If you two yahoo's would drop the labels (ie. Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Facist, Communist, Liberal, Conservative, etc.) and just explain using words/phrases a 2nd grader would understand, I'll bet you might agree on something.
fishtaco
This list (and other very similar lists) have been around since your sister/mother was wiping your **** with 80 grit sandpaper. Come up with something origional.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republican beliefs
Republican beliefsFollow
Now, does anyone see why I just curse and make fun of Gbaji?
Eb
Smash, once again, great post.
Eb
Smash, once again, great post.
Things you have to believe to stay a Democrat:
Everything on that silly little list about Republicans.
Everything on that silly little list about Republicans.
xtreme,
what did you eat? that smells awful.
Edited, Thu Jun 10 17:01:35 2004 by DeanoTyler
what did you eat? that smells awful.
Edited, Thu Jun 10 17:01:35 2004 by DeanoTyler
Madahme the Charming wrote:
fishtaco
This list (and other very similar lists) have been around since your sister/mother was wiping your **** with 80 grit sandpaper. Come up with something origional.
Lets see quoted the source and gave you the option to read or not read.
You didnt dispute that anything on their was true or not just that you couldnt think of a better comeback then your older then me?
I posted this over a month ago and you in your brilliant wit managed to not only come up with the most thoughtful original comeback to my overused tiresome post that it only took you a month to do it KUDOS can I be you.
^^ That's got to be a:
BAM!
Eb
BAM!
Eb
Well. I've been off running errands all day, I will say this though:
Smash. I was waiting for you to bring up the "circle" model. Nice to see you finally did it.
That's a really nice model. And it "kinda" works. The problem though is that in every historical case we have, a government has arrived at the "fascist" side of the "circle" by traveling leftwards from socialism. It has *never* happened by a nation traveling rightwards.
So, if it's a circle, it's one in which you can only get to certain parts of it by traveling in a particular direction.
Honestly, I think most professors dream that circle model up purely because they are afraid to face the simple fact that fascism really isn't at the right end of the spectrum at all. It's still at the far left. The whole idea of having a "spectrum" is flawed IMO. There are combinations of government styles and economic models that don't fit well at all.
I think the fundamental problem is that people try to create a spectrum based on how a government is actually run, and then tie it into their pet beliefs. Clearly, a government that seeks to provide economic and civic "equality" must be "good", and one that doesn't must be "bad". If you create your spectrum such the the more a government attempts to make people equal the farther to the left, and the more it doesn't the more to the right, everything seems to fit (assuming you are a US Liberal).
But there are nagging problems. See, a classic dictatorship would like to the right, but that has nothing in common specificaly with a "hands off" capitalistic system. Of course, since most of the people who write textbooks are Liberals in the US, that little incongruity never seems to come up.
The real problem for such theorists comes about when dealing with communism and fascism (as we can see from this argument). Clearly, Communism arises directly from an extreme application of socialism. But all the power ends up in the hands of a few infividuals, so that's more like a dictatorship, right? Hmmm... That's a problem because we have the assumption that making people "equal", will mean they'll have more freedom and more say in their governship.
The solution then is to make up some bogus explanation as to why our particular pet theory isn't to blame. It's really just "bad men" disguising themselves as socialists, who come up with a scheme to hoodwink the workers into falling into dictatorship. Then. To make the spectrum line work, we wrap it into a circle, call Communism really a "right wing" position and be done with it.
A better way to look at governments and where they lie on a "spectrum" (although I don't like the spectrum idea at all), is to look not at how they govern, but how they arrive at power. Why they have power is really more important then what they do with it.
If we re-align left and right such that the left is power that is granted by the masses, and the right is power that "taken" from the masses, then the whole thing looks very different. We still strive to be in the middle, since that represents the least amount of "power" that we've vested in our government.
We can now start placing various government forms on the line.
A traditional monarchy would be placed a goodly way to the right. The people didn't give the king his power. He just inhereted it. He makes the rules. He *is* the law. Thus, he's both to the right and a distance from the middle.
Dictators also fall to the right. They take their power (typically via a coup or revolution). There may be some amount of the masses giving him power, but odds are they just wanted the last person removed more then giving him the power. This is also on the right, and a good distance from the middle.
Democracies, by their nature will fall in the middle range. However, they will lean left or right based on how much power the government is given. Typically, the more "conservative" the government, the more to the right it is. The more "Liberal", the more to the left. This is only casually related to the idea of making people "equal". The reason is that the only way to make them "equal" is for the government to have control over those things that make them equal. The only way to ensure equal pay is for the government to control the pay rates. The only way to ensure jobs for everyone is to socialize the work force. See how that works?
Socialisms fall a bit more to the left. Remember, socialism and democracy are not opposing ideas. Democracy simply has to do with how we give the power to the government. It does not say anything about *how much* power we give. A Socialism is typically going to be some form of representative governing system, where the people choose to allow their government a great deal of power in determining what goods are produced and at what rates, and who recieves those goods.
Communism is farther to the left. The issue with Communismm is that the people give *all* the power to the government. The result is similar to a dictatorship except that the people chose to give that power away instead of it simply being taken away at gunpoint. That's a huge distinction. Communisms will go to great lengths to convince the people that they haven't really lost anything. They are all part of the "workers paradise", and they all recieve evenly from the fruits of everyone's labors. Of course, that's typically a lie, but as long as enough people are convinced of this (or given no choice but to accept the lie), the system will continue to work.
Fascism is *also* to the left. Same reason. The people give power to the leadership. The difference is that instead of doing it under the ideals that power and prosperity will be shared, they do it as a result of a strong nationalistic ferver that convinces them that their leader(s) is/are larger then life and will somehow magically lead them all to a greater prosperity. Where the Communists think of themselves as part of some sort of global workers commune, the fascists think of themselves as part of a single nation with great power and a glorious future. By giving power to the leadership, they get to be a part of that glorious future.
When you look at the scale that way, everything fits. There is no need for odd gyrations and justifications. It's really very simple. Do the people give power to the government?, or does the government take power from the people? The answer to that question, and to what degree the power ends up in the governments hands, determines where they are on the scale.
It also nicely explains why every example of facsism has started from the left. Because in facsism, the power isn't taken, it's given. Hitler was granted power by a mandate from the masses. Mussolini did as well. It's also why I don't really think of Franco as a fascist. I think he called himself one to get support from Germany, but in reality he was just a dictator. He was a general who ran a successful revolution during a period of instability in Spain. There's nothing particularly fascist about him.
I'm sorry Smash. Your professor was an idiot. Most of the people who write the textbooks on this stuff are idiots. They have an agenda, and the agenda is to distance the "left" from any wrongdoing. That's why you were taught what you were taught.
Smash. I was waiting for you to bring up the "circle" model. Nice to see you finally did it.
That's a really nice model. And it "kinda" works. The problem though is that in every historical case we have, a government has arrived at the "fascist" side of the "circle" by traveling leftwards from socialism. It has *never* happened by a nation traveling rightwards.
So, if it's a circle, it's one in which you can only get to certain parts of it by traveling in a particular direction.
Honestly, I think most professors dream that circle model up purely because they are afraid to face the simple fact that fascism really isn't at the right end of the spectrum at all. It's still at the far left. The whole idea of having a "spectrum" is flawed IMO. There are combinations of government styles and economic models that don't fit well at all.
I think the fundamental problem is that people try to create a spectrum based on how a government is actually run, and then tie it into their pet beliefs. Clearly, a government that seeks to provide economic and civic "equality" must be "good", and one that doesn't must be "bad". If you create your spectrum such the the more a government attempts to make people equal the farther to the left, and the more it doesn't the more to the right, everything seems to fit (assuming you are a US Liberal).
But there are nagging problems. See, a classic dictatorship would like to the right, but that has nothing in common specificaly with a "hands off" capitalistic system. Of course, since most of the people who write textbooks are Liberals in the US, that little incongruity never seems to come up.
The real problem for such theorists comes about when dealing with communism and fascism (as we can see from this argument). Clearly, Communism arises directly from an extreme application of socialism. But all the power ends up in the hands of a few infividuals, so that's more like a dictatorship, right? Hmmm... That's a problem because we have the assumption that making people "equal", will mean they'll have more freedom and more say in their governship.
The solution then is to make up some bogus explanation as to why our particular pet theory isn't to blame. It's really just "bad men" disguising themselves as socialists, who come up with a scheme to hoodwink the workers into falling into dictatorship. Then. To make the spectrum line work, we wrap it into a circle, call Communism really a "right wing" position and be done with it.
A better way to look at governments and where they lie on a "spectrum" (although I don't like the spectrum idea at all), is to look not at how they govern, but how they arrive at power. Why they have power is really more important then what they do with it.
If we re-align left and right such that the left is power that is granted by the masses, and the right is power that "taken" from the masses, then the whole thing looks very different. We still strive to be in the middle, since that represents the least amount of "power" that we've vested in our government.
We can now start placing various government forms on the line.
A traditional monarchy would be placed a goodly way to the right. The people didn't give the king his power. He just inhereted it. He makes the rules. He *is* the law. Thus, he's both to the right and a distance from the middle.
Dictators also fall to the right. They take their power (typically via a coup or revolution). There may be some amount of the masses giving him power, but odds are they just wanted the last person removed more then giving him the power. This is also on the right, and a good distance from the middle.
Democracies, by their nature will fall in the middle range. However, they will lean left or right based on how much power the government is given. Typically, the more "conservative" the government, the more to the right it is. The more "Liberal", the more to the left. This is only casually related to the idea of making people "equal". The reason is that the only way to make them "equal" is for the government to have control over those things that make them equal. The only way to ensure equal pay is for the government to control the pay rates. The only way to ensure jobs for everyone is to socialize the work force. See how that works?
Socialisms fall a bit more to the left. Remember, socialism and democracy are not opposing ideas. Democracy simply has to do with how we give the power to the government. It does not say anything about *how much* power we give. A Socialism is typically going to be some form of representative governing system, where the people choose to allow their government a great deal of power in determining what goods are produced and at what rates, and who recieves those goods.
Communism is farther to the left. The issue with Communismm is that the people give *all* the power to the government. The result is similar to a dictatorship except that the people chose to give that power away instead of it simply being taken away at gunpoint. That's a huge distinction. Communisms will go to great lengths to convince the people that they haven't really lost anything. They are all part of the "workers paradise", and they all recieve evenly from the fruits of everyone's labors. Of course, that's typically a lie, but as long as enough people are convinced of this (or given no choice but to accept the lie), the system will continue to work.
Fascism is *also* to the left. Same reason. The people give power to the leadership. The difference is that instead of doing it under the ideals that power and prosperity will be shared, they do it as a result of a strong nationalistic ferver that convinces them that their leader(s) is/are larger then life and will somehow magically lead them all to a greater prosperity. Where the Communists think of themselves as part of some sort of global workers commune, the fascists think of themselves as part of a single nation with great power and a glorious future. By giving power to the leadership, they get to be a part of that glorious future.
When you look at the scale that way, everything fits. There is no need for odd gyrations and justifications. It's really very simple. Do the people give power to the government?, or does the government take power from the people? The answer to that question, and to what degree the power ends up in the governments hands, determines where they are on the scale.
It also nicely explains why every example of facsism has started from the left. Because in facsism, the power isn't taken, it's given. Hitler was granted power by a mandate from the masses. Mussolini did as well. It's also why I don't really think of Franco as a fascist. I think he called himself one to get support from Germany, but in reality he was just a dictator. He was a general who ran a successful revolution during a period of instability in Spain. There's nothing particularly fascist about him.
I'm sorry Smash. Your professor was an idiot. Most of the people who write the textbooks on this stuff are idiots. They have an agenda, and the agenda is to distance the "left" from any wrongdoing. That's why you were taught what you were taught.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Actually, let me add a bit more to my "line".
A democracy that leans too far to the left risks turning into fascism. There is no "king" or ruler figure, so if one presents itself, the people might be inclined to grant power to him.
A monarchy that leans too far to the left risks turning into communism. There is a king, but if the people move to the left too much, they'll think he's the obstacle to true social/economic freedom, and replace him.
A dictatorship will generally arise as the result of too much authoritarianism. Too little power in the government can make it easier for a state of chaos to arise and for someone to simply seize power from a weak state that the people have no strong vested interest in.
But these are all just my theories. You're welcome to quote various teachers who've told you otherwise throughout the years. However, I think that my model matches reality much better then what you've ever seen in your textbooks. I honestly think most of us were taught the way we were simply because for the last hundred years, the modern world has been enamored with the ideals of socialism to the point where everyone (especially in Europe) simply assumes it's a "better" way of doing things. And honestly, in Europe, they're mostly right. They're coming from mostly monarchies. Balancing the right leaning power of a monarch with the left leaning power of socialism works pretty well as long as it's "balanced". A pure Democracy has no inherent right side authority figure, and so has to be very much more moderate about how far they move into socialism.
But I guess just because my model correctly matches every example in the real world is no reason for it to be right...
A democracy that leans too far to the left risks turning into fascism. There is no "king" or ruler figure, so if one presents itself, the people might be inclined to grant power to him.
A monarchy that leans too far to the left risks turning into communism. There is a king, but if the people move to the left too much, they'll think he's the obstacle to true social/economic freedom, and replace him.
A dictatorship will generally arise as the result of too much authoritarianism. Too little power in the government can make it easier for a state of chaos to arise and for someone to simply seize power from a weak state that the people have no strong vested interest in.
But these are all just my theories. You're welcome to quote various teachers who've told you otherwise throughout the years. However, I think that my model matches reality much better then what you've ever seen in your textbooks. I honestly think most of us were taught the way we were simply because for the last hundred years, the modern world has been enamored with the ideals of socialism to the point where everyone (especially in Europe) simply assumes it's a "better" way of doing things. And honestly, in Europe, they're mostly right. They're coming from mostly monarchies. Balancing the right leaning power of a monarch with the left leaning power of socialism works pretty well as long as it's "balanced". A pure Democracy has no inherent right side authority figure, and so has to be very much more moderate about how far they move into socialism.
But I guess just because my model correctly matches every example in the real world is no reason for it to be right...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yeah, you're right.
What would he know about government or political science.
http://gking.harvard.edu/vitae/node4.html
If only the political science community would wake up and trust the oppinion of a Unix flunkie with a year of community college under his belt they'd see how the world REALLY works.
The problem you're having with this whole discussion is that you assume the left wants power to reside in the State when it doesn't. The RIGHT want's power to reside in the state.
This is why Left orginisations, like the ACLU, lead the fight in defending personal freedoms while Right orginisations lead the fight in restricting them.
You're confusing the desire for everyone to contriubte equally to the sucess of the country as a whole with the desire for the state to controll everything citizens do.
Not even vaguely the same.
Here are some things you've left completely unanswered that make your argument impossible:
1. Hitler was never even anything vaguely resembling a Socalist.
2. Franco fought a bloody war AGAINST the Left to install Fasicsm in Spain.
3. Germany was a Democracy before Hitler took power.
You are using one example, Mussolini, to try and leverage a sweeping general argument, which is meaningless in any argument.
You are ignoring the other, MORE NUMEROUS, examples that indicate your argument is completely wrong.
I offer oppinions from people teaching Graduate level courses at Harvard.
You offer oppinions from people who randomly set up a web site.
I carefully counter all of your arguments with fact after fact.
You ingore my arguements and simply repeat the same factually flawed premise even after I deomnstrate unequivovally how falwed it is.
Your credibility on this subject is, as ussual, zero.
I'm glad that you're so oppinionated, but I wish you'd take the time to be more educated. I understand that because of your personal history that you're of the oppinion that University is a waste of time and just a place where people who aren't as bright as you are go to learn old out of date theories that don't work in the modern world.
Which is sad, because you're clearly not a stupid man, just unable to think critically about things in a logical way. I think that's something you could learn if you'd just put in the effort and that you'd be a better peron for it.
Good luck with your non-logical non-fact based theories, though.
If you want to continue this disscussion, please use a highly structured format so that it's clear to everyone what you're arguing.
I'd suggest the following:
1. Fact - All fascist states have began as Socalist states.
2. Fact - Germany was a Socalist state.
And so on.
Then we can isolate what it is you think to be fact and it'll be easy to demostrate the accuracy or inaccuracy of the foundations of your argument. Then you can list your conclusions accordningly based on the facts that you establish.
If you can't do that, I'm done with this. I have no desire to watch you yet again attempt to win an argument by sheer verbosity. That may be the way it works in the circles you travel in, but where I come from fact is more important than word count.
Your move.
What would he know about government or political science.
http://gking.harvard.edu/vitae/node4.html
If only the political science community would wake up and trust the oppinion of a Unix flunkie with a year of community college under his belt they'd see how the world REALLY works.
The problem you're having with this whole discussion is that you assume the left wants power to reside in the State when it doesn't. The RIGHT want's power to reside in the state.
This is why Left orginisations, like the ACLU, lead the fight in defending personal freedoms while Right orginisations lead the fight in restricting them.
You're confusing the desire for everyone to contriubte equally to the sucess of the country as a whole with the desire for the state to controll everything citizens do.
Not even vaguely the same.
Here are some things you've left completely unanswered that make your argument impossible:
1. Hitler was never even anything vaguely resembling a Socalist.
2. Franco fought a bloody war AGAINST the Left to install Fasicsm in Spain.
3. Germany was a Democracy before Hitler took power.
You are using one example, Mussolini, to try and leverage a sweeping general argument, which is meaningless in any argument.
You are ignoring the other, MORE NUMEROUS, examples that indicate your argument is completely wrong.
I offer oppinions from people teaching Graduate level courses at Harvard.
You offer oppinions from people who randomly set up a web site.
I carefully counter all of your arguments with fact after fact.
You ingore my arguements and simply repeat the same factually flawed premise even after I deomnstrate unequivovally how falwed it is.
Your credibility on this subject is, as ussual, zero.
I'm glad that you're so oppinionated, but I wish you'd take the time to be more educated. I understand that because of your personal history that you're of the oppinion that University is a waste of time and just a place where people who aren't as bright as you are go to learn old out of date theories that don't work in the modern world.
Which is sad, because you're clearly not a stupid man, just unable to think critically about things in a logical way. I think that's something you could learn if you'd just put in the effort and that you'd be a better peron for it.
Good luck with your non-logical non-fact based theories, though.
If you want to continue this disscussion, please use a highly structured format so that it's clear to everyone what you're arguing.
I'd suggest the following:
1. Fact - All fascist states have began as Socalist states.
2. Fact - Germany was a Socalist state.
And so on.
Then we can isolate what it is you think to be fact and it'll be easy to demostrate the accuracy or inaccuracy of the foundations of your argument. Then you can list your conclusions accordningly based on the facts that you establish.
If you can't do that, I'm done with this. I have no desire to watch you yet again attempt to win an argument by sheer verbosity. That may be the way it works in the circles you travel in, but where I come from fact is more important than word count.
Your move.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Ahh after sadly have read that whole 2page long thread, I can proudly say : HAHA Bush you suck
Quote:
If you two yahoo's would drop the labels (ie. Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Facist, Communist, Liberal, Conservative, etc.) and just explain using words/phrases a 2nd grader would understand, I'll bet you might agree on something
Sorry if it's too confusing for you. I'd recomen a good Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesarus for when you can't understand the terminology.
Alternately you could just say "I don't undersntand, what's a Fascist?" and I'd be happy to explain. Only the insecure are afraid to show ignorance.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Yah know if I understood even half of that I would say:
/cheer
LoL J/P. I understood it all very clearly hehe just had to say something that I thought was funny
/cheer
LoL J/P. I understood it all very clearly hehe just had to say something that I thought was funny
Smasharoo wrote:
Quote:
If you two yahoo's would drop the labels (ie. Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Facist, Communist, Liberal, Conservative, etc.) and just explain using words/phrases a 2nd grader would understand, I'll bet you might agree on something
Sorry if it's too confusing for you. I'd recomen a good Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesarus for when you can't understand the terminology.
Alternately you could just say "I don't undersntand, what's a Fascist?" and I'd be happy to explain. Only the insecure are afraid to show ignorance.
I'd like a lengthy explanation of a fascist. Oops typo.
Edited, Thu Jun 10 20:14:56 2004 by CrimsonMagician
P.S. It's spelled Fascist
fas·cist
n.
1. often Fascist
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
fas·cism
n.
1. often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2.A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control
There. Hope that helps ^^
Edited, Thu Jun 10 20:15:05 2004 by Aygen
fas·cist
n.
1. often Fascist
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
fas·cism
n.
1. often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2.A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control
There. Hope that helps ^^
Edited, Thu Jun 10 20:15:05 2004 by Aygen
Aygen wrote:
P.S. It's spelled Fascist
fas·cist
n.
1. often Fascist
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
fas·cism
n.
1. often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2.A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control
There. Hope that helps ^^
Edited, Thu Jun 10 20:15:05 2004 by Aygen
fas·cist
n.
1. often Fascist
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
fas·cism
n.
1. often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2.A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control
There. Hope that helps ^^
Edited, Thu Jun 10 20:15:05 2004 by Aygen
Thanks, but I actually wanted a Smash definition.
Quote:
I'd like a lengthy explanation of a facist.
I think the wikepedia article on it is excellent. It aslo lists other Fascist states aside from WW2 Italy, Germany, or Franco's Spain.
It's a great place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
That was pretty long, and detailed.
Quote:
That was pretty long, and detailed.
Isn't that what you were looking for?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Yes. It was. It was also nice to have a big picture of Hitler on my work screen. Thanks. I really wanted to read another smashrant though.
Smasharoo wrote:
The problem you're having with this whole discussion is that you assume the left wants power to reside in the State when it doesn't. The RIGHT want's power to reside in the state.
This is why Left orginisations, like the ACLU, lead the fight in defending personal freedoms while Right orginisations lead the fight in restricting them.
This is why Left orginisations, like the ACLU, lead the fight in defending personal freedoms while Right orginisations lead the fight in restricting them.
Which is typically leftist rhetoric.
In the classic French Revolution era definition. The "left" is that which promotes a high rate of change, and the "right" is that which opposes change. There is no assumption of one being "better" then the other. Freedoms and liberties dont even enter the equation (but are often touted by those "leftists", since those are the ideal that they personally held to). That's something that those who advocate socialism a century later tack on as part of their own political belief system.
In modern parlance, left tends to be socialist simply because there's an assumption that by promoting equality among the people, we give a voice to them and thus change occurs faster. This is *generally* true. There's enough overlap between the classic defition of left and right and the more modern use of it that the two more or less fit (but not perfectly).
The flaw though is that a change "from the left" can result in a bad result and reduction in freedoms for the people just as easily as it can result in increased freedoms. There is no assurance of a positive result. The "left" only assures us that there will be change and dialog.
Quote:
You're confusing the desire for everyone to contriubte equally to the sucess of the country as a whole with the desire for the state to controll everything citizens do.
No. You are confusing the goals of the people in a movement, and the result that movement ultimately has. Just because a leftist organization has the goal of freedom for all does not mean that the result of their actions will actually increase freedoms for anyone.
You seem to have a very warped idea of what socialism is Smash:
Socialism:
1. [n] a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. [n] an economic system based on state ownership of capital
Get it? Socialism is also a "left" movement because it's generally brought about by the demands of the people, and not by the enforcement of the current authorities (otherwise we just call it a dictatorship/monarchy). The idea behind socialism is that the people demand that the good and services of the nation be divided equitably. The only way to do that is for the government to control the distribution of wealth. The degree to which that is done can vary, but in all cases, socialism involves the concept of having the government control the industry.
You keep arguing that it's about social freedoms. It's not. The left wants us to think that by granting an equitable result the people will be more free, but the reality is that there is no guarantee of that. In a moderate Socialism, it can work (which many European nations have). If we travel too far to the left, we can give too much power and control to the government and result in either fascism or communism. Again, that's usually dependant on whether we started with a democracy or a monarchy.
The least free people are those who recieve their bread from the government. The most free are those who do not rely on a government to feed them. You may argue that the second case is more "unfair", and you could be right. But "fairness" and "freedom" are not the same thing. You want them to be, because you are a leftist and that is your belief. But there is absolutely no logical reason why socialism would inherently increase the freedoms of the people. In fact, there are numerous examples where it ends up doing exactly the opposite.
The real world simply does not match what your textbook have taught you. Ever thought that the textbooks are just wrong?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
See my simple request that you structure facts and conclusions as line items that can be easily proved or disproved.
Otherwise I'm not responding.
I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to do so, what with your arguments not being founded on facts and your conclusions not being founded on logic.
Otherwise I'm not responding.
I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to do so, what with your arguments not being founded on facts and your conclusions not being founded on logic.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Interesting tidbit from your link Smash:
I'm certainly not the only one who views fascism and socialism (and communism) as all being at the same end of the spectrum.
It's interesting though that the rebuttle to the idea doesn't say that fascism and socialism have no overlap, but that fascism and [/b]Marxism/Communism[/b] do not overlap. Um... Duh. Both fascism and Communism are two different directions that extreme socialism can take. But both have the same root: Socialism.
The Communists are socialists who advocate taking complete control of the nation by promising that the needs of the workers will be better filled that way. The Fascists are socialists who advocate taking complete control of the nation by promising that by elevating the state, the people will become more then the sum of their parts (thus rejecting the communist model).
I just can't see how you can argue that both do not ultimately arise from socialist thought. Every example of a classic facsist has been someone who was socialist but thought that communism wouldn't work, so tried something else instead.
Quote:
A fascist government is usually characterized as "extreme right-wing," and a socialist government as "left-wing". Others such as Hannah Arendt and Friedrich Hayek argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed "socialist" governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles. Many socialists and communists also reject those totalitarian governments, seeing them as fascism with a socialist mask. (See political spectrum and political model for more on these ideas).
Italian fascist leader Mussolini's own origins on the left, as a leader of the more radical wing of the Italian Socialist Party, has frequently been noted. After his turn to the right, Mussolini continued to employ much of the rhetoric of socialism, but substituting the nation for social class as the basis of political loyalty. Many other fascist leaders, including Sir Oswald Mosley in Britain and Jacques Doriot and Marcel Déat in France, also began their careers on the political left before turning to fascism.
Socialists and other critics of Arendt and Hayek maintain that there is no ideological overlap between Fascism and Marxism; they regard the two as utterly distinct. Since Marxism is the ideological basis of Communism, they argue that the comparisons drawn by Arendt and others are invalid.
Italian fascist leader Mussolini's own origins on the left, as a leader of the more radical wing of the Italian Socialist Party, has frequently been noted. After his turn to the right, Mussolini continued to employ much of the rhetoric of socialism, but substituting the nation for social class as the basis of political loyalty. Many other fascist leaders, including Sir Oswald Mosley in Britain and Jacques Doriot and Marcel Déat in France, also began their careers on the political left before turning to fascism.
Socialists and other critics of Arendt and Hayek maintain that there is no ideological overlap between Fascism and Marxism; they regard the two as utterly distinct. Since Marxism is the ideological basis of Communism, they argue that the comparisons drawn by Arendt and others are invalid.
I'm certainly not the only one who views fascism and socialism (and communism) as all being at the same end of the spectrum.
It's interesting though that the rebuttle to the idea doesn't say that fascism and socialism have no overlap, but that fascism and [/b]Marxism/Communism[/b] do not overlap. Um... Duh. Both fascism and Communism are two different directions that extreme socialism can take. But both have the same root: Socialism.
The Communists are socialists who advocate taking complete control of the nation by promising that the needs of the workers will be better filled that way. The Fascists are socialists who advocate taking complete control of the nation by promising that by elevating the state, the people will become more then the sum of their parts (thus rejecting the communist model).
I just can't see how you can argue that both do not ultimately arise from socialist thought. Every example of a classic facsist has been someone who was socialist but thought that communism wouldn't work, so tried something else instead.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smasharoo wrote:
See my simple request that you structure facts and conclusions as line items that can be easily proved or disproved.
Otherwise I'm not responding.
I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to do so, what with your arguments not being founded on facts and your conclusions not being founded on logic.
Otherwise I'm not responding.
I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to do so, what with your arguments not being founded on facts and your conclusions not being founded on logic.
Huh? What more do you want? You think that socialism is something it is not. You think that "left" is something that it is not. It's kinda hard to argue with someone when that person doesn't even use the same definitions that you do.
Look. It's a very simple excersize Smash. List the tenants of socialism. Then list the tenants of capitalism. Then list the tenants of communism. Then list the tenants of fascism.
Ignore people who say: "fascism is opposed to communism". That's not important. What matters is what they actually did and believed, and how they brought about that level of power. When you do that, you will find that fascism is almost line by line a direct match with socialism. In fact, it's extremely close to communism as well. The only major difference between the two is the justifications that are used to get the people to support the movements.
What more "fact" do you want?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
I'm certainly not the only one who views fascism and socialism (and communism) as all being at the same end of the spectrum.
No, considering that I explained the whole circle thing to you, I'd say everyone agrees that the extremes are extreme. Your presumption that US Democrats leaning slightly to the left are more likely to lead to Fasicsm is insane.
You'll notcie that even the people who aregue something vaguely simmilar to what you're saying, but without the myriad of logical and factual flaws are carefull only to use Musolii and a few other minor leaders who ACTUALLY did begin on the left as opposed to Hitler and Franco who began on the right.
The article section you link supports the circle example by pointing out the overlap in methodologies at the bottom of the circle.
This:
Quote:
Others such as Hannah Arendt and Friedrich Hayek argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed "socialist" governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles
Is identical to this:
Quote:
PK: I think this is a better working model for this debate. Extreme Socalism and extreme Fascism have much more in common with each other than they do with any of the countries governments near the top of the circe. While the US shades to the left, it has much more in common with a country on the right of the circle near the top than it does with Cuba. Where Jordan is further to the right than the US is to the left, it's still on ballance closer to the US than to China, while Iran is closer to China than to us, but by virtue of them both being Rightist governments is closer to Jordan than to us. On the old specturm it would be closer to us than China and I don't think that's an effective tool for this discussion.
Which, apparently you disagree with. Note the important qualification of the quote you use of TOTALITARIAN socialism. There's no argument made that Socalism LEADS to totalitarinism.
So, which is it? Do you agree or disagree? Or is it your typical stance that if I say it you disagree, if you find the exact same thing online it's fact?
Just wondering.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
What more "fact" do you want?
I explained what I want. It's very, very, simple. I also explained that I completely understand why you can't do it because it lays your argument bare and when confronted with the actuall facts and conclusions no sane person would be able to agree.
But, for arguments sake, I'll state it again.
List what you're using as facts.
List the conlusions you're drawing from them.
Don't spend paragraph after paragraph with meanigless rhetoric trying to obscure how stunningly bad your argument is.
Here's an unrellated example:
1 Fact: The sky is blue.
2 Fact: The Ocean is blue.
3 Fact: Helicopters operate perfectly in the sky.
1 Conslusion: Helicopters operate perfectly under water.
There's a simple example of how flawed your arguments are. If they're not flawed it should be child's play to present them in that form and win this whole argument in a single post.
If you can't do it, I'll have to assume it's because you realize the horrible inadaquecies of the entire premise you're arguing.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 400
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (400)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republican beliefs
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC