Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Steve...I have no national loyalties; we're all just people.
Rusty...I did not claim anywhere that Christians/Europeans started slavery or were the only slave-masters. I'm well aware that slavery was used virtually everywhere a few hundred years ago, and that the African slave trade was begun by Africans. I was merely saying Christians certainly weren't opposed to it. None of that is the real focus of this argument, though.
Your comment about the "fags and whores" was a nice illustration of the point I've been trying to make about conservative intolerance...thank you. I do support the "fags and whores", and I'm very proud of it. If you think everyone should practice heterosexual serial monogamy, go ahead.
But, please, please, please, give me an answer on why you keep calling me a fucking FASCIST! As I've said, Fascism is all about oppression, and there is NOTHING oppressive about what I'm advocating: peace, individual freedom, etc. Never call me a fucking Fascist again unless you explain why, and none of this "spouting liberal Fascism" bullshit. I believe armed intervention is a key component of Fascism, not advocating peace.
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
I was merely saying Christians certainly weren't opposed to it. None of that is the real focus of this argument, though.
It's all part of the discussion. You keep telling us one thing out of the side of your mouth, and then twist facts to suit your theory about how we are the big bad USA...ugly, nasty christians...racist conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Your comment about the "fags and whores" was a nice illustration of the point I've been trying to make about conservative intolerance...thank you. I do support the "fags and whores", and I'm very proud of it. If you think everyone should practice heterosexual serial monogamy, go ahead.
Do I hang-out with fags and whores...? No.
Do I agree that they (gay's) should be allowed to hijack the Christian institution of marriage...? No, but civil ceremonies are ok in my book.
Really...I'm not impressed with your distain for our judeo-christian values. Do I lose sleep over your inferences or direct assault on our country or religion, or political affiliation...? No, but I do pray for you. :jointsmile:
But you seem to have no problem with painting me and my fellow christian Americans as intolerant and racist. In fact, I think we've been pretty damn tolerant. Every other sentance out of our mouth does not contain vile remarks about your church, your country, your choices or your values. Unlike you liberal hacks that strive to paint anybody that doesn't think along the like you, as a rascist homophobic fascist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
But, please, please, please, give me an answer on why you keep calling me a fucking FASCIST! As I've said, Fascism is all about oppression, and there is NOTHING oppressive about what I'm advocating: peace, individual freedom, etc. Never call me a fucking Fascist again unless you explain why, and none of this "spouting liberal Fascism" bullshit. I believe armed intervention is a key component of Fascism, not advocating peace.
Yes...you are a liberal fascist in thought and action. Violence is not mandatory with fascism. Words often do enough damage.
[I]Fascism:
Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies-- and elitist--in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and often uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.
You walk the liberal fascist walk.
You talk the liberal fascist talk.
You rant the liberal fascist rants.
Sorry to say...you fit the liberal fascist title.
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Do I reject individual autonomy and rights? No, I believe nothing is more important. I believe in virtually nothing in that description, and don't forget that "liberal fascism" was only coined in one book by Jonah Goldberg, a nationalistic reactionary convinced the liberals were responsible for all that was wrong with America, and that it's not taken seriously as a genuine ideology...just a conservative conspiracy, nothing more.
You say I don't tolerate your values, and that I try to paint you as a fascist? Let's cut the irony with a knife, especially with the second part of that sentence. I never said you're racist--I'm sure you're not. My quarrel is not with you as a person, but with certain ideas that perpetuate war.
All you did was provide a definition of fascism and then say I fit the bill, as if it's self-evident. All I am advocating is peace, and you have yet to explain to me what is fascistic about recommending we put away the bombs. I know we've gotten WIDELY side-tracked in this thread, but let's bring it back right here to what it's really about, the morality of war. "Violence isn't necessary for fascism--words often do enough damage." WHAT DAMAGE?
I think you equate me with an oppressive kind of liberalism where speech and thought is severely restricted by political correctness. I'm not politically correct and I don't seek to silence or oppress anybody. So again, WHAT DAMAGE?
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
and don't forget that "liberal fascism" was only coined in one book by Jonah Goldberg, a nationalistic reactionary convinced the liberals were responsible for all that was wrong with America, and that it's not taken seriously as a genuine ideology...just a conservative conspiracy, nothing more.
To you it's a conservative conspiracy. To the rest of us...it's an obvious title, but regardless...you disregard the content and the ideology of a book you've never read, simply by reading the reviews? At least you got your info from a reliable sourse, lol.
Well lets see...Clinton (before Bush II took office) saw the same reports, heard the same arguments, Obama's uncle Saddam kept reminding everyone in the world that he had nukes, and was giving the UN the middle finger as they tried to quell the situation with sanctions and embargo's. This all happened before George W Bush was elected to office, or is that just one of those forgettable little facts you keep trying to defend your "insight" with?
A little Iraq-attack timeline: Anyone recognize the players involved and cited...? Seems to me this is a liberal administration actually on the road to making some sense...yet when Bush II inherited the fiasco, Bush has gotten the blame. Childish, inaccurate and revisionist.
(After the election, but just before Clinton was taking office)
January 13, 1993: As Bill Clinton is about to take office, he states: "I am a Baptist. I believe in death-bed conversions. If he [Hussein] (Saddam...not Barack) wants a different relationship with the United States and the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior." (The New York Times, January 14, 1993)
January 14, 1993: In the face of criticism, particularly from The New York Times, that he might lift sanctions and even normalize relations with Iraq, Clinton backtracks: "There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the present Administration.... I have no intention of normalizing relations with him." (See The New York Times and Boston Globe, January 15, 1993) Incoming Secretary of State Warren Christopher: "I find it hard to share the Baptist belief in redemption.... I see no substantial change in the position and continuing total support for what the [Bush] administration has done."
January 12, 1995: While inspections are taking place, though not complete, Ambassador Madeleine Albright says the U.S. is "determined to oppose any modification of the sanctions regime until Iraq has moved to comply with all its outstanding obligations." She specifically cites the return of Kuwaiti weaponry and non-military equipment. (Reuters, January 12, 1995)
(After Clinton takes office)
May 12, 1996: On "60 Minutes," Lesley Stahl asks Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?" Albright responds: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it."
Late 1996: The United Nations begins "oil-for-food" program.
March 26, 1997: Albright, in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."
November 14, 1997: President Clinton. [During a standoff on weapons inspectors] "What he [Hussein] says his objective is, is to relieve the people of Iraq, and presumably the government, of the burden of the sanctions. What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he lasts. So I think that if his objective is to try to get back into the business of manufacturing vast stores of weapons of mass destruction and then try to either use them or sell them, then at some point the United States, and more than the United States, would be more than happy to try to stop that."
November 30, 1997: Ambassador Bill Richardson in the Washington Post: "To the extent Saddam used the inspectors' two-week absence to hide weapons, he has only delayed for Iraq the time it will take the UNSCOM team to ensure compliance, therefore further delaying any possibility of lifting sanctions."
If you'd like...there's more. But I'm fascinated by the left-wing hacks trying to blame everything on the conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
You say I don't tolerate your values, and that I try to paint you as a fascist? Let's cut the irony with a knife, especially with the second part of that sentence. I never said you're racist--I'm sure you're not. My quarrel is not with you as a person, but with certain ideas that perpetuate war.
You slam my religion, my country, my patriotism and my values, and we have never met. Where were your concerns in the 1990's when the Clinton administration was going thru the above-cited timeframe...or was it ok back then because a liberal was in charge? Whatever...
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
All you did was provide a definition of fascism and then say I fit the bill, as if it's self-evident.
No...all I did was to post the definition of fascism, as some in here are unaware of the ideology, it's goals and it's occational violent nature. You say you abhore violence, and continue to spout psychobabble in an attempt to sway others to your views of the necessity for radical, godless social reforms, regardless of the facts behind your anger. I say again...the education system has failed you tremendously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
All I am advocating is peace, and you have yet to explain to me what is fascistic about recommending we put away the bombs. I know we've gotten WIDELY side-tracked in this thread,
No... And this is the problem I have with your ideology. Because you refuse to put into context the story behind your fooliish words, the facts behind the decisions to go to war escape you, so you must be right, 'eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
I think you equate me with an oppressive kind of liberalism where speech and thought is severely restricted by political correctness. I'm not politically correct and I don't seek to silence or oppress anybody.
Same here. But my goal is to get you folks that twist and rewrite history at your leisure to understand...I am not sure I've ever been politically correct, but I will call bullshit when I see it, and defend my religion, my country and my philosophy against all invaders.
When something is worth fighting for, I do not roll-over and play dead. I expect my country to do the same. And since I believe every country has the same right to defend itself, as we have to defend our homes and families, it is often a necessary evil.
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
I think something needs to be cleared up. You seem to think that because I abhor the Republicans, I like the Democrats or think Clinton was a good president. On the contrary, I despise the Democratic Party (they're much too conservative), and believe Clinton to be a joke. Both parties persecute drugs, cater to corporations, maintain a bullying foreign policy, and are dominated by Christians. To paraphrase Gore Vidal, the only real difference between the parties is that the Democrats are cuter and prettier and more willing to make small compromises when the poor or the black or the anti-imperialists get out of line, and the Republicans are a bit stupider and more aggressive. So, there's no need to bash the Clinton administration...you're preaching to the choir. I'm not laying sole blame on the Republicans for the current nightmare, but on the American political system as a whole, which only allows for aristocrats or populists who
I'm just saying, you're dismissing my ideas on the grounds that they are not my own, that I am a mindless victim of liberal fascism and its prevalence in the failed education system. My ideas come from inconsistencies I notice in day-to-day life, books I have read independently of the school system (which never gave us anything really radical to read), and a mishmash of places. I don't know what education systems you're talking about (based on your age, you've never been educated in one), but where I come from the schools indoctrinate in the way of honouring the troops, respecting authority, being sexually modest, etc. I'm going to show you the respect of assuming that your views are your own and not those of your educators or the media. I expect the same in return. I know it's very popular nowadays to discredit any idea deemed liberal by blaming that damn liberal media or that damn liberally fascist school system, but it cuts no ice with me. We're two intelligent human beings discussing our opinions, and we shouldn't need to do that.
I don't keep trying to tell you your ideas aren't your own, that they come from FOX News or the pro-military propagandists.
I slam all patriotism because it is a harmful disease that breeds pride, arrogance and wars, in that order. To protect their values and way of life, people all over the world are willing to kill.
I refuse to put into context the story behind my foolish words? How's this...all the wars in the Middle East are about economic ulterior motives, protecting the tyrannical Israel, and keeping the Western values boot firmly on the face of other peoples who may resent the arrogance. Decades of oppressive, blood-sucking foreign policy got its retaliation with 9/11, which became the excuse for the horrendous war crimes that followed. The U.S. government is the most tyrannical and dangerous entity on this planet (they're mildly democratic towards their own people, but impose their imperialism on the rest of the world), and they are supported by patriots incapable of seeing through the bullshit (though they claim to see through the "liberal indoctrination" that somehow still results in wars, prohibition, economic and cultural imperialism, corporatism, and undying allegiance to Israel. I've yet to figure that one out--the "liberal indoctrination" doesn't seem to be working very well).
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
overgrowthegovt.... my daughters used to think like you do when they were in college.... that is until they entered the work place and had to actually earn a living and pay taxes like everybody else. Seems they have changed their minds, and are a little more tolerant. Maybe one day you too will see the light.
Have a nice life.
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
I'm just saying, you're dismissing my ideas on the grounds that they are not my own, that I am a mindless victim of liberal fascism and its prevalence in the failed education system.
Yup. That about sum's it up.
Your intolerance is unacceptable, and your insults are obviously mindless garbage that you've been digesting your entire (short-lived) life. Bummer so much of your intellect was wasted listening to those that teach you that I owe you a house, a car, a job, decriminalized drugs. That for you to question authority is a way to remind oppressors of your demands, and we will relent...opening our arms to you in blissful unity. Somewhere you have got it in your head that whining is a viable alternative to hard work and using ones brain for something other than a propoganda poster.
I work for what little I have, and I think your uninspired rantings of social injustice are a simple way for you to avoid the obvious, which is that you can't deal with life on life's terms, coupled with the realization that you are not as special as you've been brought-up to believe. Nothing will be handed to you on a silver platter. People won't be drawn to you just because of your overbearing half-informed method of screaming out injustices. Usually they will point and laugh, while keeping a suspicious eye on this commie-freak.
I owe you nothing, but you owe yourself the truth...which is either learn before you speak, or deal with the people like me challenging your every percieved insight with regards to this flawed concept of socialism, which you keep vomiting all over this forum. If your plan is to go through life with this burdensome chip on your shoulder...it will be you to blame. After all...it's you not respecting the artwork on the other side of the coin...and for all the wrong reasons.
Besides...I'm not going to let some commie shit all over my religion, my country, and my social ideology, without poking fun at their foolishness.
And also...I didn't even know that there were conscientious objectors in the anarchist movement. (nice cookbook, too)
I still wish there was an extra box on my tax returns, where I could donate an extra $10.00 to further defense department technologies, though.
Tag...you're it, lol.
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Alright, your turn....
You, sir, make far too many assumptions about me. I'm aware that nobody owes me anything and I'm certainly no "commie", as you brand all left-leaning people. Nobody ever told me I was special, since I was raised by cold parents, but I'm aware of my creative and intellectual gifts, yes. Oh, I do think I'm owed decriminalized drugs, yes, since it's not for any paternalistic despots to tell me what I can do with my consciousness.
You don't strike me as being quite so much of a moron as your average traditionalist (you're capable of coherent speech, at any rate, which is rare), so it's quite sad that you've fallen victim to the reactionary, "liberal-media-hating", warmongering mindset. Such people grow up in say-grace families, become convinced that their country has the right to bloodily defend its idiotic values, that marriage is for sexual conformists, that any opposition to corporate pillaging is just commie talk, etc. They're incapable of any free thought, simply taking an aggressive stance for the ideas they were raised on. One nation under God, my country right or wrong, let's fight for our "freedom"...never moves past what was hammered into them from the cradle. But of course, in their mind their obsolete views are self-evident and that damn media is to blame for any dissidents...forget that the media is most hospitable to mainstream values and rarely endorses anything radical or anarchistic. It's that damn media.
Bottom line: my ideas allow for peace, equality and freedom from cultural indoctrination. Yours allow for war, corporate slavery and adherence to the same outdated teachings learned from Pa. Why do you think so many artists are dissidents? Could it be they have the ability to go beyond what they were brought up on? Hmmm. Few men of vision tend to think much of the status quo. The simple people...well, that's another matter. For them anyone who thinks outside the box will always be a freak and a threat.
Steve...don't think I'll ever crawl in bed with the status quo. Sorry. Too many epiphanies too early in life.
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
You don't strike me as being quite so much of a moron as your average traditionalist (you're capable of coherent speech, at any rate, which is rare)
At least you are working on your spelling and grammar. Is punctuation next on the list? Sorry, that's the best I can offer under these circumstances, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
You, sir, make far too many assumptions about me.
Bottom line: my ideas allow for peace, equality and freedom from cultural indoctrination. Yours allow for war, corporate slavery and adherence to the same outdated teachings learned from Pa.
This sums up our differences, and my opinions about you, in a nutshell.
You feel it's ok to bash me and my ideology, but you become offended when I take your own words and writings, and use them in kind against you.
I stand-by my summation of your schooling and half-thoughts. Reason being...I'm not the victim of an underbudget school raising shitloads of little anarchists raging against the machine of industrial capitalism. Don't like to work for the corporate 'slave drivers', then start your own business. Or is it work in general you abhore? Try taking your ideology all the way to it's natural conclusion, (can go one of two or three ways, ultimately) and see if you can find the 'reactionary' responses of your anti-violent (bullshit) social reforms. Anti-violent anarchism. Yeah, right. Yet another angry cult attempting to change their tactics to become relevant. Y'all still wearing black? (like your Pa did years ago?)
And your decision for the rest of us, that we are lesser people for feeling differently about morals and values...or that we should be angry about the lost freedoms and liberties. What lost personal freedoms and liberties? They are already ours, despite your insistance that the government is oppressing us. Look in the mirror. That is the person oppressing you. Don't like the laws...? Work to change them The mechanisms are there, in place. Learn to work within the rules, and you can move mountains. Rage against the machine...you'll get run-over without a second thought, nor a tear.
Humans, since the beginning of time, have been a warring people. An invasive virus in the firmament of life. According to one of the first laws of nature, if you are not ready and able to defend yourself, your family, your values and morals...you won't be among the survivors. There's no such thing as a eutopian society, and to chase it at the expense of reality, is dangerous folly.
Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?
Rusty, your wasting your breath(typing?). The child still hasn't matured or had enough of lifes experiences to have learnedthe rules, and how to use the rules to his advantage.
Seems that in the 60s and the 70s there were an awful lot of folks that thought like him in the Peoples Republic of Berkeley. The scary part is that these same folks are the ones that are teaching these ideals to our children and grand children, instead of teaching them common sense and how to think for themselves..
Peace
