It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 36
23
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

My response had nothing to do with dictionaries or history.

It should have since that was what he was talking about.


edit on 25-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

They are your words. Your claim that it would be prevented once it is gone away is mere speculation.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

In response to your various ... offerings in order of their presentation:

Hence ... nothing. All you did was make a series of disparate statements and then claim your thesis proven. Logically backwards.

Proof? Look up "conservative" in any dictionary. Review the acts of "conservatives" from any history. Look around you and use your own eyes.

You're going to take the pineapple to the face then? I'm not surprised. Enjoy the "subtle differences."


edit on 6Tue, 25 Aug 2015 06:30:52 -050015p062015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



None generally accepted as fact.


We will throw out the dictionaries and history then?


The "sources" for your wikis are Left Wing Academic book authors.

Probably well paid for their "opinions".

They did a good job of convincing the acceptors.





So, again ... who do we trust?

Since you will evidently define any source as either "leftist" or "dishonest" if it disagrees with your agenda ... what is the standard of truth to be used in a discussion with you? Be specific.
edit on 6Tue, 25 Aug 2015 06:32:03 -050015p062015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
A parable for what is currently going on here:

Poster 1: "Green is perpendicular, up is metaphysical, warm is Rembrandt."

Poster 2: "What? You're just mixing words together which have no meaning when used together! Green is a color, up is a direction, warm is a temperature."

Poster 1: "DEFINE color! WHAT IS this "direction" you CLAIM to understand, hmm? TEMPERATURE is nothing but a global CONSPIRACY!"

Poster 2: ... looking at the screen incredulously, mouth agape, ... shakes head and wanders away ...
edit on 6Tue, 25 Aug 2015 06:52:07 -050015p062015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



None generally accepted as fact.


We will throw out the dictionaries and history then?


The "sources" for your wikis are Left Wing Academic book authors.

Probably well paid for their "opinions".

They did a good job of convincing the acceptors.





So, again ... who do we trust?

Since you will evidently define any source as either "leftist" or "dishonest" if it disagrees with your agenda ... what is the standard of truth to be used in a discussion with you? Be specific.


By your antics, I can see why that might be a forgone conclusion.

When your own sources refute your spurious assertions, you call them fabricated.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I really enjoy your posts and input and I believe you know what you are talking about. Don't stop and don't let hard heads deter you, it is a trap. You cannot fix stupid.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

You found one disparate line in a Wikipedia article, a line that I didn't offer as evidence for my claim, and like a small child, you think that proves something about the whole article, not unlike your puerile assertion that because the word Socialist is in the Nazi party name, that must mean they are equal to any other "socialist" you want to fallaciously compare them to.

Talk about "antics."

I haven't made spurious assertions, and you haven't called out any. Feel free to disprove any quotes from me or that I have used one-by-one.

You think you're being witty, I guess ... are you really this ... uncertain of yourself?

I have stated what the Italian Fascists were (and weren't) IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

I have stated what the German Nazis were (and weren't) IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Now, have a smidgen of decency and think before you write next time, even in the Mud Pit.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Gryphon66

I really enjoy your posts and input and I believe you know what you are talking about. Don't stop and don't let hard heads deter you, it is a trap. You cannot fix stupid.


Thanks MOM. Oh, I know who I am ... I don't let Internet Trolls get me down.

In fact, more often than not, I'm laughing at their "antics."

I really enjoy your posts as well. You have a singular eloquence and straightforwardness that I sorely lack.




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

They are your words. Your claim that it would be prevented once it is gone away is mere speculation.



Humans have had the Agricultural revolution and the Industrial revolution, why not the Anarcho-Capitalist revolution?

The Agricultural Revolution took thousands of years. AC will probably take that long as well.

A person growing up in a Stateless society would consider Statists as criminals.

Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

You found one disparate line in a Wikipedia article, a line that I didn't offer as evidence for my claim, and like a small child, you think that proves something about the whole article, not unlike your puerile assertion that because the word Socialist is in the Nazi party name, that must mean they are equal to any other "socialist" you want to fallaciously compare them to.

Talk about "antics."

I haven't made spurious assertions, and you haven't called out any. Feel free to disprove any quotes from me or that I have used one-by-one.

You think you're being witty, I guess ... are you really this ... uncertain of yourself?

I have stated what the Italian Fascists were (and weren't) IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

I have stated what the German Nazis were (and weren't) IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Now, have a smidgen of decency and think before you write next time, even in the Mud Pit.

Now you want decency?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

In response to your various ... offerings in order of their presentation:

Hence ... nothing. All you did was make a series of disparate statements and then claim your thesis proven. Logically backwards.

Proof? Look up "conservative" in any dictionary. Review the acts of "conservatives" from any history. Look around you and use your own eyes.

You're going to take the pineapple to the face then? I'm not surprised. Enjoy the "subtle differences."



Did you get the idea?

Many smaller governments in the place of one ubiquitous government offer a choice of exit to individuals.

That choice causes competition.

The more state governments the better the results of competition and the less likelihood of a cartel.

Like the Soviets had to put up the Berlin Wall to keep its residents.





Not surprisingly, many East German residents were not happy living under the totalitarian rule and over two million defected to West Berlin, between 1949-1961. In order to stop the exodus, on August 13th, 1961, East Germany began to build an “Antifascistischer Schutzwall”, a barbed wire border, which served as the beginning of the Berlin Wall. While it was purportedly built to keep the Western “fascists” – people with extreme nationalist fervor who support a despotic ruler, at bay, the barrier's real purpose was to stop people from escaping to the economically thriving West Germany.
www.dogonews.com...





edit on 25-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

You do understand the concept of decency, right?

Make a logical comment about something I've claimed.

Stop prevaricating. Stop whining. Stop trying to be "cute."

Or ignore me and my posts; I'm good with that.

Really good, actually.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Why does it follow that smaller governments are easier to "leave" than larger ones? Indeed, the opposite is true. Smaller governments (depending on what quality makes them "small"") would logically be harder to avoid, harder to leave, etc. because of their greater moment-to-moment control and awareness of any given member or citizen.

Competition? LOL ... The "free market" strikes again eh? Yippie yai kaiyay!

A smaller (or more restricted) government coupled with a weaker (or absent) central/national power results in a stronger likelihood of local satraps who act without law or order (or any other power constraint) exclusively to their own weal and benefit with no regard to the People.

The reason for the presence of the Berlin Wall was not as simplistic as you are trying to pretend, but that's really off topic.

As the Founders of the US Constitution knew, the secret to insuring freedom and liberty for a People is to create a balance and compromise between different levels: large and small states, rich and poor states, central and distributed governance, etc.

As with almost every human category, it is the EXTREMES that promise the most danger, not the MIDDLE -- not BALANCE.
edit on 11Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:55:57 -050015p112015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why does it follow that smaller governments are easier to "leave" than larger ones?


Not a matter of easier. If there is only one central government, then there is no where else to go.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

A person growing up in a Stateless society would consider Statists as criminals.

Simple as that.



How do you know? Do you have an example of a "stateless society" or anything faintly resembling one to compare it to?

If not, how do you know?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

A person growing up in a Stateless society would consider Statists as criminals.

Simple as that.



How do you know? Do you have an example of a "stateless society" or anything faintly resembling one to compare it to?

If not, how do you know?


My assertion is more about human nature than political science. People grow up learning the culture they live in. Folks in an Anarcho-Capitalism society would live out their lives with their family (the original retirement plan) or decide on how to make money and go their own way.

Requiring a precedent is assuming that nothing is ever new or evolving.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Humans have had the Agricultural revolution and the Industrial revolution, why not the Anarcho-Capitalist revolution?

Have at it.


The Agricultural Revolution took thousands of years. AC will probably take that long as well.

Sounds like you are making excuses before you even start.


A person growing up in a Stateless society would consider Statists as criminals.
Simple as that.

That changes nothing. People can despise dictators but it doesn't change their situation.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1599/ 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.

In rhetorical terms, the phrase can be thought of as indicating an unintentional apophasis—where the speaker who "protests too much" in favor of some assertion puts into others' minds the idea that the assertion is false, something that they may not have considered before.

en.wikipedia.org...


Just an observation. Nothing more.




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
My assertion is more about human nature than political science.

The problem with AC is that it assumes everyone will believe and act accordingly.

Human nature has proven that this usually isn't the case.

Good news is that in a thousand years machines will rule the earth and then human nature won't even be part of the equation.



new topics




 
23
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join