[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Did the bumper sticker you got this notion from happen to include the definition?

I thought it was obvious and didn't need me going into the dictionary. Where did I learn this? No, not a bumper sticker, rather I learned it in European History class. But... if you're really too lazy to look it up (especially when OS X makes it real easy for you), I'll oblige:

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

No, the child has a mother and a father. Until 'science' creates a synthetic sperm - you will *always* require a man in order to produce a child.

The RNA comes from the other woman, not from sperm. There is no man involved in the process.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Because if you actually pay attention to the message of the Bible, it's a very liberal message. It is nearly entirely contrary to the way American Republicans behave. It's about loving each other and helping each other and helping the poor and not being selfish and materialistic. You're not supposed to build up filthy amounts of wealth and then build a big wall on your southern border surround by armed guards to keep the poor away from your wealth. You're supposed to help them, even if it means giving up all of your wealth.

That type of message is repeated over and over again, but people seem to miss it. Instead, they find crazy messages in there like no dancing or no drinking or original sin.

The world would be a really cool place if large numbers of Christians actually paid attention to what the Bible said and quit harping on how people are committing various sins and started just unconditionally loving each other.

Does that sound more like a liberal or a conservative? I'm not simply picking out a few verses, the idea of putting God and others before yourself is flat out hammered on by Jesus. It's just not an appealing message to most people.

Makes sense to me.

[SpaceMonkey]

This thread is officially hilarious.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

This thread is officially hilarious.

It needs more Llamas.



(edit: in his absence, I had to ask myself WWBD? -- what would Boots do?)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I thought it was obvious and didn't need me going into the dictionary. Where did I learn this? No, not a bumper sticker, rather I learned it in European History class.

And which way, politically, do history teachers tend to swing? Are they likely to tar their own side with any negative association such as this?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And which way, politically, do history teachers tend to swing? Are they likely to tar their own side with any negative association such as this?

lol.

It was from both the teacher and the text book. It's a historical *fact* that fascism is on the extreme right of the political spectrum. I have no idea what my teacher's political leanings were, but whatever they were, they were probably very logical because she was an amazing teacher. She didn't let her political views show in the class, so again, sorry I can't answer your questions.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

lol.

It was from both the teacher and the text book. It's a historical *fact* that fascism is on the extreme right of the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by Oswald Mosley

“I am not, and never have been, a man of the right."

[andi*pandi]

hi thread!

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Originally Posted by Oswald Mosley

“I am not, and never have been, a man of the right."

Well... I'm not sure why the discrepancy, perhaps in England at that time they were using different definitions of 'right' or 'fascism', but in every text that I have read, fascism is described as extreme right, and communism as extreme left.

[Monique]

At any time in history all governments meddle into a person's life. Rules, laws... with some government like facism, people become brainwashed and it become a dictature. I don't believe people would actually vote for a dictatorship. They might at the beginning thinking it is a legitimate government like in 1933 in Germany.

Why do you keep saying that facism is left, Doofy; do you have the name of an author to support this??

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Well... I'm not sure why the discrepancy, perhaps in England at that time they were using different definitions of 'right' or 'fascism'

For reference, that quote from Mosley is no more than about 30 years old and appeared in a letter from him to the Times.

For further reference, Mosley hung out with Mussolini and Hitler.

Originally Posted by itistoday

but in every text that I have read, fascism is described as extreme right, and communism as extreme left.

That's because all the texts you read and all the words you hear are written/spoken by leftie historians (generally, there is no other kind) who either can't or won't see the real lay of the land.

The extreme right simply does not provide for the mechanisms which fascism requires to come to power. It's that simple. The extreme right is not nationalist, for example. Why would someone on the extreme right put their country before their own pockets? They wouldn't. That's why companies on the right put their moveable jobs abroad into low-pay areas. If they were at all nationalist, they wouldn't do this.

Is Hitler on the extreme right here?



No. And what's more, that graph is somewhat flawed in real life terms. In practical terms, it's more like a diagonal line from north west to south east (then transpose the leaders onto that).

It's real easy: The left does not want to admit that the ultimate practical outcome of most of their policies ends in fascism. The *only* reason that Hitler and Mussolini distanced themselves from the commies was because of a form of inter-brand rivalry.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

At any time in history all governments meddle into a person's life. Rules, laws... with some government like facism, people become brainwashed and it become a dictature. I don't believe people would actually vote for a dictatorship. They might at the beginning thinking it is a legitimate government like in 1933 in Germany.

Generally, people haven't got a clue what they're voting for.
If they did, the US Libertarian Party would be the only people ever in power, since they're the only party which really upholds American values.

Originally Posted by Monique

Why do you keep saying that facism is left, Doofy; do you have the name of an author to support this??

I'm not aware of any such authors - I do my own research.
Just google "fascism left".

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Generally, people haven't got a clue what they're voting for.
If they did, the US Libertarian Party would be the only people ever in power, since they're the only party which really upholds American values.

I'm mostly a libertarian, yet it seems most of my views clash with yours (if I remember correctly). Do you support abortion? The legalization of all illegal drugs? Are you against the war? If your answer is 'no' to any of those questions, I don't think you're a libertarian.

[andi*pandi]

doofy, I've seen that chart done differently... for one the grey labels just seem off.

try this one:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

doofy, I've seen that chart done differently... for one the grey labels just seem off.

try this one:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

That's an awesome quiz. It seems I'm mainly liberal because while I mainly to the "agree" side of the personal issues section, I'm more on the "maybe" and "disagree" side of economic issues...

Edit: taking it a second time and tweaking my answers reveals a "liberal libertarian", with 90% on personal issues and 50% on economic issues.

[Jawbone54]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I think more people would be Libertarian if they thought a Libertarian candidate actually had a shot at winning.

I tested as 70% personal and 100% economic as a Libertarian.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I'm mostly a libertarian, yet it seems most of my views clash with yours (if I remember correctly).

Do you support abortion?

Yes, as long as the bloke who seeded the kiddo gets a say; and provided that the woman doesn't use community services; and provided that she's not my underage daughter.

I personally believe it's immoral and would never allow it within my own family... ...but what you do with your body is nowt to do with me.

Originally Posted by itistoday

The legalization of all illegal drugs?

Yes, as long as users can be tested for drug/drive or by their employers; and provided that said users do not use community resources if they go off their heads (i.e. free psychiatric treatment); and provided that the user doesn't have to commit any crimes (burglary, mugging) to pay for their habit.

Originally Posted by itistoday

Are you against the war?

Yep. I'm completely against all forced foreign intervention. That includes wars. That includes aid.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

doofy, I've seen that chart done differently... for one the grey labels just seem off.

try this one:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Thanks Andi.


I got 90% on both scores.

[itistoday]

Wow Doofy, I'm impressed. I wonder why I got the wrong impression...

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes, as long as users can be tested for drug/drive or by their employers; and provided that said users do not use community resources if they go off their heads (i.e. free psychiatric treatment); and provided that the user doesn't have to commit any crimes (burglary, mugging) to pay for their habit.

You won't have to worry about that. Libertarian values punish people for committing crimes against others so driving under the influence would still be a serious crime. And you won't have to worry about burglaries because drugs would be much cheaper if they were sold by licensed companies (not to mention safer).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Wow Doofy, I'm impressed. I wonder why I got the wrong impression...

It's that 40% difference in the economic axis which does it.

Oh, and the fact that I class anyone with a 40% or under in that axis as my enemy and I'm not shy about saying so.

[keekeeree]

Oh...my mistake. I thought this thread was about something else:

[Jawbone54]

Really cute, keekeeree. I suppose you love to preach "tolerance" to conservatives while ridiculing Christianity, don't you?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Really cute, keekeeree. I suppose you love to preach "tolerance" to conservatives while ridiculing Christianity, don't you?

haha.

that hit the nail on the head.

[keekeeree]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Really cute, keekeeree. I suppose you love to preach "tolerance" to conservatives while ridiculing Christianity, don't you?

I'll tell you what Jawbone, you don't know a thing about me. And where the hell do conservatives come into this?

I read the thread title, chuckled over it and chuckled even more when that image popped into my head.

Historically, Christians declared war on my Native American spirituality. That battle is still being fought today as Christians continue to send their hords of missionaries onto the reservations and into urban areas still looking to save the heathens.

Today, you need look no further than Cleveland's Chief Wahoo or Jackie Chan getting stoned with a "peace pipe" to see the kind of ridiculing aimed at Native American's spirituality. We're told to lighten up.

So I'll pass along the same advice to you.

[keekeeree]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

haha.

that hit the nail on the head.

What nail and what head? My dumbass cartoon has nothing to do with conservatives or whatever you're jerking your knee about today...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Really cute, keekeeree. I suppose you love to preach "tolerance" to conservatives while ridiculing Christianity, don't you?

Tolerance to most means just accepting what they believe in.

I've never met a truly tolerant people. Lots of people that claim they are. But zero that actually are.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by keekeeree

I'll tell you what Jawbone, you don't know a thing about me. And where the hell do conservatives come into this?

I read the thread title, chuckled over it and chuckled even more when that image popped into my head.

Historically, Christians declared war on my Native American spirituality. That battle is still being fought today as Christians continue to send their hords of missionaries onto the reservations and into urban areas still looking to save the heathens.

Today, you need look no further than Cleveland's Chief Wahoo or Jackie Chan getting stoned with a "peace pipe" to see the kind of ridiculing aimed at Native American's spirituality. We're told to lighten up.

So I'll pass along the same advice to you.

How does that make you feel?

[Kevin]

Jaw don't expect him to admit he would get upset by it now...
I mean come on.

it would totally be harmful to his defense.

[keekeeree]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

How does that make you feel?

Some dumbass wearing colored chicken feathers? I'd have to agree...he looks pretty damned funny to me!

Add a little "war paint", a 16-oz. Bud Light, and a few of his buddies and he'd fit right in at a Kansas City Chiefs game.



Rednecks pretending to be Redskins...now THAT'S funny.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by keekeeree

Rednecks pretending to be Redskins...now THAT'S funny.

What if someone called you a "drunken injun"

Or how about your dad?

Do you know calling the wrong person a redneck will get your teeth knocked out?

Would you go up to a african american and call them niggers? If so, why not.

What is wrong with these kids today and no manners.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I thought it was obvious and didn't need me going into the dictionary. Where did I learn this? No, not a bumper sticker, rather I learned it in European History class.

You'd have been better served learning it from a bumper sticker. Debates rage on whether or not fascism is left or right, but then you weren't paying attention in my class either. I've already provided a definition and addressed each point in kind.

But... if you're really too lazy to look it up (especially when OS X makes it real easy for you), I'll oblige:

I've already looked it up and provided it for the thread's benefit prior to you popping in. This disingenuous ignorance bit of yours does not become you. Especially when there seems to be a wealth of genuine ignorance to draw from.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by keekeeree

Historically, Christians declared war on my Native American spirituality. That battle is still being fought today as Christians continue to send their hords of missionaries onto the reservations and into urban areas still looking to save the heathens.

"hords of missionaries onto the reservations and into urban areas..." ??? There are not hords of missionaries going anywhere. This is part of the problem. There are however vans that provide food and water to the hungry, set up small clinics to administer medication to the homeless, etc... Groups such as the NACF see things a bit differently than you.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the "Christians having driven out the Native Americans" we can discuss how your tribe did the same to the tribe prior, who did the same to the tribe prior to that. Unless of course this is not your indictment of why Christians are "nuts".

Today, you need look no further than Cleveland's Chief Wahoo or Jackie Chan getting stoned with a "peace pipe" to see the kind of ridiculing aimed at Native American's spirituality. We're told to lighten up.

I don't know anything about a Chief Wahoo, it seems even his stunts have not earned him a very significant place in pop culture. Jackie Chan has made a career of making an ass of himself. Now when a Native American foundation has helped fund the work that mocks them as our tax dollars have helped to fund such prolific works as Piss Christ, we can talk about lightening up and tolerance and all that is good in this great land. I've not mocked the Native American in this thread, but you popped in from nowhere to mock the Christian. If you want respect, be respectable.

So I'll pass along the same advice to you.

I'd rather you pass me the pipe brother.

[keekeeree]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What if someone called you a "drunken injun"

Or how about your dad?

Do you know calling the wrong person a redneck will get your teeth knocked out?

Would you go up to a african american and call them niggers? If so, why not.

What is wrong with these kids today and no manners.

Actually, I've been called a lot worse and so has my dad.

Funny though how Jeff Foxworthy has made millions off of using the word and he still has all of his teeth. Have you informed Mr. Foxworthy of your offended sensitivities to the word?

And you'll notice that I also used a much more derogatory and offensive word (redskins) and that didn't seem to bother you. Why is that?

But back on topic, Christians nuts, all I did was read a thread title and created a visual to along with it. What...you think Christ didn't have nuts?

And why are you getting all bent out of shape of this? You didn't seem to mind too much when cartoon depicting Mohammed were being tossed around MacNN in this thread. In fact, you even went so far as to defend the posting of those cartoons:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

How would Christians react to a cartoon of Christ, in the robes of a Catholic priest, having sex with an alter boy?

I've seen such likeness in this forum. Didn't burn down MacNN when I saw it.

[andi*pandi]

point keekeeree.

[Jawbone54]

There's a difference between being irritated by an offensive image and rioting in the streets, burning buildings down. Imagine if the cartoons would've been referring to Mohammed's "nuts."

Originally Posted by Kevin

Jaw don't expect him to admit he would get upset by it now...
I mean come on.

it would totally be harmful to his defense.

The thought should've crossed my mind before hand, Kevin. You've been proven right.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by keekeeree

Funny though how Jeff Foxworthy has made millions off of using the word and he still has all of his teeth. Have you informed Mr. Foxworthy of your offended sensitivities to the word?

And you'll notice that I also used a much more derogatory and offensive word (redskins) and that didn't seem to bother you. Why is that?

A derogatory word means a lot less coming from someone who fits the category. Foxworthy admits he's a redneck, and a lot of his jokes make fun of himself or his family. Black people can use the word 'nigger,' but it's offensive when a white person uses it.
I'm sorry that we don't see the word "Redskins" as offensive, but it's kinda hard when the first thing that comes to mind is the sports team. I bet if they had the Des Moines Honkeys or the New York Niggers, those words would lose their shock value also.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This disingenuous ignorance bit of yours does not become you. Especially when there seems to be a wealth of genuine ignorance to draw from.

He has been making a habit of it lately.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by keekeeree

Actually, I've been called a lot worse and so has my dad.

Funny though how Jeff Foxworthy has made millions off of using the word and he still has all of his teeth. Have you informed Mr. Foxworthy of your offended sensitivities to the word?

And hundreds of rappers have made money off the word nigger. Would you go up to one and call him that? I bet not.

And you'll notice that I also used a much more derogatory and offensive word (redskins) and that didn't seem to bother you. Why is that?

For the same reason I wouldn't get upset if African Americans called another "nigger" I figure if they want to call each other that, then fine. They are making fun of THEMSELVES. Just as Jeff is making fun of his OWN persona.

Those calling other rednecks feel they aren't rednecks. They do it to belittle someone they deem beneath them.

And why are you getting all bent out of shape of this? You didn't seem to mind too much when cartoon depicting Mohammed were being tossed around MacNN in this thread. In fact, you even went so far as to defend the posting of those cartoons:

I was going against THE ACTIONS of those offended.

When the original thread broke loose, I DID INDEED say that people should not PURPOSELY try to offend these people.