "actually, eliminating all illegal labor will cause us to spend just $8 a year more on produce." (See page 139.)

Idiots can't be identified through voting records, they can be found only by looking for people who hide behind stereotypes, embrace partisanship, and believe that bumper sticker slogans are a substitute for common sense. If you know someone who fits the bill, then Arguing with Idiotswill help you silence them once and for all with the ultimate weapon: the truth.

[rastajenk]

A better choice would be Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. It's main theme is consistent with the linked video, that the more control the state has, the less power individuals have to control the state. Seems pretty simple on its face, but the point is lost on many who believe the government exists to provide for them rather than to protect them.

[Tom]

You'll probably find one quicker if you hang around Paperweights 'R Us.

:lol:You're a gas!
It is the number 2 best seller on Amazon, right behind Dan Brown.
His last book, Common Sense is number 1 on the NY Times Best seller list for paperback non fiction. :lol:

[46zilzal]

A better choice would be Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. .
You need to go back to school as these terms are at opposite ends of the spectrum

[DJofSD]

You need to go back to school as these terms are at opposite ends of the spectrum
Not according to the video.

[mostpost]

mostpost ordered a book about which end is up, but if got lost in the mail. :lol:

Hey, go buy a copy of Arguing with Idiots by Glen Beck.
Send me the receipt and I will pay for it. You just have to read it.
Here is a review of Beck's book by Amazon reader Charles Burch:
What's the difference between Slavery and Immigration?, September 27, 2009
By Charles Burch "Eclectic Reader" (San Francisco, CA) - See all my reviews


In the book Mr. Beck quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

Arguing with Idiots? Mr. Beck could simply start with the face he shaves in the mirror each morning... End Mr Burch's review.

Glenn Beck does not even understand one of the most debated, most interpreted issues dealt with in the Constitution. Even a person who has taken the most rudimentary course on the Constitution knows this section refers to a tariff on the importation of slaves.

I do not need to read Glenn Beck's book. Glenn Beck needs to take a course in American History and Constitutional History, and Logic, and economics, and everything.

[Black Ruby]

:lol:You're a gas!
It is the number 2 best seller on Amazon, right behind Dan Brown.
His last book, Common Sense is number 1 on the NY Times Best seller list for paperback non fiction. :lol:

"you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time..."

When he was a bad dj here, he was known as the "bourbon and coke" dj, and it wasn't the stuff from Coca-Cola.

[rastajenk]

"You need to go back to school as these terms are at opposite ends of the spectrum"


That's the point, bonehead. As two words taken by themselves, they do seem to reflect opposite notions. But they are not mutually exclusive. As liberals embrace the power of the state to make us all suffer equally, they become fascists. And it's not about what is happening right now. It's about what's been going on for 100 years or more. Read it; you might learn sumthin'.

[46zilzal]

Not according to the video.
Then it is becoming rampant as is outlined in Idiot America, How Stupidity became A Virtue in the Land of the Free

review:
With his razor-sharp wit and erudite reasoning, Pierce delivers a gut-wrenching, side-splitting lament about the glorification of ignorance in the United States, and how a country founded on intellectual curiosity has somehow deteriorated into a nation of simpletons more apt to vote for an American Idol contestant than a presidential candidate.

With Idiot America, Pierce's thunderous denunciation is also a secret call to action, as he hopes that somehow, being intelligent will stop being a stigma, and that pinheads will once again be pitied, not celebrated.

[rastajenk]

And yet you will not read Liberal Fascism because you are locked in to your biases and glorify your own ignorance. Irony, sweet irony.

[lsbets]

You need to go back to school as these terms are at opposite ends of the spectrum

Those who believe in the power of the state rather than the citizen are only separated by the degree to which they use the state as a means of terror to rule over the population. As time goes by and government grows, all statist societies become repressive regimes where individuals enjoy no liberties or freedoms. You are the one who needs to get an education and needs to learn how to think.

[hcap]

Show me proof that FDR tortured or ordered torture of Japanese Americans held at camps such as the One at Santa Anita.
Yet FDR is still painfully torturing most righties here.

Amazing how the mere mention of his name cause fits and apoplexy :cool: .

[rastajenk]

Not nearly so much as....Sarah Palin. :cool: :cool: :cool:

[DJofSD]

Oh boy! Online political poker.

Let's see if there is a reraise or an all in.

[mostpost]

Not according to the video.
Time to prove the video is wrong.
Communism is a political and economic system in which all facets of the economy are controlled by the state. The state is controlled by the Party.
The state is an instrument to advance the economic agenda.
Fascism or Naziism is a political system. Here also the Party controls the state. But the purpose of controlling the state is to advance the politcal agenda of the Party. That political agenda is the ascendancy of the Nation.

Both Communism and Fascism (Naziiism) seek to concentrate power in the hands of a select few. Communism concentrates this power in the hands of the government with no corresponding rights for individual business, which in fact do not exist. Fascism controls Business to the extent that business must support government policies, but businesses are left alone to do this as they
see fit.

In Communist countries the relationship between business and government is adversarial in the extreme. Communism does not countenance the existence
of private enterprise. This is a very extreme far left policy.
In Nazi Germany, most industrialists (Private companies, Family owned businesses, such as Krupp and I.G. Farben, supported the Nazi regime and contributed heavily to Hitler's cause. Hitler, while he did nationalize a few companies, allowed most to function with considerable independence.

Nazi policies provided many German Corporations with very cheap labor and in many instances with slave labor. In other words, Nazi policies strongly favored capital over labor. This is an extremely far right point of view.

So we see that Fascism is very Nationalistic. Very much focused on the unassailable virtues of the Nation and the moral superiority of its citizens and unable to see virtues in any other nation or people. We see similar if not identical sentiments posted on this board almost daily. Identical in kind if not intensity.

We also see that fascists and corporations sleep in the same bed and nobody cries rape. We further see that Fascist governments support the rights of business at the expense of the rights of workers. On this board unions are consistently vilified by members who characterize themselves as conservatives, or righties.

The actions of Fascists are the beliefs of conservatives taken to an unholy extreme, but they are on the same side of the political spectrum, the right.

The actions of Communists are the beliefs of liberals taken to an unholy extreme, but they are on the same side of the political spectrum, the left.

TO SAY THAT SOCIALISM AND FASCISM ARE BOTH ON THE LEFT DISPLAYS IGNORANCE BEYOND COMPREHENSION.

[DJofSD]

Time to prove the video is wrong.
Communism is a political and economic system in which all facets of the economy are controlled by the state. The state is controlled by the Party.
The state is an instrument to advance the economic agenda.
Fascism or Naziism is a political system. Here also the Party controls the state. But the purpose of controlling the state is to advance the politcal agenda of the Party. That political agenda is the ascendancy of the Nation.

Both Communism and Fascism (Naziiism) seek to concentrate power in the hands of a select few. Communism concentrates this power in the hands of the government with no corresponding rights for individual business, which in fact do not exist. Fascism controls Business to the extent that business must support government policies, but businesses are left alone to do this as they
see fit.

In Communist countries the relationship between business and government is adversarial in the extreme. Communism does not countenance the existence
of private enterprise. This is a very extreme far left policy.
In Nazi Germany, most industrialists (Private companies, Family owned businesses, such as Krupp and I.G. Farben, supported the Nazi regime and contributed heavily to Hitler's cause. Hitler, while he did nationalize a few companies, allowed most to function with considerable independence.

Nazi policies provided many German Corporations with very cheap labor and in many instances with slave labor. In other words, Nazi policies strongly favored capital over labor. This is an extremely far right point of view.

So we see that Fascism is very Nationalistic. Very much focused on the unassailable virtues of the Nation and the moral superiority of its citizens and unable to see virtues in any other nation or people. We see similar if not identical sentiments posted on this board almost daily. Identical in kind if not intensity.

We also see that fascists and corporations sleep in the same bed and nobody cries rape. We further see that Fascist governments support the rights of business at the expense of the rights of workers. On this board unions are consistently vilified by members who characterize themselves as conservatives, or righties.

The actions of Fascists are the beliefs of conservatives taken to an unholy extreme, but they are on the same side of the political spectrum, the right.

The actions of Communists are the beliefs of liberals taken to an unholy extreme, but they are on the same side of the political spectrum, the left.

TO SAY THAT SOCIALISM AND FASCISM ARE BOTH ON THE LEFT DISPLAYS IGNORANCE BEYOND COMPREHENSION.
While your agrument could be right, it completely misses the point of the video.

[lsbets]

You have a childlike understanding of political philosophy most. Your conclusions reveal ignorance beyond comprehension.

[46zilzal]

You have a childlike understanding of political philosophy most. Your conclusions reveal ignorance beyond comprehension.
Make it up as you go along...what else is new?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976721152

[lsbets]

Make it up as you go along...what else is new?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976721152

Now zilly, I fully realize you are not intelligent enough to understand the nature of statist systems, and I do not expect you to. Enlightenment and understanding are two things you seem to be allergic to.

[46zilzal]

Now zilly, I fully realize you are not intelligent enough to understand the nature of statist systems, and I do not expect you to. Enlightenment and understanding are two things you seem to be allergic to.
Funny people grab hold of a word and then use it in almost every situation. Statist is right up there with everything being AWESOME and every situation an ISSUE or DUPLICITOUS rather that what it really is.

[lsbets]

For the benefit of zilly and most, here is info on actual fascism:

The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools.

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.

They were for "industrial policy," long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.

Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.

Moreover, during the 1920s "progressives" in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.

Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for "Liberal Fascism," saying "the world is sick of parliamentary politics."

Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini -- as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.

Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.

W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.

Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was "absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order."

As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."

In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.

Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.

Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" -- indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.

If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/02/thomas-sowell-on-left-wing-fascism-is.html

For the sake of mostpost, I would recommend reading and attempting to understand the last paragraph. By today's standards, all statist systems are animals of the political left, differing only in degree.

[46zilzal]

As I thought:"The terms far right and radical right have been used by different people in conflicting ways. The term far right is most often used to describe nationalist, religious extremist and reactionary groups as well as fascism and Nazism"

Maybe it is a circle and you get confused

[lsbets]

As I thought:"The terms far right and radical right have been used by different people in conflicting ways. The term far right is most often used to describe nationalist, religious extremist and reactionary groups as well as fascism and Nazism"

Maybe it is a circle and you get confused

Maybe when thought becomes necessary you get confused. When a term is commonly used incorrectly, you do not make yourself appear to be smarter by insisting that the incorrect is correct.

I can assure you Mr. Pretend Internet Doctor, I have a much deeper understanding of political philosophies than you do.

[Black Ruby]

rather than rely on what some unknown might say about Fascism on blogspot, where anybody can write what they want, why not go to the horse's mouth and see how Mussolini defined it? http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

[lsbets]

rather than rely on what some unknown might say about Fascism on blogspot, where anybody can write what they want, why not go to the horse's mouth and see how Mussolini defined it? http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

Read the link Ruby, that's not some unknown. BTW -why did you jump out of the Afghan thread after your nonsense was responded to?

[cj's dad]

Maybe when thought becomes necessary you get confused. When a term is commonly used incorrectly, you do not make yourself appear to be smarter by insisting that the incorrect is correct.

I can assure you Mr. Pretend Internet Doctor, I have a much deeper understanding of political philosophies than you do.

Yes, you may, but remember that Dr. Zilly phoyographs horses for a living and knows well the inner workings of a photo finish as he has explained ad infitum.

He did, after all, give up a career in the medical field to be able to post here on off topic and enlighten all of us mere mortals with his exceptional understanding of all things current and topical.

All hail Dr. Zilly :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

Then it is becoming rampant as is outlined in Idiot America, How Stupidity became A Virtue in the Land of the Free.............

.................................................. ........................................

........With Idiot America, Pierce's thunderous denunciation is also a secret call to action, as he hopes that somehow, being intelligent will stop being a stigma, and that pinheads will once again be pitied, not celebrated.


Good thing you live in the bastion of anti-Semitism. Very enlightened of you, especially since you embrace it.

[mostpost]

Paraphrasing lsbets: "Liberals lionized fascists in the thirties"
Riiiight! Liberals like Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford and Prescott Bush, who was involved in a plot to overthrow FDR in 1934
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51281

Also implicated in the plot were a number of Wall Street types including Irenee DuPont.

Not on topic but illustrative of the lack of knowledge on the right is post #8 in the above link. Kevin James, nitwit talk show host starts talking about appeasement and Neville Chamberlain. Chris Matthews asks him what Chamberlain did that was wrong. What was the specific act of appeasement. James hemmed and hawed and blustered but it soon became obvious that he did not know that Chamberlain had agreed to the partitioning of Czechoslovakia at Munich.

People who do not know history can not interpret history. From the comments I read here it is obvious that many of you do not know history. Or worse, you believe a version of history that does not exist.

[Show Me the Wire]

.................................................. ........................

People who do not know history can not interpret history. From the comments I read here it is obvious that many of you do not know history. Or worse, you believe a version of history that does not exist. [bolding added]

Interesting that has been my concern for many years. Do you know Neville Chamberlain's act of appeasement? I do. After appeasing Hitler Chamberlain thought he came back to England as a hero, because he avoided war.

Sort of reminds me of post #7 in this thread.

[46zilzal]

Maybe when thought becomes necessary you get confused. When a term is commonly used incorrectly, you do not make yourself appear to be smarter by insisting that the incorrect is correct.

I can assure you Mr. Pretend Internet Doctor, I have a much deeper understanding of political philosophies than you do.
I have literally and truthfully forgotten more about medicine than you ever knew.
On Old Olympus Towering Top A Fin and German Viewed a Hop. basic stuff too.

[lsbets]

Umm most, you weren't paraphrasing me. It would help if you could follow what you read. Everything on the link is correct, even if you do not like it.

Zilly, I don't think many people believe your tales about a career in medicine. Sorry, I ain't buying it. You lack the intelligence.

[mostpost]

Umm most, you weren't paraphrasing me. It would help if you could follow what you read. Everything on the link is correct, even if you do not like it.
You are right. It was a paraphrase from the article you posted, not directly from you. My apologies.

[46zilzal]

Umm most, you weren't paraphrasing me. It would help if you could follow what you read. Everything on the link is correct, even if you do not like it.

Zilly, I don't think many people believe your tales about a career in medicine. Sorry, I ain't buying it. You lack the intelligence.
If I SAID that green tomatoes were green you would debate it because I said it.

Another contaminated with fecoloths in his Circle of Willis

[46zilzal]

Yes, you may, but remember that Dr. Zilly photographs horses for a living and knows well the inner workings of a photo finish as he has explained ad infitum.



:
Gets them autographed by the riders as well.

[46zilzal]

Yes, you may, but remember that Dr. Zilly photographs horses for a living and knows well the inner workings of a photo finish as he has explained ad infitum.


Was there for the FIRST Breeder's Cup right on the line when Chief's Crown won it for the late Don Macbeth

[PaceAdvantage]

Another contaminated with fecoloths in his Circle of WillisHey genius, you spelled it wrong...it's spelled faecoliths.

Not sure how a medical genius such as yourself could pull a rutabaga move like that...unless lsbets' theories are accurate.

[rastajenk]

Sorry to veer so far off topic, but Mr. Zil, are you the photofinish guy or the track photographer? Cause, as most here know, they ain't the same, but you've weighed in like you're both, and sometimes it sounds like you're the mutuel manager, jocks' room custodian, and chief steward as well. At most tracks those jobs are held down by different people. Just wondering.

[boxcar]

Hey genius, you spelled it wrong...it's spelled faecoliths.

Not sure how a medical genius such as yourself could pull a rutabaga move like that...unless lsbets' theories are accurate.

I hate it when someone steals my thunder. You noticed it, too, eh? :D

And then this bragging wanna-be brainiac wonders why we don't believe anything he says.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Hey genius, you spelled it wrong...it's spelled faecoliths.

Not sure how a medical genius such as yourself could pull a rutabaga move like that...unless lsbets' theories are accurate.
That is the ENGLISH, you know the BRITS? way of spelling it.

[46zilzal]

Sorry to veer so far off topic, but Mr. Zil, are you the photofinish guy or the track photographer? Cause, as most here know, they ain't the same, but you've weighed in like you're both, and sometimes it sounds like you're the mutuel manager, jocks' room custodian, and chief steward as well. At most tracks those jobs are held down by different people. Just wondering.
Independent photographer at tracks all over the country as a fan. We have a very very capable fellow from Four Footed Photos named Trevor who is very good at that job, photo finish photographer (harness track), timer (harness track), winner's circle and paddock TV cameraman (t-bred track).

Here is Miesque winning the Breeder's Cup Mile at Hollwyood.

[PaceAdvantage]

That is the ENGLISH, you know the BRITS? way of spelling it.You are officially out of your mind.

Google the way you spelled it, and you get THREE hits. Three. As in father, son and holy ghost.

Google the way I spelled it, and you get 1,630 hits.

You didn't use the ENGLISH way or the BRITS way or any such way except the WRONG way.

[rastajenk]

:D :D Yeah, I googled it too, and got the same three hits, with the question: "Did you mean faecolith?" I'd have gone for the typo defense, not the Brit one. Brits are always putting extra letters in everything they can, anyway, not taking them out.

[46zilzal]

Now you have all learned a new way of saying Piece of Shit.

Now if only that neurologist who first told me that little saying were here.

Spellings do change over time as my dictionary relates how this is truly an ENGLISH spelling

"faeces, esp. U.S. feces"

The name of what I learned as the 8th cranial nerve as the Auditory is now called the Vestibulochoclear. Things change as Hereclitus reminded us all.

[PaceAdvantage]

Someone else take over...I'm done...this guy is officially a waste of time.

[lsbets]

What's next? I spelled it the way they do in Zimbabwe! My dictionary comes from the days of European colonialism!

I also like "independent photographer". In other words - a dude who brought his own camera to the track.

But my favorite of all time is still "I once road in a car with a black woman."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

"you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time..."

When he was a bad dj here, he was known as the "bourbon and coke" dj, and it wasn't the stuff from Coca-Cola.

Ah, plan B...attack the messenger. By your standards here, Obama is coke snorting fool. :lol: Give it up, you seriously expect us to believe all those viewers/listeners/readers are being fooled??????

Come on Ruby, you know there are not that many democrats! Those are the ones fooled easily! :lol:

[Tom]

Another contaminated with fecoloths in his Circle of Willis

:confused: Whatchu talkin' bout, Willis?

[Tom]

Things change as Hereclitus reminded us all.

You spelled that wrong, too. It's HERCULES! :lol:

[Black Ruby]

Ah, plan B...attack the messenger. By your standards here, Obama is coke snorting fool. :lol: Give it up, you seriously expect us to believe all those viewers/listeners/readers are being fooled??????

Come on Ruby, you know there are not that many democrats! Those are the ones fooled easily! :lol:

And if people knew more about Mormons and some of their beliefs, they'd really shun the guy. Things like they become gods after they die. A circle of their leadership become gods on earth through the "second annointing". They have proxies stand in for their ancestors that weren't Mormons and baptize them so the families can be together in heaven. They've even been doing the proxy baptisms on dead Jews, one of the things Jews have objected to with Beck. The prophet, Joseph Smith, supposedly was given a golden tablet and translated it by having "seer stones" in a hat.

Sorry, if people want to be Mormons, that's fine with me, just don't expect me to give credence to what they have to say.

[Tom]

Sorry, if people want to be Mormons, that's fine with me, just don't expect me to give credence to what they have to say.

No one ever did., All I said was challenge the facts he presents. You can't do that. :D

BTW, knowing what Imadinnerjacket believes, do you support Obama wasting his time meeting with him?

[Show Me the Wire]

And if people knew more about Mormons and some of their beliefs, they'd really shun the guy. Things like they become gods after they die. A circle of their leadership become gods on earth through the "second annointing". They have proxies stand in for their ancestors that weren't Mormons and baptize them so the families can be together in heaven. They've even been doing the proxy baptisms on dead Jews, one of the things Jews have objected to with Beck. The prophet, Joseph Smith, supposedly was given a golden tablet and translated it by having "seer stones" in a hat.

Sorry, if people want to be Mormons, that's fine with me, just don't expect me to give credence to what they have to say.

Do you shun people that believe in Eastern Mysticism too? Many of those practitioners believe they become individual Gods too? So according to you the Dali Lama political opinions are worthless.

Wow imagine a religion that cares about their ancestor's after life. Again you are offending many Eastern religious beliefs. What about those Asians that believe their dead sons can be married in the after life, by burying a dead woman in the same grave?

Are those above beliefs acceptable for political credibility or not? What about fundamental Muslims that believe in killing infidels, wife beating and their version of Heaven is an alcoholic fueled sex party?

How Judgmental of you to make such a statement about credibility of someone's political views is directly correlated with religious views.

Your prejudicial opinion is one of the valid reasons there is a provision of in the Constitution for separation of Church and State and no man shall have to pass a religion test to hold office.

What an incredibly ill-informed post. Sorry, but people that post such prejudicial nonsense should not receive credence from anyone.

[lsbets]

Do you shun people that believe in Eastern Mysticism too? Many of those practitioners believe they become individual Gods too? So according to you the Dali Lama political opinions are worthless.

Wow imagine a religion that cares about their ancestor's after life. Again you are offending many Eastern religious beliefs. What about those Asians that believe their dead sons can be married in the after life, by burying a dead woman in the same grave?

Are those above beliefs acceptable for political credibility or not? What about fundamental Muslims that believe in killing infidels, wife beating and their version of Heaven is an alcoholic fueled sex party?

How Judgmental of you to make such a statement about credibility of someone's political views is directly correlated with religious views.

Your prejudicial opinion is one of the valid reasons there is a provision of in the Constitution for separation of Church and State and no man shall have to pass a religion test to hold office.

What an incredibly ill-informed post. Sorry, but people that post such prejudicial nonsense should not receive credence from anyone.

:ThmbUp:

Just remember SMTW, bigotry against Mormons is okay, they tend to lean conservative.

Except Harry Reid, I wonder if Ruby just dismisses Reid too.

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't know about Black Ruby. I dismiss Reid's political views based on his proven absurd ideas.

[Tom]

I had no idea Ding Harry is a Mormon.
I was sure he is a fool.

[Black Ruby]

Do you shun people that believe in Eastern Mysticism too? Many of those practitioners believe they become individual Gods too? So according to you the Dali Lama political opinions are worthless.

Wow imagine a religion that cares about their ancestor's after life. Again you are offending many Eastern religious beliefs. What about those Asians that believe their dead sons can be married in the after life, by burying a dead woman in the same grave?

Are those above beliefs acceptable for political credibility or not? What about fundamental Muslims that believe in killing infidels, wife beating and their version of Heaven is an alcoholic fueled sex party?

How Judgmental of you to make such a statement about credibility of someone's political views is directly correlated with religious views.

Your prejudicial opinion is one of the valid reasons there is a provision of in the Constitution for separation of Church and State and no man shall have to pass a religion test to hold office.

What an incredibly ill-informed post. Sorry, but people that post such prejudicial nonsense should not receive credence from anyone.

we all decide on a regular basis if someone's views on one thing might make us skeptical about their views on another. It doesn't mean we don't think they should have the right to those views, it just means that we personally reject them.

Ill-informed? what did I say about the beliefs of Mormons that isn't true?

[Black Ruby]

Give it up, you seriously expect us to believe all those viewers/listeners/readers are being fooled??????

Come on Ruby, you know there are not that many democrats! Those are the ones fooled easily! :lol:


Yummy yummy yummy I've got love in my tummy reached number 4 on the charts, there's no limit to numbers when it comes to fools.

[PaceAdvantage]

Being a Mormon is ok for Harry Reid because Black Ruby most likely agrees politically with Harry Reid.

When he doesn't agree politically with someone, then, somehow, the religion of the person becomes an issue.

It's a great way to think...or not to think...depending upon how you look at it...

[Show Me the Wire]

we all decide on a regular basis if someone's views on one thing might make us skeptical about their views on another. It doesn't mean we don't think they should have the right to those views, it just means that we personally reject them.

Ill-informed? what did I say about the beliefs of Mormons that isn't true?

Ill-informed as to other religions that hold similar beliefs you ridicule Mormons about. Big difference between views and religious beliefs.

hcap believes in the philosophy of individuall becoming Gods through finding perfect knowledge. So according to you he has no credibility regarding his political thoughts because of his spiritual beliefs (transforming into an invidual God, with his own individual realty). Knowing hcap's, method od operation, he will post a denial to defend you, but hcap has espoused this belief in many threads in which he attacked Christianity.

It is acceptable to criticize views based on ther irrational views and not on matters of spiritual belief.

[46zilzal]

Eastern philosophy (that is all religion is anyway a philosophy of life) has it miles over the guilt ridden baloney of Christianity. It is all about balance, self renewal and improvement while leaving alone the natural ways of the world.

Taoism and Buddhism are light years ahead of the "My God is better than Your God" crap in the west as there is NO supreme being mentioned or even suggested therein.

[Greyfox]

This thread started out about a must see video on Government.

I'll post a new idea for a law:

"The longer a thread goes on the PA message board, the more likely it will deteriorate into a chorus of individuals giving us their opinions on religion independent of the original topic."

[hcap]

Ill-informed as to other religions that hold similar beliefs you ridicule Mormons about. Big difference between views and religious beliefs.

hcap believes in the philosophy of individuall becoming Gods through finding perfect knowledge.


You are lost in your own set of delusions. Your way is the not the only way. Believing ones own religion is superior to others is evidence of not understanding that very religion, and in fact substitutes ones own bloated egos for "God". Talk about individuals becoming "God". :rolleyes:

You know nothing of eastern thought. How could you? You immediately get on your high horse and assume eastern thought believes such silliness as individual becoming "Gods". (I guess your belief system is threatened by the fact that many eastern schools do not even mention "God")

Perfect knowledge is not the goal.

My spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with becoming "God", but do allow me to recognize a severely bloated ego when I see one. One cue is proselytizing Ad nauseam. And preaching sermons inappropriately. Actually rudimentary human judgment may lead to the same critical observation. The colloquial term is "BLOWHARD".

You have built fences around your own powers of self understanding and discrimination. And the kicker is you and others like you and boxcar try to support political believes by stunted religious beliefs. You may believe anything you want, but don't try to convince others of your so-called closeness to the divine, giving you a leg up in politics.

[boxcar]

You are lost in your own set of delusions. Your way is the not the only way. Believing ones own religion is superior to others is evidence of not understanding that very religion, and in fact substitutes ones own bloated egos for "God". Talk about individuals becoming "God". :rolleyes:

You know nothing of eastern thought. How could you? You immediately get on your high horse and assume eastern thought believes such silliness as individual becoming "Gods". (I guess your belief system is threatened by the fact that many eastern schools do not even mention "God")

Perfect knowledge is not the goal.

My spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with becoming "God", but do allow me to recognize a severely bloated ego when I see one. One cue is proselytizing Ad nauseam. And preaching sermons inappropriately. Actually rudimentary human judgment may lead to the same critical observation. The colloquial term is "BLOWHARD".

You have built fences around your own powers of self understanding and discrimination. And the kicker is you and others like you and boxcar try to support political believes by stunted religious beliefs. You may believe anything you want, but don't try to convince others of your so-called closeness to the divine, giving you a leg up in politics.

Well, geewhizikers, 'cap, if our political beliefs are supported or based upon our religious ones and they're "stunted", according to you, what does that make your secular humanistic religious beliefs that you use to support your political views? If ours is "stunted", then yours must be downright depraved!

Boxcar

[hcap]

The term is Separation of Church and State, not Separation of Humanism or Compassion and State. I would be pleased if you argued politics from a compassionate disposition.

Would not have to invoke Jefferson or the constitution to shoot you down.

[Trijack]

This thread started out about a must see video on Government.

I'll post a new idea for a law:

"The longer a thread goes on the PA message board, the more likely it will deteriorate into a chorus of individuals giving us their opinions on religion independent of the original topic."


I thought I was posting a video that i thought would be informative on where our country is at this point in time and where we might be headed. Boy has it drifted. How do we get religion into it. Why can't one see the video for what it is worth? I have my own answer for that but it would just start another argument from people on the left.

Jack

[Greyfox]

I thought I was posting a video that i thought would be informative on where our country is at this point in time and where we might be headed. Boy has it drifted. How do we get religion into it. Why can't one see the video for what it is worth? I have my own answer for that but it would just start another argument from people on the left.

Jack

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Good points.

[rastajenk]

Personally, I think the most important revelation in this thread is that the Z-man doesn't actually have an official capacity at his track. :D

[boxcar]

Personally, I think the most important revelation in this thread is that the Z-man doesn't actually have an official capacity at his track. :D

Does he have any capacity for anything at any time at any place?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The term is Separation of Church and State, not Separation of Humanism or Compassion and State. I would be pleased if you argued politics from a compassionate disposition.

Would not have to invoke Jefferson or the constitution to shoot you down.

Secular Humanism, for you info, has been declared a religion by the S.C. So, get yourself up to speed already.

And the biblical position is the most loving and compassionate way to express my political views -- even though you can't see it that way. It's not very kind or compassionate or loving of any godless government to encourage the masses to exercise faith in sinful human institutions for purposes of meeting people's temporal needs. Why would any good and godly government want to usurp God's rightful place as the sole object of people's faith?

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

You are lost in your own set of delusions. Your way is the not the only way. Believing ones own religion is superior to others is evidence of not understanding that very religion, and in fact substitutes ones own bloated egos for "God". Talk about individuals becoming "God". :rolleyes:

You know nothing of eastern thought. How could you? You immediately get on your high horse and assume eastern thought believes such silliness as individual becoming "Gods". (I guess your belief system is threatened by the fact that many eastern schools do not even mention "God")

Perfect knowledge is not the goal.

My spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with becoming "God", but do allow me to recognize a severely bloated ego when I see one. One cue is proselytizing Ad nauseam. And preaching sermons inappropriately. Actually rudimentary human judgment may lead to the same critical observation. The colloquial term is "BLOWHARD".

You have built fences around your own powers of self understanding and discrimination. And the kicker is you and others like you and boxcar try to support political believes by stunted religious beliefs. You may believe anything you want, but don't try to convince others of your so-called closeness to the divine, giving you a leg up in politics.

You are so predictable. I said nothing of the sort you accuse me about saying. Your friend Black Ruby used spiritual beliefs as the standard to dengrate a man's political opinions. I used you as an example to show the absurdity of Black Ruby's assertions.

I made no judgment about any particular religion being preferable or correct in my posts to Black Ruby. I advocated the opposite.

Yet you decide to attack me for defending religious freedom. the idea of separation of Church and State and opposing Black Ruby's ridiculous assertion that a man's political beliefs are less credible if he holds certain spiritual beliefs. You are a hoot.

BTW I know quiite a bit about Eastern philosophy, as demonstrated in our many, many previous discussions about spirituality and religion.

You always show your true colors.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap, you said,


"BTW boxhead, I never said your religious views invalidate your political views. I did say using religious views to support and validate the political is wrong."

If you truly believe what you said, then why are you not taking Black Ruby to task for assering Glen Beck's political views are not credible because he is a Mormon?

Also, why do you not rail against Islam instead of just Christianity. Islam is certainly guilty of using religious views to support and validate the political?

Is it okay, that Islam, uses religious views to enact laws allowing wife beating, misogamy, allowing force to make people accept your beliefs, allowing killing people with different spiritual beliefs, etc. ?

Again, I ask why did you attack me when I objected to Black Ruby's assertion that religious views invalidate a person's political views?

[hcap]

You are so predictable. I said nothing of the sort you accuse me about saying. Your friend Black Ruby used spiritual beliefs as the standard to dengrate a man's political opinions. I used you as an example to show the absurdity of Black Ruby's assertions.

I made no judgment about any particular religion being preferable or correct in my posts to Black Ruby. I advocated the opposite.

Yet you decide to attack me for defending religious freedom. the idea of separation of Church and State and opposing Black Ruby's ridiculous assertion that a man's political beliefs are less credible if he holds certain spiritual beliefs. You are a hoot.

BTW I know quiite a bit about Eastern philosophy, as demonstrated in our many, many previous discussions about spirituality and religion.

You always show your true colors.

You were wrong about my spiritual views. You understand only the pop wisdom about other schools of thought. Your understanding of eastern philosophy is primitive. You and boxhead do not even understand the broad range of thought even in your own religion. But worse than preaching from sanctimonious soapboxes, both of you also preach politics from those same narrow religious frameworks.

Black Ruby said nothing about my spiritual views.
You did.

[hcap]

Yummy yummy yummy I've got love in my tummy reached number 4 on the charts, there's no limit to numbers when it comes to fools.The Ohio Express gave me a ride around 1970-1971 when I was hitchhiking cross country. The rock band stereotype to a tee. A van with carpeted walls. Their own album-(8 track?) of which their only big hit-Yummy yummy yummy I've got love in my tummy-was blasting.
Some decent smoke being passed around.

I had no idea it was 4 on the charts.

[Tom]

we all decide on a regular basis if someone's views on one thing might make us skeptical about their views on another. It doesn't mean we don't think they should have the right to those views, it just means that we personally reject them.

Ill-informed? what did I say about the beliefs of Mormons that isn't true?

So if people reject Obama because he is black, they are not racists?

[Tom]

hcap.......:ThmbUp: yummy yummy yummy!

[Show Me the Wire]

You were wrong about my spiritual views. You understand only the pop wisdom about other schools of thought. Your understanding of eastern philosophy is primitive. You and boxhead do not even understand the broad range of thought even in your own religion. But worse than preaching from sanctimonious soapboxes, both of you also preach politics from those same narrow religious frameworks.

Black Ruby said nothing about my spiritual views.
You did.

Keep on deflecting. I know enough about your spiritual veiws as we have had many discussions in the past regarding your views and mine.

Contrary to your assertion I have a deep understanding of my religion and the degrees of seperation within the different sects of Christianity.

Once, again I did no such thing you accuse me of doing. Prove your baseless accusations by qouting any preaching I did on my soapbox elevating my religious views over yours or anyone elses in this specific thread specifically responding to Black Ruby or you.

I used comparitve belief systems, to show the absurdity of Black Ruby's calim that religious views invalidate political views. Yet you still insist on attacking me, instead of correcting the false and prejudicial statements made by Black Ruby.

The only belief system I challenged was Black Ruby's prejudicial stance against Mormon spitirual beliefs, which some are common in other major religions and spititual philosophies.(more than likely this is a judgmental statement to you, based on your responses)

The more you attack my defense of religious freedom, the more you expose your agenda in supporting Black Ruby's political censorship based on spiritual beliefs.

You are a hoot.

[hcap]

hcap believes in the philosophy of individuall becoming Gods through finding perfect knowledge. So according to you he has no credibility regarding his political thoughts because of his spiritual beliefs (transforming into an invidual God, with his own individual realty).

....I know enough about your spiritual veiws as we have had many discussions in the past regarding your views and mine.
Shows you have learned nothing. Your misrepresented my views. I may disagree with Black Ruby but there was nothing directed towards me from his comments. On the other hand you and boxhead demean me and others on the board for disagreeing with your distorted and very bitter interpretations of Christianity. Condemn Black Ruby? Well then surely you must step up to the plate and say a few words about your mentor and his very personal comment and holier than thou attitude....

Your real issues are none of the above. Your real issues are your love for sin and hatred for God; therefore, you reject "dogma" that addreses these headon. And you reject the narrow path that leads to life and travel the broad path that leads to destruction because you have excluded Christ from your life.

Boxcar Judge not lest ye be judged. Both of you are quick to condemn others for minor offenses, yet cannot see the timber lodged in your own eyes. You and boxhead are parodies of good Christians

[hcap]

Tom, It was sort of like a living a poor imitation Beatles movie.
"Hard Day's Fright" maybe, or "Help! And I really mean it"

Today, I could never know for sure.
Too many yellow submarine flashbacks. :D

[rastajenk]

Back to the Civics lesson...

From Black Ruby's link to Mussolini's own words:

"...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.."

And: "Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State"

And: "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."

I fail to see how anybody could interpret his own words as a far rightwing ideology, or conservatism in the current sense gone overboard. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

[boxcar]

Back to the Civics lesson...

From Black Ruby's link to Mussolini's own words:

"...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.."

And: "Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State"

And: "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."

I fail to see how anybody could interpret his own words as a far rightwing ideology, or conservatism in the current sense gone overboard. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I betcha BO would be in hearty agreement with all these statements.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Shows you have learned nothing. Your misrepresented my views. I may disagree with Black Ruby but there was nothing directed towards me from his comments. On the other hand you and boxhead demean me and others on the board for disagreeing with your distorted and very bitter interpretations of Christianity. Condemn Black Ruby? Well then surely you must step up to the plate and say a few words about your mentor and his very personal comment and holier than thou attitude....
Judge not lest ye be judged. Both of you are quick to condemn others for minor offenses, yet cannot see the timber lodged in your own eyes. You and boxhead are parodies of good Christians


Post my qoutes were I demeaned you regarding your spiritual beleifs.

You still attack me without any justification. You couldn't find any qoutes because there weren't any.

The only thing I passed judgment on was the prejudicial statement against an individual because of his spiritual beliefs. Additionally, you have the gall to say prejudice against Mormons is a minor offense.

Keep on defending the indefensible and making unsubstantiated personal attacks.

[mostpost]

Back to the Civics lesson...

From Black Ruby's link to Mussolini's own words:

"...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.."

And: "Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State"

And: "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."

I fail to see how anybody could interpret his own words as a far rightwing ideology, or conservatism in the current sense gone overboard. Saying it is doesn't make it so.
Of course, you completely left out this paragraph from Black Ruby's link:
Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
Particularly the first line, to wit:
Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism

Other examples of opposites would be; up-down; fast-slow; hot-cold; and LEFT-RIGHT. Thus Fascism and it's most extreme form, Naziism, is the polar opposite politically of Socialism and its much more extreme derivative, Communism. The fact that Communism and Fascism both advocate repressive governments does not bring them any closer together on the political spectrum. No more than the fact that hot and cold are both examples of temperature would cause one to confuse ice with boiling water.

[rastajenk]

He says it's the opposite, but everything he says to explain himself puts the lie to that one sentence.

Go back to the clip linked in the original post here to see how the opposite of one totalitarian system cannot be another totalitarian system.

[Greyfox]

Go back to the clip linked in the original post here to see how the opposite of one totalitarian system cannot be another totalitarian system.

Exactly!:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Mostpost is still splitting upon left-right lines not appreciating that the spectrum probably should be more like a Moebus strip and not linear.