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?