Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

Posted by a Talibanie of unknown national allegiance, but for certain not one who believes in the American ethos, best sourced in these hollowed words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

ROFLMNAO!

So, you feel that being equal before their Creator, provides for the sexually abnormal to be provided with the superior standing which would force others to publish, in approval, and otherwise promote behavior which the Creator himself has published law, requiring that such behavior should result in the execution of those engaging in that behavior?

How could behaving in defiance of natural law, in ANY WAY lead to life, or liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What we take is the win. Given that such proves the fascist nature of the Leftists, who exclusively comprise the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

Which has nothing to do with your claims that religion is required for morality, that religion is objective, or that the abandonment of religion is the abandonment of morality.

Sadly, for you and your would-be argument, this thread is centered upon the refutation of the myth that Leftists are Right-wingers pretending to be Leftists, as a means to make the left 'look bad'. The relevant evidence, to which you're responding is merely further evidence of the fraudulent nature of that myth.

That you've incessantly trolled this thread, as a means to promote the evil by which you are animated, is as irrelevant to the topic of this thread, as are your denials of that which is otherwise obvious.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And that's just one branch of how you're wrong. There are so many others. The fact that theistic beliefs contradict one another, that they change over time, that they are subject to changes in culture, changes in society, and vary based on the personal context of any given individual. And this is 'objective'?

Again and again you return to note the subjective nature of the human being. Human beings which the argument SPECIFICALLY STATES ARE SUBJECTIVE... meaning that one of the argument's primary components IS THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF "BEING" human; thus providing the basis on which the NECESSITY of RELIGION RESTS, wherein the objective nature of religion provides balance against the subjective nature of the being.

You're so deluded that your own evidence refutes your own argument.

That the Founders were known to execute people who were caught engaging in sexual abnormality and that RELIGION provided for just THAT... provides a baseline

Now, from that point, where you correctly claim that subjective human beings have, since, shown their subjective tendency to relax the rules to accommodate their own weakness... is it true or is it false that the sexually abnormal have become more prevalent in today's culture?

And do you 'feel' that such would be the case, wherein the human beings, prone to the subjective nature of their 'being', had instead held to the objective standard of their religion?

And perhaps... do you feel that its possible that the objective standard was set, as a means to PREVENT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY FROM BECOMING PREVALENT?

AND... IS IT NOT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD SET A BALANCE AGAINST WHICH THE SUBJECTIVE BEINGS DECADENT TENDENCY AT LEAST SLOWED THE RATE OF THAT OBVIOUS CULTURAL DECAY?

Decay which the above evidence CLEARLY demonstrates as being a very real threat to the individuals comprising the culture... .

 

[francoHFW]

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

There was no nationalwide vote on interacial marriage or sex. So your sources are suspect. how many polls showed Dewey winning? how many polls were wrong even for this years races? But as i've said before the nation decided that issue when they passed the 14th amendment. Which pretty clearly addresses that issue.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sure, but anyone with a brain would figure Conservative Southern Dems were against inter-racial marriage and kept Dems over a barrel til the 60's, like a-holes like Cruz do to the GOP today.

Partisan gamesmanship with your wording aside, Skylar's claim was far, far beyond that. He said a majority of Americans, he didn't say a majority of southerners. And he didn't just say they were against it, he said they wanted it to be a crime.

Which is why he is throwing much fur to avoid backing it up. He got caught in a flat out lie.

It WAS a crime, and nobody seemed to mind. States rights = bigotted bs as usual...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

Posted by a Talibanie of unknown national allegiance, but for certain not one who believes in the American ethos, best sourced in these hollowed words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

ROFLMNAO!

So, you feel that being equal before their Creator, provides for the sexually abnormal to be provided with the superior standing which would force others to publish, in approval, and otherwise promote behavior which the Creator himself has published law, requiring that such behavior should result in the execution of those engaging in that behavior?

How could behaving in defiance of natural law, in ANY WAY lead to life, or liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

"published by the Creator". Keys is daft.

Seems arrogant assholes presume to know who or what makes one free, and what provides each individual happiness.

Organized religions are no different than organized political parties, they need numbers to be successful. Thus, "go forth and multiply", and the use of contraceptives is a sin, are utilitarian and best enforced by the threat of punishment (going to hell, wherever that may be).

Someone recently posted this sagacious comment, "Freedom FROM Religion" and Rousseau made the observation that man is born free but is everywhere in chains; chains held by Monarchs and Clerics!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothing comin' to mind Princess?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

Posted by a Talibanie of unknown national allegiance, but for certain not one who believes in the American ethos, best sourced in these hollowed words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

ROFLMNAO!

So, you feel that being equal before their Creator, provides for the sexually abnormal to be provided with the superior standing which would force others to publish, in approval, and otherwise promote behavior which the Creator himself has published law, requiring that such behavior should result in the execution of those engaging in that behavior?

How could behaving in defiance of natural law, in ANY WAY lead to life, or liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

"published by the Creator". Keys is daft.

Seems arrogant assholes presume to know who or what makes one free, and what provides each individual happiness.

Organized religions are no different than organized political parties, they need numbers to be successful. Thus, "go forth and multiply", and the use of contraceptives is a sin, are utilitarian and best enforced by the threat of punishment (going to hell, wherever that may be).

Someone recently posted this sagacious comment, "Freedom FROM Religion" and Rousseau made the observation that man is born free but is everywhere in chains; chains held by Monarchs and Clerics!

So you can't say how your citation reasonably provides for the superior standing of the sexually abnormal over those who recognize sexual abnormality as abhorrent?

WOW~ That's odd, considering that such was a central component of your implication. Didn't seem like it was that much of a step to simply admit it.

But... I guess if you'd admitted it, you'd have to be honest and honesty is a component of truth, which requires objectivity and objectivity is axiomatically rejected by the Ideological Left, which is a species of reasoning that rests entirely in Relativism. So I suppose it was unlikely, after all.

 

[Discombobulated]

Still nothing, no closer than they were 2400 posts ago.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

Posted by a Talibanie of unknown national allegiance, but for certain not one who believes in the American ethos, best sourced in these hollowed words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

ROFLMNAO!

So, you feel that being equal before their Creator, provides for the sexually abnormal to be provided with the superior standing which would force others to publish, in approval, and otherwise promote behavior which the Creator himself has published law, requiring that such behavior should result in the execution of those engaging in that behavior?

How could behaving in defiance of natural law, in ANY WAY lead to life, or liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

"Freedom FROM Religion" and Rousseau made the observation that man is born free but is everywhere in chains; chains held by Monarchs and Clerics!

Freedom FROM Religion? Are ya speaking of, perhaps, the freedom from the religious principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Which would be weird, given that such was cited by you, as the very basis of you own position. So can ya explain to the board, how it is that you've gone from claiming religious principle to denouncing such as bondage, over the span of two posts?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Thus, "go forth and multiply".

So you're complaining about the notion which provides for the perpetuation of the species, through the sustainable condition, wherein one man joins with one woman toward the hope of conceiving and raising children within a viable, sustainable familial construct?

An objective construct which your own ideology has historically opposed, undermined; the sanctity of which your species of reasoning otherwise subjectively rejects?

 

[thanatos144]

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

There was no nationalwide vote on interacial marriage or sex. So your sources are suspect. how many polls showed Dewey winning? how many polls were wrong even for this years races? But as i've said before the nation decided that issue when they passed the 14th amendment. Which pretty clearly addresses that issue.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sure, but anyone with a brain would figure Conservative Southern Dems were against inter-racial marriage and kept Dems over a barrel til the 60's, like a-holes like Cruz do to the GOP today.

Partisan gamesmanship with your wording aside, Skylar's claim was far, far beyond that. He said a majority of Americans, he didn't say a majority of southerners. And he didn't just say they were against it, he said they wanted it to be a crime.

Which is why he is throwing much fur to avoid backing it up. He got caught in a flat out lie.

It WAS a crime, and nobody seemed to mind. States rights = bigotted bs as usual...

Hey dummy the democrats haven't changed....There NEVER was conservative democrats only bigoted racist fucks who think you can own other people just like now.

 

[francoHFW]

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

There was no nationalwide vote on interacial marriage or sex. So your sources are suspect. how many polls showed Dewey winning? how many polls were wrong even for this years races? But as i've said before the nation decided that issue when they passed the 14th amendment. Which pretty clearly addresses that issue.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sure, but anyone with a brain would figure Conservative Southern Dems were against inter-racial marriage and kept Dems over a barrel til the 60's, like a-holes like Cruz do to the GOP today.

Partisan gamesmanship with your wording aside, Skylar's claim was far, far beyond that. He said a majority of Americans, he didn't say a majority of southerners. And he didn't just say they were against it, he said they wanted it to be a crime.

Which is why he is throwing much fur to avoid backing it up. He got caught in a flat out lie.

It WAS a crime, and nobody seemed to mind. States rights = bigotted bs as usual...

Hey dummy the democrats haven't changed....There NEVER was conservative democrats only bigoted racist fucks who think you can own other people just like now.

They're southern GOP now, dingbat.

 

[thanatos144]

There was no nationalwide vote on interacial marriage or sex. So your sources are suspect. how many polls showed Dewey winning? how many polls were wrong even for this years races? But as i've said before the nation decided that issue when they passed the 14th amendment. Which pretty clearly addresses that issue.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sure, but anyone with a brain would figure Conservative Southern Dems were against inter-racial marriage and kept Dems over a barrel til the 60's, like a-holes like Cruz do to the GOP today.

Partisan gamesmanship with your wording aside, Skylar's claim was far, far beyond that. He said a majority of Americans, he didn't say a majority of southerners. And he didn't just say they were against it, he said they wanted it to be a crime.

Which is why he is throwing much fur to avoid backing it up. He got caught in a flat out lie.

It WAS a crime, and nobody seemed to mind. States rights = bigotted bs as usual...

Hey dummy the democrats haven't changed....There NEVER was conservative democrats only bigoted racist fucks who think you can own other people just like now.

They're southern GOP now, dingbat.

No they are not you lying scumbag. Democrats stayed democrats because they have a common goal of Fascism and death...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

Posted by a Talibanie of unknown national allegiance, but for certain not one who believes in the American ethos, best sourced in these hollowed words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

ROFLMNAO!

So, you feel that being equal before their Creator, provides for the sexually abnormal to be provided with the superior standing which would force others to publish, in approval, and otherwise promote behavior which the Creator himself has published law, requiring that such behavior should result in the execution of those engaging in that behavior?

How could behaving in defiance of natural law, in ANY WAY lead to life, or liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

"published by the Creator". Keys is daft.

Seems arrogant assholes presume to know who or what makes one free, and what provides each individual happiness.

Organized religions are no different than organized political parties, they need numbers to be successful. Thus, "go forth and multiply", and the use of contraceptives is a sin, are utilitarian and best enforced by the threat of punishment (going to hell, wherever that may be).

Someone recently posted this sagacious comment, "Freedom FROM Religion" and Rousseau made the observation that man is born free but is everywhere in chains; chains held by Monarchs and Clerics!

So you can't say if your citation reasonably provides for the superior standing of the sexually abnormal over those who recognize sexual abnormality as abhorrent?

WOW~ That's odd, considering that such was a central component of your implication. Didn't seem like it was that much of a step to simply admit it.

But... I guess if you'd admitted it, you'd have to be honest and honesty is a component of truth, which requires objectivity and objectivity is axiomatically rejected by the Ideological Left, which is a species of reasoning that rests entirely in Relativism. So I suppose it was unlikely, after all.

You would't recognize honesty. Being an arrogant asshole and dishonest I don't care what you post about me.

I doubt very much Jefferson's words supported the sort of bigotry inherent in Keys' thread, though its clear the ethos of the 18th Century are much different than those of the 21st. Does that mean I reject the arguments and support moral/ethical relativism? Not necessarily, I simply want evidence that the Natural Laws argument isn't a beard for bigotry.

 

[kaz]

Sure, but anyone with a brain would figure Conservative Southern Dems were against inter-racial marriage and kept Dems over a barrel til the 60's, like a-holes like Cruz do to the GOP today.

Partisan gamesmanship with your wording aside, Skylar's claim was far, far beyond that. He said a majority of Americans, he didn't say a majority of southerners. And he didn't just say they were against it, he said they wanted it to be a crime.

Which is why he is throwing much fur to avoid backing it up. He got caught in a flat out lie.

It WAS a crime, and nobody seemed to mind. States rights = bigotted bs as usual...

Hey dummy the democrats haven't changed....There NEVER was conservative democrats only bigoted racist fucks who think you can own other people just like now.

They're southern GOP now, dingbat.

No they are not you lying scumbag. Democrats stayed democrats because they have a common goal of Fascism and death...

Exactly. I live here. Southerners went the the Republican party for fiscal reasons. A great book is by Zell Miller, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat."

The racists are mostly Democrats still. They have no affiliation as fiscal conservatives, they don't care the fiscal conservatives flipped. The biggest racist I know who uses "the n word" all the time has an Obama bumper sticker on his truck. I've never heard them say anything about loving Republicans or even being one. Their daddy and grand daddy and his daddy was a Democrat and they are one too.

 

[Iceweasel]

I moved from NYC to a small southern town still segregated. In school the guys would tell racist jokes and they knew where I moved from and called me n*gger lover. But when I was alone with one of them they would apologize and say they really didn't harbor ill will towards blacks. It was the culture they grew up in. I also knew many in the north that were racist but not honest about it. They would ridicule southerners but then say even worse shit about blacks.

 

[thanatos144]

Democrat is the oldest hate group.

 

[dcraelin]

That would be inconsistent with how the Constitution itself was passed! The state convenetions had specailly elected representatives to address the constitutional issue itself..in a way bypassing the state legislatures.

Way over the top to see this as some sort of communist subversion.

The state legislatures chose the representatives to the Constitutional convention, so that claim is simply a lie.

Im talking about the state ratifying conventions not the convention that dreamt the thing up.

One state, Rhode Island even had a statewide referendum.

 

[bripat9643]

That would be inconsistent with how the Constitution itself was passed! The state convenetions had specailly elected representatives to address the constitutional issue itself..in a way bypassing the state legislatures.

Way over the top to see this as some sort of communist subversion.

The state legislatures chose the representatives to the Constitutional convention, so that claim is simply a lie.

Im talking about the state ratifying conventions not the convention that dreamt the thing up.

One state, Rhode Island even had a statewide referendum.

How is that not an example of the state voting on the Constitution?

 

[Barbasiewiczfan]

Sometimes a dictator is just a dictator. "One invested with absolute powers of government."
My Unsolicited Opinion is that the OP has spent the last 30 years over thinking this subject. For those who choose to label, this has already been done once the legitmate charge of "Dictator" is proven to be the case.
A dictator is not left or right wing, he's a DICTATOR !
Kind of like where the right and the left wing meet in the circle of life.
I once heard Farrakhan and Daniel Carver (of the KKK) being interviewed together by Howard Stern. They agreed on almost everything !