[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by waddy

Of course that option is open to you, but with the views you have expressed on various threads in this forum I cannot seen you being inclined to do so voluntarily.

That is because you assume things, and would like to fit me into your little box of how I should be. In most cases, you're just wrong.

Originally Posted by waddy

Perhaps through their attempts to equate unquestioning obedience of the government with being patriotic.

I have not actually seen that. Where did you see that?

Originally Posted by waddy

The prevailing attitude in the USA seems to be that if you show even the slightest iota of dissent you are branded as being unpatriotic. FUD can be a powerful tool.

That is also not true. A large portion of the right, including me, are very unhappy about Bush's spending spree.

However, if you are burning U.S. flags in the street, protesting the war by saying Saddam and the ****'te government should win, and supporting other nations over your own, then you are unpatriotic by definition.

Originally Posted by waddy

The government's policies are primarily dictated by the lobbyists of big business.

Fascinating. Please explain.

Originally Posted by waddy

That's ok then, you've got Hitler on your side

That is not what I said, and you know it. Go back and read through what I wrote a few more times.

Originally Posted by waddy

No, it's called taxation. It has been suggested many times before, but you really should go and get a dictionary.

The purpose of federal income tax was to pay for the war and to pay off the national debt. Taxes are meant to support the government, not the people. That is what charities are for.

Originally Posted by waddy

Why don`t you bring some arguments to the table then. You complain about people attacking the authors whose articles you post links to, but if that is all you can bring then where are your arguments.

I have. Note my posts directed to JustAnotherNoob. Go back up, and read through them again. You're clearly not reading what I'm writing. The arguments I'm bringing is the same as what she is saying. If you want, quote your favorite author in short, powerful arguments.

Originally Posted by waddy

If you are going to make such basic errors then why should be have any faith in the veracity of any statements of "fact" you make? You can be the first one to pounce if anyone makes even the slightest error in their posts, but you can`t handle it when the same treatment is given to your tirades.

I do apologize for my English skills. It isn't as great as yours, afterall, it is my third language and when I wrote that part I wrongly translated it. Yes, I made a mistake, and I am recognizing and admitting it.

Originally Posted by BBKing

I didn't say I thought you were a fascist, in fact I don't think I've ascribed any characteristics to you. I did wonder why you were partly relying on Hitler's own words to support your view that you weren't a fascist. Surely there are more credible sources around?

So you're saying the man that invented and implemented Nazism isn't credible? Oh please. His party was called the NAZI party, and if you look at the goals of the Nazi party, you will see what Nazism is. Unless the Nazis didn't follow a nazi philosophy? /confused

What are you saying?

Originally Posted by BBKing

Incidentally, the party Hitler joined in 1919 (called the German Worker's Party at that time) was definitely right wing. As early as 1920 he thought that Socialism and Jewry were linked in some plot to bring down Germany, which hardly makes him a Socialist. His backing at the time was from conservative intellectuals and the military, both anti-socialism, and they saw him as a useful propagandist.

German Worker's Party. Yes, sounds like a conservative party to me. Regardless, it was not a conservative party, because it was the Nazi party under a different name. They merely changed the name later to National Socialist Party. The philosophies remained the same under both these parties.

Originally Posted by Sociable

I will offer one small bone to jerrek as my final post to this thread.

Extreme right and left wing ideologies nearly always end up being almost identical when put into practice hence his description of Nazi ideology being socialist has some mileage. In essence the two extremes of right and left actually complete a circle, as for the ordinary man under either regime the result is always the same.

Nice fallacy, one that Ayn Rand clearly outlines in the arguments I've posted earlier on.

Originally Posted by Sociable

The down side of this concession is it matters little whether jerrek sees himself to the be to the right or left, as the key bit is, being so extreme in his views, gives the impression he would be equally at home being communist fascist or any other ist.

Thats real fascinating. You know my beliefs pretty well. I've asked a hundred times, and I'm asking again. How do my beliefs relate to being a fascist?

I've shown you from Hitler's own mouth what he considered to be Nazism (brother of fascism). I've also stated my beliefs regarding lots of social and economic issues numerous times, and I've even shown you how it totally contradicts what fascism and nazism is. Just yelling fascist or nazi isn't an argument. You need to show me how you think and how you came to your conclusion.

Now you've labelled me a communist too. Excellent. This is even more fun. I can quote Marx here, but I want to hear it from you. How am I a communist? Me that is a total capitalist. Please. I'm all for little government, no welfare, and hard work. I want you to show me how you think and how you came to your conclusion.

Originally Posted by Sociable

The truth is jerrek you have your own ideology and that could best be described as "Selfist".

Perhaps. I'm definitely one of those that firmly believe in the good of the individual over the good of the community. Both fascism and communism believe in opposite philosophies, good of the community over the good of the individual.

Originally Posted by scastle

I merely advanced that definition as a possible explanation of Justanothernoob's comments. I also pointed out that you appear to fit parts of definition two in my quote.

And for me to explain to you how fascism is right-wing would be way beyond the scope of this thread (or even the forum).

That is a real cute way of getting out of an argument you lost.

Originally Posted by downquark1

The point is her scale doesn't work if racism and socialism are both on the left what exact IS right?

Racism is an attribute and a state of mind of an individual. It has nothing to do with political beliefs. One can be a communist and racist, just like one can be a fascist and not racist. The right places a focus on individual freedoms.

Originally Posted by downquark1

He persecuted the Jews - how can this be described 'liberal'. He persecuted communists - why would he if they were the same side?

If you look back, I clearly stated that the Communists voted for him because their philosophies are virtually the same. Hitler didn't like communists because they did not support private property rights. I also never described him as liberal. He was a Nazi, and Stalin was a communist. Just like the Nazi party killed Jews, the Communist Party of Russia exterminated minorities. Both ends up with a dictatorship, whereas on the right we look to minimize government.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Evolution is about the development of LIFE not the universe if you were to research it you would see it is very similar to your let the unemployed rot idealism

Yes, you're right, it is about life for most part, but you have ignored my questions. Nice way to dodge them.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Do you deny that children look like their parents now?

No, but that is because they share the same genes. Mutations are deformities and do not get passed along. For example, if you take the five-legged cow and mate him, you're not going to get five-legged offspring. My question was for you to provide me with proof that mutations pass along to children.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Jesus met with criminals, outcasts, infidels and was never disrespectful to them, he was usually charitable. This does seems to contradict your opinions

And likewise I do not mind talking to criminals, "infidels," and so on. It is true he was never disrespectful to them, and I know I'm not perfect and sometimes I get frustrated with people twisting my words and ignoring other parts. I do apologize if I've been disrespectful though. And yeah, he is charitable, and so am I. I certainly don't mind helping people. I give to charities. I donate blood. What I object is that the government takes it and redistributes it as how it sees fit. I want to do it on my own accord.

Originally Posted by downquark1

He said "adam and steve" as your argument - this is a religious reference.

It was more of a joke really. But I stand with my original point, "I do believe I've said I should be allowed to have religion form my opinion. I never said the government and church should marry."

Originally Posted by downquark1

I'm afraid I can't explain why blue means blue - it's just a word assigned to it. How you ever wondered why ayn Rand's theory isn't generally excepted?

That is also a cute way of getting out of it. "It is like that because it is like that!" Sorry, but no cigar. Ayn Rand's theories is accepted, by the way. I was taught that in high school, and in university. And she isn't the only one. There are thousands others. It makes sense.

On the other hand, your "it is like that because it is like that" doesn't make sense. I want you to provide an explanation of why you do not agree with Ayn Rand and bring arguments to the table.