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?

"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.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Folks, do you SEE how easy this is? Try it yourselves, simply encourage the Leftist closest to you to speak. In short order they'll make some ludicrous assertion; such as that by the above imbecile, wherein she claimed that the Declaration of Independence provided for the Sexually Abnormal to force those who hold their behavior as abhorrent, in servitude and where they refuse to drive them into bankruptcy and prison. When asked how that might work...; to sustain their reasoning: "You're an asshole!".

ROFL! You can't BUY that sort of refutation... THAT, ya gotta earn!)

 

[francoHFW]

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...

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS- READ SOMETHING

 

[francoHFW]

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.

You live where? Is the racist in a union? In NY too? Jeebus, I thought you were in Kalamazoo- no wonder you're all messed up lol

 

[bripat9643]

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 !

Bullshit. Pinochet was a dictator and Stalin was a dictator. For the most part Pinochet left people alone and allowed them to manage thei property and businesses as they saw fit. Under Stalin, everything you said and did was monitored by the KGB and the local block warden. If you said anything or did anything that annoyed Stalin, off to the Gulag you went. There were no private businesses or private property under Stalin.

Big difference.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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 !

Bullshit. Pinochet was a dictator and Stalin was a dictator. For the most part Pinochet left people alone and allowed them to manage thei property and businesses as they saw fit. Under Stalin, everything you said and did was monitored by the KGB and the local block warden. If you said anything or did anything that annoyed Stalin, off to the Gulag you went. There were no private businesses or private property under Stalin.

Big difference.

Well there are two kinds of dictators: Those who take total control to prevent Socialism and those who take total control in implementing socialism.

As you said Pinochet was an example of the former... Stalin the latter. The latter promotes freedom, the former cripples freedom.

Simple stuff.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC? You don't, nor do I. I never said he did, and you claiming I did makes you a LIAR!

I suggested it was possible (learn to read, asshole) and you won't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Of course you are a liar, for you posted this (without once bit of evidence), "McCarthy never "Colluded" with them". How do you know (you don't). You're really too stupid to engage in an argument when you partisan biases blind you to what I post, and you are a typical dishonest right wing hack.

It's obvious you fucked up and walked into the McCarthy HUAC trap and are now trying to back away spewing insults.

What did McCarthy ever do to Lucille Ball?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

That was HUAC and other RW a-holes.. McCarthy only started McCarthyism, a disgrace, like Rush, Beck, West, or Cruz. Or your bs politics..

Here's what actually happened: In early 1950, 6 months after the USSR tried to start WWIII in Berlin and 4 months before ChiComs were killing US Soldiers and Marines, McCarthy claimed that many people in the Administration were in fact Communist spies. Because he was right and actually somewhat understated the extent of the infiltration, he was subject to a vicious counter assault from the Communist spies and sympathizers throughout the American media and political structure. He never had a single person in Hollywood or the arts Blacklisted. That was a whole other Committee in the US House that started ages before McCarthy even came to town.

A full court campaign was started to discredit McCarthy's understated warning that many in the government were working for Stalin and Mao. I grew up believing it but it turns out to be a Progressive Big Lie that would make Gobbels proud

Blacklisted by History The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy -- M Stanton Evans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC? You don't, nor do I. I never said he did, and you claiming I did makes you a LIAR!

I suggested it was possible (learn to read, asshole) and you won't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Of course you are a liar, for you posted this (without once bit of evidence), "McCarthy never "Colluded" with them". How do you know (you don't). You're really too stupid to engage in an argument when you partisan biases blind you to what I post, and you are a typical dishonest right wing hack.

It's obvious you fucked up and walked into the McCarthy HUAC trap and are now trying to back away spewing insults.

What did McCarthy ever do to Lucille Ball?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

That was HUAC and other RW a-holes.. McCarthy only started McCarthyism, a disgrace, like Rush, Beck, West, or Cruz. Or your bs politics..

Here's what actually happened: In early 1950, 6 months after the USSR tried to start WWIII in Berlin and 4 months before ChiComs were killing US Soldiers and Marines, McCarthy claimed that many people in the Administration were in fact Communist spies. Because he was right and actually somewhat understated the extent of the infiltration, he was subject to a vicious counter assault from the Communist spies and sympathizers throughout the American media and political structure. He never had a single person in Hollywood or the arts Blacklisted. That was a whole other Committee in the US House that started ages before McCarthy even came to town.

A full court campaign was started to discredit McCarthy's understated warning that many in the government were working for Stalin and Mao. I grew up believing it but it turns out to be a Progressive Big Lie that would make Gobbels proud

Blacklisted by History The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy -- M Stanton Evans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yup... .

 

[Steinlight]

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever..

Um ... read my sig ...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

When you harm someone, then we agree that is a crime.

Your rules for when it is and is not appropriate for arresting someone based on that they ... may ... harm someone are just arbitrary. People do all kinds of things that may harm someone. Criminalizing activities based on possibilities is ridiculous. You're a lot more like authoritarian leftists than I am. I am nothing like them. Their whole agenda is based on what could happen. OMG, you may be old and not have saved any money! You may be black and you may run into a racist who won't hire you! OMG, you may be a woman who wants to have sex and you may not be able to afford birth control! You may be married to a gambler and he may be compulsive and he may gamble your money away! You may be married to a pot head and he may mmore on to more drugs, and he may...

We need government to take care of it now!

Much of the law is based on minimizing "harm", or preventative actions. What are traffic laws, or building codes but preventative measures the minimize harm(and measures that reduce the risk of economic and social costs being occurred from say multiple accidents on the road ways or building collapsing due to fire or earthquake). My positions aren't arbitrary at all, but based on the body of evidence of the negative economic and social costs that prostitution, drug use, and gambling have on a society. They are common sense, something you begin to understand with maturing as you grow out of the high school/college libertarian phase.

I don't know what I can tell you. You're just rationalizing. You're no different than liberals, you just want different things. Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

So what if you can't enforce traffic laws on personal property? What does that have to do with anything?

Again, like the liberals, you can't get a point no matter how obvious. You raised traffic laws, which ragards public property, as an example of government making our decisions for us preemtively. I have no issue with laws on public property against doing drugs or drinking, it's ... public ... property. I pointed out that's a false analogy because with drugs you want to legislate what people do to their own bodies on private property when they are harming no one. Which makes your analogy fall apart, traffic laws do not apply to private property. How did you not get that? It seems very simple.

Building codes, for example, most certainly regulate personal property under the guise of minimizing harm(economic and social costs of poorly built buildings). So are you against building codes because they are laws on people's personal property?

Yes, I am. If a bank loans you hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a house, they don't need the government to force you to build it safely or buy one that is inspected as safe. If you spend your own money, you probably don't need government to force you to either. And if you want to spend your own money on an unsafe house, how is it for government to stop you?

I can't get the point? You're the idiot who opposes building codes. Don't come into this conversation like you are some paragon of rationality when all you are is an atomized autistic who has no sense of anything beyond the self in the immediate moment. You claim I am the liberal, but your selfish and narrow sighted hyper-individualism is the logical conclusion of the destructive liberal ideology.

The fact is, not only does drug use harm others in multiple ways, as I have previously explained, it generally hurts oneself. This is the problem with your harm based morality principle, it is rigid and doesn't recognize the reality of the situation. The idea that we can only act after the harm has been committed, is irrational and more harmful in the long run then preempting the destructive behavior to begin with. It certainly isn't practical when we have the means at our disposal to mitigate it. What you are talking about isn't liberty, its is anarchy.

Also, I don't think you understand property or how it was conceived. Property is a product of the state. Property only exists based on collective consensus. So this atomized view of property, that it can't be regulated ignores how property appeared in the first place. Property only exists practically speaking if at least one person other than yourself recognizes it. The same with your individual sovereignty. Individual rights are just a product of collective consensus. So if individual action harms the stability or continuity of said community, than it is reasonable to regulate such action.

Also, I don't think you understand how building codes came about. They aren't just regulation for regulations sake. Municipalities have recognized over time that the costs of regulation are far less than the damaged caused to both public property and other's private property when a building isn't up to code(whether from a fire or earthquake or whatever). For example, the reason we have fire codes is that for example fires to spread to another person's property, or public property, and economic and social costs are thus minimized. It just baffles my mind I have to explain elementary things to this like libertarians, who bring cross the line from pseudo-intellectualism to mental retardation at the most extreme fringes of the ideology.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

(My) "own ideology"? Keys posts are both dishonest and arrogant. His magniloquent style strongly suggests a desperate need for attention and his desire to be thought of as special.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The same with your individual sovereignty. Individual rights are just a product of collective consensus. So if individual action harms the stability or continuity of said community, than it is reasonable to regulate such action.

No sir...

Individual rights come as endowment with one's life. They are sustained by the correlating responsibilities, not the least of which is the responsibility to not exercise one's rights to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own. This responsibility extends to the defense of the rights of others... wherein as one recognizes a threat to the means of another to exercise their rights, by defending them, you axiomatically sustain yourself, in terms of the means to exercise your rights. And it is in THIS sense that the collective is justified in the regulating of the exercising of rights.

There are endless myths which are perpetrated throughout our culture, and this one is among my top peeves. I am a free sovereign, rightfully entitled to do anything I feel I should do toward the fulfillment of my life... but I am duty bound to never exercise my rights in such a way that I injure another's means to exercise their own. Where I fail to bear that responsibility, I forfeit my rights....

And this is the basis of western jurisprudence.

It may seem like pedantic semantics, but where we begin to accept that our rights are the result of collective whimsy, we forfeit the authority which sustains our sovereign freedom. It is in truth a slippery slope... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

(My) "own ideology"? Keys posts are both dishonest and arrogant. His magniloquent style strongly suggests a desperate need for attention and his desire to be thought of as special.

Your latest concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

(My) "own ideology"? Keys posts are both dishonest and arrogant. His magniloquent style strongly suggests a desperate need for attention and his desire to be thought of as special.

Your latest concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Fuck you. You're a punk and a typical coward who hinds behind a keyboard. Posting the same words over and over and expecting something other than being called an arrogant asshole is .... drum roll please ... insane.

That you believe you're cleaver is hilarious, that you believe you've posted anything of substance suggests you are challenged by reality. You may fool fool some of the people all of the time, but they are the fools.

I'll tell you this, if you ever post anything of substance - reality based, not supernatural or pretend, I might take you seriously. That you can't is telling and good enough reason to continue to call you out as an ignorant and arrogant asshole, and like all assholes be known by a noun which defines a thing without substance, a hole.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

(My) "own ideology"? Keys posts are both dishonest and arrogant. His magniloquent style strongly suggests a desperate need for attention and his desire to be thought of as special.

Your latest concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Fuck you. You're a punk and a typical coward who hinds behind a keyboard. Posting the same words over and over and expecting something other than being called an arrogant asshole is .... drum roll please ... insane.

That you believe you're cleaver is hilarious, that you believe you've posted anything of substance suggests you are challenged by reality. You may fool fool some of the people all of the time, but they are the fools.

I'll tell you this, if you ever post anything of substance - reality based, not supernatural or pretend, I might take you seriously. That you can't is telling and good enough reason to continue to call you out as an ignorant and arrogant asshole, and like all assholes be known by a noun which defines a thing without substance, a hole.

LOL! You truly are the Hallmark of contributors. And always with the Sweetest of Ironies. (I can't get my fill of 'em... you keep 'em comin'.)

Your re-concession to you most recent concession, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[dcraelin]

That would be inconsistnt 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?

It is but it isn't a states representatives voting on such, as I believe was the understanding of the poster I originally replied to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

(My) "own ideology"? Keys posts are both dishonest and arrogant. His magniloquent style strongly suggests a desperate need for attention and his desire to be thought of as special.

Your latest concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Fuck you. You're a punk and a typical coward who hinds behind a keyboard. Posting the same words over and over and expecting something other than being called an arrogant asshole is .... drum roll please ... insane.

That you believe you're cleaver is hilarious, that you believe you've posted anything of substance suggests you are challenged by reality. You may fool fool some of the people all of the time, but they are the fools.

I'll tell you this, if you ever post anything of substance - reality based, not supernatural or pretend, I might take you seriously. That you can't is telling and good enough reason to continue to call you out as an ignorant and arrogant asshole, and like all assholes be known by a noun which defines a thing without substance, a hole.

LOL! You truly are the Hallmark of contributors. And always with the Sweetest of Ironies. (I can't get my fill of 'em... you keep 'em comin'.)

Your re-concession to you most recent concession, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Not really a nice try. Did I forget to say Fuck you? Well, fuck you, you arrogant asshole. Posting the same childish gibberish is insipid, and is clear and convincing evidence of your immaturity.

 

[bripat9643]

That would be inconsistnt 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?

It is but it isn't a states representatives voting on such, as I believe was the understanding of the poster I originally replied to.

Hmmm, no. He simply said the states had to approve the Constitution, and that's exactly what happened.

 

[dcraelin]

That would be inconsistnt 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?

It is but it isn't a states representatives voting on such, as I believe was the understanding of the poster I originally replied to.

Hmmm, no. He simply said the states had to approve the Constitution, and that's exactly what happened.

Im pretty sure he didnt but dont care to look back now. it didnt make the quote list

 

[francoHFW]

An overview of Antonescu:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku] ( listen); June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier and authoritarian politician who was convicted of war crimes. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period. He was a military attaché to France and later Chief of the General Staff, briefly serving as Defense Minister in the National Christian cabinet of Octavian Goga. During the late 1930s, his political stance brought him into conflict with King Carol II and led to his detainment. Antonescu nevertheless rose to political prominence during the political crisis of 1940, and established the National Legionary State, an uneasy partnership with the Iron Guard's leader Horia Sima. After entering Romania into an alliance with Nazi Germany and the Axis and ensuring Adolf Hitler's confidence, he eliminated the Guard during the Legionary Rebellion of 1941. In addition to leadership of the executive, he assumed the offices of Foreign Affairs and Defense Minister. Soon after Romania joined the Axis in Operation Barbarossa, recovering Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu also became Marshal of Romania.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romanian Romani. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because you allied with Hitler doesn't make you a national socialist. For example, Finlanthre were still no trials, just sentence, and people disappearedd, a democracy under attack from the USSR, aligned with the Axis powers.

True, but what is an undisputed fact is that ALL of the regimes I listed were either Fascist or Para-Fascist.

There were also Fascist allies that arguably were not Fascist, but I have not referenced those on this thread.

The key point being that we can build up an accurate impression of the true nature of Fascism not only by studying Hitler, but by studying other Fascist regimes.

After all - do you think anyone is going to seriously suggest that Franco or even Pinochet were NOT right wing?

Pinochet was not a fascist. Also, based on what you posted, Franco was also not a facist in his later years. That doesn't mean he wasn't a fascist in the 1940s.

You're quite mad. He pushed for tourism, but there were still no trials, just sentences, people disappeared and dissent was not allowed. I visited a lot 1964-73. A lot of conservative expats loved it.

 

[francoHFW]

How specifically did "McCARTHY" 'make' the 'anti-communist program sound foolish'.


Again... I am asking you for SPECIFICS!

McCarthy's power was not so much in his accusations but in his suggestions that one is a communist. He suggested Ike leaned towards communism, the US army leaned toward communism, as did General Marshall, every body that did not fall into his line of patter was a commie.
That suggestive power gave McCarthy his power to intimidate. McCarthy had only to suggest that one might be a communist and for many that individual was without a doubt a communist. The evidence many accepted only had to be McCarthy's suggestion, and therein was McCarthy's power.

And ruin the lives of MANY innocents. Great job, Pubbies. J Edgar and McCarthy were a RW disgrace.

Name one "innocent" McCarthy "ruined"

Zero Mostel? Lionel Barrymore? Who?

Arthur Miller - McCarthyism American Masters PBS

Google that- over 300 artists blacklisted, basically all came back after the BS RW hysteria ended. A disgrace. But since you a-holes still use bs character assassination I guess that's just a RW thing, hater chump. And of course thousands of others, NONE proven to be actually harmful- only a few can even be argued to be guilty. Ignorant brainwashed a-holes forever.

You keep getting scammed and duped, you should not leave the house with your wallet.

Joe McCarthy had NOTHING to do with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee

NOTHING

He was a US Senator

Watch and learn

He only started McCarthyism which inspired HUAC into THEIR witch hunt. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[bripat9643]

An overview of Antonescu:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku] ( listen); June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier and authoritarian politician who was convicted of war crimes. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period. He was a military attaché to France and later Chief of the General Staff, briefly serving as Defense Minister in the National Christian cabinet of Octavian Goga. During the late 1930s, his political stance brought him into conflict with King Carol II and led to his detainment. Antonescu nevertheless rose to political prominence during the political crisis of 1940, and established the National Legionary State, an uneasy partnership with the Iron Guard's leader Horia Sima. After entering Romania into an alliance with Nazi Germany and the Axis and ensuring Adolf Hitler's confidence, he eliminated the Guard during the Legionary Rebellion of 1941. In addition to leadership of the executive, he assumed the offices of Foreign Affairs and Defense Minister. Soon after Romania joined the Axis in Operation Barbarossa, recovering Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu also became Marshal of Romania.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romanian Romani. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because you allied with Hitler doesn't make you a national socialist. For example, Finlanthre were still no trials, just sentence, and people disappearedd, a democracy under attack from the USSR, aligned with the Axis powers.

True, but what is an undisputed fact is that ALL of the regimes I listed were either Fascist or Para-Fascist.

There were also Fascist allies that arguably were not Fascist, but I have not referenced those on this thread.

The key point being that we can build up an accurate impression of the true nature of Fascism not only by studying Hitler, but by studying other Fascist regimes.

After all - do you think anyone is going to seriously suggest that Franco or even Pinochet were NOT right wing?

Pinochet was not a fascist. Also, based on what you posted, Franco was also not a facist in his later years. That doesn't mean he wasn't a fascist in the 1940s.

You're quite mad. He pushed for tourism, but there were still no trials, just sentences, people disappeared and dissent was not allowed. I visited a lot 1964-73. A lot of conservative expats loved it.

All you're saying is that fascism is synonym for dictatorship. If that's the case, then where's the distinction? Were the Egyptians fascists? Persians? Chinese? Romans? What distinguishes fascism from other autocratic forms of government?