Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lefties are Coming!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lefties are Coming! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/22/2017 4:06:02 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners."


quote:

"Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it."


quote:

"Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically."



For sheer ignorance and idiocy, the quotes you rely upon to make your 'argument' (such as it is) are hard to beat. Outcomes as poor as this are to be expected when you rely completely on obscure right-wing sources for supporting evidence such as the source you have quoted above.

For example, where and when did "socialism ... abolish money and prices" ? Did this happen in Russia or any of the other Eastern European countries often described as "socialist" by those who don't know any better? No. AFAIK there was only one instance of a society trying to function without money in the 20th centrury - backward agrarian Cambodia. No other society or country attempted this. This ridiculous claim is self evidently invalid.

Or the claim that " socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation ...., fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners". Which implicitly states that "fascism" doesn't ever abolish private ownership of "society's economic processes" thereby contradicting the fundamental claim that "socialism" abolishes private property.

Can you produce a quote from any reputable independent or non-aligned political scientist to support your inane claims instead of relying on some obscure right wing site? Just one? From a reputable independent political scientist anywhere supporting your claim? I didn't think so. No political scientist worth their salt would even allow themselves to be within a bull's roar of your vacuous claim. Why? Because your claim is ignorant ideologically driven garbage.

Stop demonstrating your ignorance and lack of education by making claims that are way beyond both your knowledge level and your competence level. All you are succeeding in doing is making a complete ass of yourself

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 2/22/2017 4:08:12 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/22/2017 4:28:47 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
the encyclopedia britanica has some helpful words about fascism:

quote:

There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment. Some find fascism deeply irrational, whereas others are impressed with the rationality with which it served the material interests of its supporters. Similarly, some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of irrationally misdirected anger and frustration, whereas others emphasize the rational ways in which these demonologies were used to perpetuate professional or class advantages. Finally, whereas some consider fascism to be motivated primarily by its aspirations—by a desire for cultural “regeneration” and the creation of a “new man”—others place greater weight on fascism’s “anxieties”—on its fear of communist revolution and even of left-centrist electoral victories.

One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany—were different in important respects...

For these and other reasons, there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in common...


https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Common-characteristics-of-fascist-movements


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/22/2017 5:18:37 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Like Milo at CPAC? Hey that gender bends the word leftist beyond reality.
Milo's not remotely left-wing.


Milo is a fucking pervert who needs an ounce of lead. Due to the fact that he works(ed) for Brietbart, the conservatives think he is a saint.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/22/2017 6:13:22 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:


Can you produce a quote from any reputable independent or non-aligned political scientist to support your inane claims instead of relying on some obscure right wing site? Just one? From a reputable independent political scientist anywhere supporting your claim? I didn't think so. No political scientist worth their salt would even allow themselves to be within a bull's roar of your vacuous claim. Why? Because your claim is ignorant ideologically driven garbage.


I think you're getting at the root problem behind this sort of discussion, Tweak. JLF has alluded to it as well. This is that the webs are now stuffed full of far-out opinions on every possible subject presenting themselves as balanced and informed. When it comes to the subject of political science, the problem is so extreme that it's like trying to hack through a jungle full of crazed animals. There will a sober-looking; apparently thoughtful, seemingly-intelligent and even ostensibly referenced (to the trusting eye, anyway) article that supports almost any nutty view that anybody could possibly hold. God knows, Google has lent its support to the crackpot views of a few people here that I'm sure we could all name. There's one insane thread still going after veritable chapters because of it ... and it also allows professional trolls like Milo to thrive - people who don't care what comes out of their mouths so long as it does the job of inflaming and thereby earning them their salaries.

I'm not sure I see a solution to the problem. Everybody feels that his knowledge is equal to that of everyone else, or should be treated that way. What X learned doing his or her degree - that can claim no authority over what Y just picked up by Googling from his fave political-rant-sites. The tacit charge of 'argument from authority' is always at hand, ready for instant deployment.

In political discussions, if you're uneducated in a subject but have an axe to grind on it, you can *always* accuse anybody, no matter that person's level of training in that subject, of bias. If you do happen to be trained in that subject, you will know that bias exists and that you may be prey to it - of course - but you'll also know what is uncontroversial and accepted. You'll have got past that stage. Here, as in so many venues where politics is discussed, a lot of people haven't got past those basics - and won't know, or won't accept, that they even *are* basics. Fine if they're not that bothered anyway - but a royal and enduring pain if they *just must win*. The result is that, time after time, nothing can get off the ground. It gets tiring and you end up thinking 'What the fuck is the point?'

Re the subject of socialism: you are of course right to point out that Awareness's view of it is stilted to fit with his worldview. Anybody who's looked at the subject a minimum of effort to avoid bias will realise that the term describes something that is a very, very broad church. There's a huge range of traditions and positions involved and it's a nonsense to claim, or imply, that socialism is the same as Marxism, still less revolutionary Marxism, and less again authoritarian and/or totalitarian regimes. There's no one, single 'Bible of socialism'. The strongest current of socialism in the West has been that of social democracy, which accepts the free market and indeed freedoms in general, and aims to work with them.

What you *can* say about socialism that is inclusive and does describe its main tenets rather than the weirdnesses at the periphery, is this: Socialists prefer cooperation to competition, and favour collectivism over individualism. The central, and some would say defining, value of socialism is equality, socialism sometimes being portrayed as a form of egalitarianism. Socialists believe that a measure of social equality is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, and that it promotes freedom in the sense that it satisfies material needs and provides the basis for personal development. The socialist movement has traditionally articulated the interests of the industrial working class, seen as systematically oppressed or structurally disadvantaged within the capitalist system. The goal of socialism is thus to reduce or abolish class divisions. To recall the aforementioned point: this is all basic and uncontentious knowledge - in political science, if not here on this board.


< Message edited by PeonForHer -- 2/22/2017 6:15:15 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/22/2017 11:12:05 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
You make perfect sense. It is amusing to see what the various RWNJs posting here understand as "socialism" "fascism" and so on. But it's sad to note that these idiots give every appearance of believing their own BS.

And it's currently very fashionable to encourage these idiots to believe their own BS - the messages from Dear Leader Thump, from Breitbart and InfoWars, from the pulpits of the Religious Right etc all encourage followers to invest in some imaginary order of things as ordained by the high priests of alt Right and Dear Leader Thump himself (whose personal aversion to the truth in all its forms is well known and beyond dispute).

The only solution is for these people to try to put this imaginary order of things into practice in the real world. They will very quickly find out what is real and what is imaginary. Look for example at the immigration order fiasco ... Working class voters seduced by Dear Leader Thump's lies are finding out very quickly how he is going to 'fix' healthcare by restricting it to the rich, ' drain the swamp' by deploying some of the swamp's most ruthless selfish predators in privileged positions right in the middle of the swamp and 'Make America Great' by releasing all environmental and social constraints on the predator class so that they can destroy the place in order to make a few bucks to add to their already existing billions ....

It's sad because there's going to be a lot of destruction heartache and unhappiness but a few years of this madness will be more than enough for most people to scream "No More!"

_____________________________



(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 4:45:44 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
@Peon and @Tweakabelle . . .

Brilliant posts. Well done.



_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 7:20:12 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Can you produce a quote from any reputable independent or non-aligned political scientist to support your inane claims instead of relying on some obscure right wing site? Just one? From a reputable independent political scientist anywhere supporting your claim? I didn't think so. No political scientist worth their salt would even allow themselves to be within a bull's roar of your vacuous claim. Why? Because your claim is ignorant ideologically driven garbage.


I think you're getting at the root problem behind this sort of discussion, Tweak. JLF has alluded to it as well. This is that the webs are now stuffed full of far-out opinions on every possible subject presenting themselves as balanced and informed. When it comes to the subject of political science, the problem is so extreme that it's like trying to hack through a jungle full of crazed animals. There will a sober-looking; apparently thoughtful, seemingly-intelligent and even ostensibly referenced (to the trusting eye, anyway) article that supports almost any nutty view that anybody could possibly hold. God knows, Google has lent its support to the crackpot views of a few people here that I'm sure we could all name. There's one insane thread still going after veritable chapters because of it ... and it also allows professional trolls like Milo to thrive - people who don't care what comes out of their mouths so long as it does the job of inflaming and thereby earning them their salaries.

I'm not sure I see a solution to the problem. Everybody feels that his knowledge is equal to that of everyone else, or should be treated that way. What X learned doing his or her degree - that can claim no authority over what Y just picked up by Googling from his fave political-rant-sites. The tacit charge of 'argument from authority' is always at hand, ready for instant deployment.

In political discussions, if you're uneducated in a subject but have an axe to grind on it, you can *always* accuse anybody, no matter that person's level of training in that subject, of bias. If you do happen to be trained in that subject, you will know that bias exists and that you may be prey to it - of course - but you'll also know what is uncontroversial and accepted. You'll have got past that stage. Here, as in so many venues where politics is discussed, a lot of people haven't got past those basics - and won't know, or won't accept, that they even *are* basics. Fine if they're not that bothered anyway - but a royal and enduring pain if they *just must win*. The result is that, time after time, nothing can get off the ground. It gets tiring and you end up thinking 'What the fuck is the point?'

Re the subject of socialism: you are of course right to point out that Awareness's view of it is stilted to fit with his worldview. Anybody who's looked at the subject a minimum of effort to avoid bias will realise that the term describes something that is a very, very broad church. There's a huge range of traditions and positions involved and it's a nonsense to claim, or imply, that socialism is the same as Marxism, still less revolutionary Marxism, and less again authoritarian and/or totalitarian regimes. There's no one, single 'Bible of socialism'. The strongest current of socialism in the West has been that of social democracy, which accepts the free market and indeed freedoms in general, and aims to work with them.

What you *can* say about socialism that is inclusive and does describe its main tenets rather than the weirdnesses at the periphery, is this: Socialists prefer cooperation to competition, and favour collectivism over individualism. The central, and some would say defining, value of socialism is equality, socialism sometimes being portrayed as a form of egalitarianism. Socialists believe that a measure of social equality is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, and that it promotes freedom in the sense that it satisfies material needs and provides the basis for personal development. The socialist movement has traditionally articulated the interests of the industrial working class, seen as systematically oppressed or structurally disadvantaged within the capitalist system. The goal of socialism is thus to reduce or abolish class divisions. To recall the aforementioned point: this is all basic and uncontentious knowledge - in political science, if not here on this board.



Perfect example of a smarmy totalitarian-minded alt left control freak

How dare the Internet provide information to the non-High Priest class, this is dangerous & "what shall we do"

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 7:29:26 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
"Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters"

quote:


Has Google, the world’s most popular search engine, changed the definition of the word “fascism” to protect liberal mobs using violence to silence those who disagree with them politically? The evidence suggest they have.

You see it on signs at every protest or riot — liberals accuse President Donald Trump of being a fascist. The word’s association with Adolf Hitler and its use now is no accident, it’s meant to strike fear in people’s hearts of tyranny.

Merriam-Webster defines the word “fascism” as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” The secondary definition is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

This definition reflects the fact that Nazis were, in fact, both fascists and of the political left. They were the “National Socialist German Workers Party,” which favored a heavy-handed government in business and the personal lives of its citizens.

The authoritarian government of Nazi Germany not only oppressed opposing political views and used violence to enforce it, they supported a powerful central government which heaped social benefits on its citizens. The second part of Nazism is the “socialist” part, which is very similar to what the modern American political left advocates. For all their bluster to the contrary, Hitler was a man of the extreme left, and so was fellow fascist and Axis Powers member Benito Mussolini.

But if you type the word into Google, the definition they provide is quite different.

The world’s largest search engine pins fascism on the political right, not the left.

Google defines fascism as, “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” (emphasis added)

The secondary definition is, “(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.”



That’s a striking difference from how the word has been defined for decades.

Political conservatives advocate for small, less intrusive government where power rests with the states and individuals, and the federal government lives within its Constitutional restraints. Progressive liberals advocate for just the opposite: a powerful central government with authority vested in a strong leader who has the ability to impose decrees from Washington on everything from health care to education.

Google curiously adds “right-wing” to its definition and omits the “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” part.

By the traditional Merriam-Webster definition of “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition,” the violent mobs protesting and rioting over President Trump’s actions are the ones engaging in fascistic tactics.

The exact reason Google has changed the definition of fascism to reflect on the political right rather than the left is unknown. However, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, one of the world’s richest men, has been a vocal critic of President Trump, an activist liberal, and has protested the President’s executive order on immigration.

Many members of the mainstream media have unquestioningly adopted the new Google meaning without explaining why, leaving their audience with the impression that speech or advocacy contrary to liberal orthodoxy is fascistic when, by definition, it is not.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/google-redefines-the-word-fascism-to-smear-conservatives-protect-liberal-rioters/

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 7:32:29 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters"

quote:


Has Google, the world’s most popular search engine, changed the definition of the word “fascism” to protect liberal mobs using violence to silence those who disagree with them politically? The evidence suggest they have.

You see it on signs at every protest or riot — liberals accuse President Donald Trump of being a fascist. The word’s association with Adolf Hitler and its use now is no accident, it’s meant to strike fear in people’s hearts of tyranny.

Merriam-Webster defines the word “fascism” as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” The secondary definition is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

This definition reflects the fact that Nazis were, in fact, both fascists and of the political left. They were the “National Socialist German Workers Party,” which favored a heavy-handed government in business and the personal lives of its citizens.

The authoritarian government of Nazi Germany not only oppressed opposing political views and used violence to enforce it, they supported a powerful central government which heaped social benefits on its citizens. The second part of Nazism is the “socialist” part, which is very similar to what the modern American political left advocates. For all their bluster to the contrary, Hitler was a man of the extreme left, and so was fellow fascist and Axis Powers member Benito Mussolini.

But if you type the word into Google, the definition they provide is quite different.

The world’s largest search engine pins fascism on the political right, not the left.

Google defines fascism as, “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” (emphasis added)

The secondary definition is, “(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.”

That’s a striking difference from how the word has been defined for decades.



Political conservatives advocate for small, less intrusive government where power rests with the states and individuals, and the federal government lives within its Constitutional restraints. Progressive liberals advocate for just the opposite: a powerful central government with authority vested in a strong leader who has the ability to impose decrees from Washington on everything from health care to education.

Google curiously adds “right-wing” to its definition and omits the “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” part.

By the traditional Merriam-Webster definition of “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition,” the violent mobs protesting and rioting over President Trump’s actions are the ones engaging in fascistic tactics.

The exact reason Google has changed the definition of fascism to reflect on the political right rather than the left is unknown. However, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, one of the world’s richest men, has been a vocal critic of President Trump, an activist liberal, and has protested the President’s executive order on immigration.

Many members of the mainstream media have unquestioningly adopted the new Google meaning without explaining why, leaving their audience with the impression that speech or advocacy contrary to liberal orthodoxy is fascistic when, by definition, it is not.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/google-redefines-the-word-fascism-to-smear-conservatives-protect-liberal-rioters/


I have noticed that Google is doing a lot of that kind of thing, skewing search results etc.

Actually hiding information in favor of alt-left talking points drivel in their search results

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 7:34:06 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
More conservative hysteria.

Google is a search engine, not a dictionary. They don't define anything.

I just Googled "google definition fascism" and got:

or. "A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Solve things, instead of making up things to flip over.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 7:50:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism

The nutsuckers who are right wing support Nazi principles.
quote:


which favored a heavy-handed government in business and the personal lives of its citizens.

This sentence from your nutsucker slobberblog is factless, the corporatons; IG Farben, IBM, Krupp and so on financed the Nazi Party power, since they were recipients of government contracts, they loved that military-industrial complex that the nutsuckers of this country are catamites to. Nutsuckers are running into our bedrooms, our bodies, our thoughts, and our freedoms thru their immoral and unconstitutional lawmaking constantly.

I would like to define you as a magniloquent ultracrepidarian, and in fact you are ultracrepidarian in your felchgobbling but the language is not yours, dogshit44, its only the vile, factless, evil, lying propaganda you wished you could have said, but as a retard you must have other felchers to gobble.

You are in #EPIC#FAIL toiletlicking mode as usual, dogshit44.


Fascism:
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with a belligerent nationalism.
The American Heritage Dictionary 1976

1. Often Fascism. (a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. (b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
The American Heritage Dictionary 1992.

fascism

1. The doctrines, methods, or movement of the Fascisti.
2. a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftist parties, minority groups, etc.) the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized government control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc.: first instituted in Italy in 1922.
3. (a) the political philosophy and movement based n such doctrines and policies; (b) fascist behavior. See also Nazism.
1970 Webster New Twentieth Century Dictionary

So, there seems to be some difficulty in nailing down an acceptable definition and since the word only came into any common usage in 1920 we would expect to see some esoteric senses of the word used, until it is more firmly agreed on.

Hell, look at the nutsucker defintion of socialism, as they point it out everywhere and shit their pants, a much older word, and yet nutsuckers misuse it absymally ubiquitously, and consistently.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 7:54:50 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More conservative hysteria.

Google is a search engine, not a dictionary. They don't define anything.

I just Googled "google definition fascism" and got:

or. "A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Solve things, instead of making up things to flip over.



The king of the hysterical, preaching about hysterical people...

Here is a dose of reality for the reality challenged:

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has accused Google of making a deal with Hillary Clinton.

(Remember when Bush was president, and Assange was as God to the alt left?)

Google's Search Algorithm Could Steal the Presidency

The Google Algorithm

Memo: Google's Eric Schmidt Working Directly With the Clinton Campaign

Enjoy your brainwash everyone

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 7:58:48 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More conservative hysteria.

Google is a search engine, not a dictionary. They don't define anything.

I just Googled "google definition fascism" and got:

or. "A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Solve things, instead of making up things to flip over.



The king of the hysterical, preaching about hysterical people...

Here is a dose of reality for the reality challenged:

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has accused Google of making a deal with Hillary Clinton.

(Remember when Bush was president, and Assange was as God to the alt left?)

Google's Search Algorithm Could Steal the Presidency

The Google Algorithm

Memo: Google's Eric Schmidt Working Directly With the Clinton Campaign

Enjoy your brainwash everyone

OK, pedopimp, you have a part-time gig as a rapistpimp?

How do you find time to do that being the compounds designated felchgobbler?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 8:07:19 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
snorts at bosco
this is why I keep offering him a pop up version of the dictionary..
he relies on google so much.. its not the fucking oracle...bloody idiot

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 8:11:14 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
The best part is when he posts links that flatly contradict what he's saying because he's only going on them containing whichever key phrase he's typed into google: that's even better than just linking to a page of search results, really.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 8:20:23 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

snorts at bosco
this is why I keep offering him a pop up version of the dictionary..
he relies on google so much.. its not the fucking oracle...bloody idiot


Snorts snot right backatcha babe

That's why I keep offering you fools lessons on honest debate, and keep pointing out how you are way over reliant on your fallacy crutches

Then again, it is true that you losers are incapable of winning debates with facts and logic so... Unfortunately for you, snorting snot is all you got

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 9:35:21 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More conservative hysteria.

Google is a search engine, not a dictionary. They don't define anything.


"Google Does Its Own Dictionary Definitions"

quote:


Google used to offer up an automatic definition from sources like Dictionary.com or Answers.com. Now there's a little blue "definition" link on the right side of any word or phrase search, offering Google's own homebrew definition answers.

You'll still see answers from Answers.com and other sources high up in the search results, of course, but Google's own definition link lays out a word's definition in traditional dictionary style, with usages, phonetic breakdowns, and multiple snippets from other web definitions




http://lifehacker.com/5418921/google-does-its-own-dictionary-definitions

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 2/23/2017 9:38:36 AM >

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 9:39:02 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline
Controlling the language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A37V11rIIs

Conservatives seem to just reflexively know these things. Leftists such as Maniacal Mysery, cannot be taught - they refuse to learn.

Perhaps they welcome their Lizard overlords...



< Message edited by BoscoX -- 2/23/2017 10:22:03 AM >


_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/23/2017 9:56:02 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Nutsuckers have been doing this for years, up is down, war is peace, poverty is riches, america is socialism, debt is riches.

Nutsuckers cockgargling that shit for decades.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lef... - 2/24/2017 8:01:12 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners."


quote:

"Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it."


quote:

"Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically."



For sheer ignorance and idiocy, the quotes you rely upon to make your 'argument' (such as it is) are hard to beat. Outcomes as poor as this are to be expected when you rely completely on obscure right-wing sources for supporting evidence such as the source you have quoted above.
You claim everybody says fascism is an exclusively right-wing phenomenon, I point out that it's not. You then claim only YOUR sources can be trusted, which is a typically idiotic response from Leftists. As other more politically aware individuals understand, fascism is fundamentally based upon the collectivism of the Left. The tendency to describe it as a right-wing phenomenon based upon autocracy is an example of left-wing propaganda. Fascism owes as much to socialist collectivism as it does to right-wing conservatism and denying that is simply a bald-faced lie on your part.

quote:


For example, where and when did "socialism ... abolish money and prices" ? Did this happen in Russia or any of the other Eastern European countries often described as "socialist" by those who don't know any better? No. AFAIK there was only one instance of a society trying to function without money in the 20th centrury - backward agrarian Cambodia. No other society or country attempted this. This ridiculous claim is self evidently invalid.
Wrong. When the state controls the means of production and price levels are fixed, then the very concept of money and pricing becomes irrelevant. The entire point of pricing is to arbitrate access to resources - a viewpoint which conflicts with the Marxist theory of valuation through labour. If you had the remotest understanding of what you're talking about - instead of being an idiot who parrots dogma - you'd understand that.

So yes. Socialism effectively abolishes pricing, whether you understand that or not.

quote:

Or the claim that " socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation ...., fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners". Which implicitly states that "fascism" doesn't ever abolish private ownership of "society's economic processes" thereby contradicting the fundamental claim that "socialism" abolishes private property.
I'm sorry, this passage is crystal clear to me and you seem to have a real problem in understanding it. I can't elaborate here since the problem appears to be you and your inability to understand cause and effect.

Amazing.

quote:


Can you produce a quote from any reputable independent or non-aligned political scientist to support your inane claims instead of relying on some obscure right wing site? Just one? From a reputable independent political scientist anywhere supporting your claim? I didn't think so. No political scientist worth their salt would even allow themselves to be within a bull's roar of your vacuous claim.


Two fallacies in one paragraph. For your ongoing education, I will elucidate:

A) Appeal to authority. (That's a fallacy m'dear). There is plenty of history describing the foundation of fascism. It's patently clear that it owes much to socialism and characterisations of it as right-wing are ideologically driven viewpoints, not factual viewpoints.

B) Begging the question. You state I'm unable to support my viewpoint with a reputable political scientist because - by your definition - if a political scientist supports my point, then they're not reputable.

Once again, you demonstrate your complete incompetence when it comes to reason, logic and the construction of an argument.

quote:

Why? Because your claim is ignorant ideologically driven garbage.

That's pretty much the substance of your claim. And frankly, given your lack of impartiality, I'm not about to let someone else arbitrate this argument simply because you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.

Your attempt to use circular logic demonstrates why you and Peon are so fucking bad at the political thing. You're died-in-the-wool ideologues, I'll give you that, but you two are absolutely awful logicians - which pretty much explains why your understanding of the world and its people is so fucking poor.

quote:


Stop demonstrating your ignorance and lack of education by making claims that are way beyond both your knowledge level and your competence level. All you are succeeding in doing is making a complete ass of yourself
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You've just demonstrated your inability to reason and you think you can talk down to me? Given my level of contempt for your lack of intelligence, I wish you luck with that. You're a mouse squeaking at a lion.



_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Lefties are Coming! The Lefties are Coming! Lefties are Coming! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125