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: 68
23
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

What do you think this proves?




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Just another one of those things that need to be for AC to work. You can try and just wish it away but it isn't going to happen.

Pointing out all the downfalls of government isn't going to make them go away either.


Red Herring.

An individual of unsound mind would be very very very ... unlikely to get a nuke.

Get real.

Thinking like yours is the reason there are Dictators.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

States didn't exist before 500 years ago?

Someone should tell the Romans, Egyptians and Babylonians.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Which two things have more in common?

A Left wing State with totalitarian control over the population which says it is serving the people

A Right wing State with totalitarian control over the population which says it is serving the people

A small government that has only serves as legal dispute resolution.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Get real.

Doesn't have to be a nuke.

Funny how, when someone asked about serial killers your addressed crime in general now, that someone mentioned a nuke, you want to stay focused on that because it helps your argument.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Which two things have more in common?

The first two because the third doesn't even exist.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Wrong again. Words have definitions. You are not using them properly. You seem to think that everyone but you is wrong, and that you alone know how to create the perfect society. What do you call the system where one person imposes his or her will on society? I'll give you a hint: it's on the right end of the spectrum.

Alistair Crowley once said that inside every anarchist there is a frustrated absolute monarch.


I distinctly remember one of the first things we learned in PoliSci 101 is the difficulty of defining right and left wing. I never went any further down that route, and perhaps things have changed since then. I myself prefer the contrast between social equality of the left vs. the social equity of the right. What's your definition?

As a side note, your Voltaire quote is not a quote from Voltaire. I thought you might like to know.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A State that has totalitarian control over the population is not leftist, regardless of the propaganda.

The right-wing state with totalitarian control is redundant. All totalitarian states are right-wing.

A small government still has rules, practices, and laws, and some method to enforce same, i.e. it is still authoritarian.

The adjective "small" in moderation of "government" is easily one of the most abused terms in the English language.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Get real.

Doesn't have to be a nuke.

Funny how, when someone asked about serial killers your addressed crime in general now, that someone mentioned a nuke, you want to stay focused on that because it helps your argument.


Serial killers happen, a crazy individual getting a nuke is just plain stupid.

How would he get a nuke in AC? Weapons of mass destruction are a war crime. There wouldn't be any.

Nukes require a socialist environment.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Serial killers happen, a crazy individual getting a nuke is just plain stupid.

How would he get a nuke in AC? Weapons of mass destruction are a war crime. There wouldn't be any.

Nukes require a socialist environment.

You're still doing it.

Serial killers happen but you addressed that in general terms. A nuke is plain stupid but you don't dare mention conventional bombs.

Also this war crime bit, who is going to enforce that? How, because as far as I know, what you propose would have less teeth than the UN.
edit on 29-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Which two things have more in common?

The first two because the third doesn't even exist.


That's true verbatim. But did you know

The US was close to that in the 1800's. For the average person, the US government was the tariff and the post office, and nothing else.

The US government was pretty close to legal resolution and nothing else.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Which two things have more in common?

The first two because the third doesn't even exist.


That's true verbatim. But did you know

The US was close to that in the 1800's. For the average person, the US government was the tariff and the post office, and nothing else.

The US government was pretty close to legal resolution and nothing else.


Care to name a date-range for this claim and look at historical facts?

Care to locate your "average person" in either a rural or metropolitan setting?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The US was close to that in the 1800's. For the average person, the US government was the tariff and the post office, and nothing else.

The US government was pretty close to legal resolution and nothing else.

BS, romanticism.

They still had the governer, mayors and other local government officials who meddled in their affairs.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Get real.

Doesn't have to be a nuke.

Funny how, when someone asked about serial killers your addressed crime in general now, that someone mentioned a nuke, you want to stay focused on that because it helps your argument.


So when you say nuke, it means whatever might fit your argument.

When I say small government, the specificity is absolute.

Your arguments are all negative, contentions, and empty. no possible solutions.

Address the ideas, if you can.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The US was close to that in the 1800's. For the average person, the US government was the tariff and the post office, and nothing else.

The US government was pretty close to legal resolution and nothing else.

BS, romanticism.

They still had the governer, mayors and other local government officials who meddled in their affairs.



There was no government infrastructure, all meddling was socially based, if it happened at all.

You get your history from Lefties.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Which two things have more in common?

The first two because the third doesn't even exist.


That's true verbatim. But did you know

The US was close to that in the 1800's. For the average person, the US government was the tariff and the post office, and nothing else.

The US government was pretty close to legal resolution and nothing else.


Care to name a date-range for this claim and look at historical facts?

Care to locate your "average person" in either a rural or metropolitan setting?


90% of the population was rural until the 20th century, in round numbers

If you don't know that, your opinions are ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


There was no government infrastructure, all meddling was socially based, if it happened at all.

You get your history from Lefties.


Where do you get your history from?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
So when you say nuke, it means whatever might fit your argument.

No, when someone else said nuke, you could have fielded the question the same way you did when someone else said serial killer.


When I say small government, the specificity is absolute.

You are the one who has stated over and over that if it isn't AC than it is coercion and not acceptable. All of a sudden you are going minarchist on us?


Your arguments are all negative, contentions, and empty. no possible solutions.

My arguments are about pointing out the flaws in AC theory. Offering solutuions is not a requirment for that task.


Address the ideas, if you can.

I have been.
edit on 29-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


There was no government infrastructure, all meddling was socially based, if it happened at all.

You get your history from Lefties.


Where do you get your history from?


This and that.

Revisionist history, by Left or Right authors. Mostly Right.

Gore Vidal is good on Politics, but he is clueless on economics.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Yeah that is why the president lead a group of armed men to quell an Insurrection over taxes.




top topics



 
23
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join