Tony's sig...

[Malachi151]

"The peace camp is objectively pro-fascist"
-----George Orwell 1942

Just curious why you have this quote and if you know what it means?

[Tony]

You tell me.

[Pyrrho]

Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism", 1945:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwelnat.htm


The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries.

Orwell again: "Pacifism and the War", 1942

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/e/e_patw.htm


Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.

[Pyrrho]

Orwell was specifically writing about pacifism in Britain regarding involvement in World War II. Quoting him out of context does not reasonably apply to present-day conflicts, because we're not fighting fascists or Nazis.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Orwell was specifically writing about pacifism in Britain regarding involvement in World War II. Quoting him out of context does not reasonably apply to present-day conflicts, because we're not fighting fascists or Nazis.

Saddam Hussein and the Islamic theocracies are most defiantly fascists.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Tony


Saddam Hussein and the Islamic theocracies are most defiantly fascists.

So that means the roughly 30% of American who didn't support the Iraq war...about 90 million people in this country...are pro-fascist? Wow.

Mike

[Tony]

Originally posted by mfeldman


So that means the roughly 30% of American who didn't support the Iraq war...about 90 million people in this country...are pro-fascist? Wow.

Mike


Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.

[Malachi151]

He also wrote:

"Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to 'enlightened' and hedonistic people. What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at the moment... The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions - racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war - which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action."
- George Orwell, "Wells, Hitler, and the World State."

Interestingly, at the time of WWII it was actually true that the pacifists were pro-fascist. There was also a sizeable contengent of Americans who wanted to join the war on the side of the Nazis. Not everyone was anti-Nazi, there were pro-Nazis all over Europe, in France, and America, and even England. All of these people at that time were "pacifists" because they opposed ttheir country fighitng agaisnt Hitler.

Also interestingly the first groups to not only speak up about America joining the wars in Europe were the American Communsits and Socialists, many of whom fomred the Abe Lincoln brigade and wnet off to fight against Franco in Spain. There was also the American anti-Fascist League, who were pro war, and also all socialists.

I included that last quote because it shows his own confusion on the issue.

The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions - racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war

LOL, that IS fascism! That's pretty much the definition of fascism :p

So really Orwell himself was a fascist, just an fascist of his own kind, not the Nazi kind. Essentially all he says is to fight fire with fire, which of course always leads to bigger fires...

What is interesting is Leon Trotsky's position on the issue:

Some Questions on American Problems - 1940

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/1940-american.htm

Worth a read, pretty interesting from a historical perspective.

At any rate, his comment was clearly dated to the conditions of the time, its not a blanket statement. It was a comment made in reference to World War II and fascism in Europe, it is not a comment that is timeless and applies to all situations, as I assume Tony thinks that it does. However I do agree that pacifsm is stupid it certianly does not hold that pacifists are fascists, that only applied in WWII where fascism was the opposing force.

And then it applied both litterally, literally many of the people in America and Europe that oppsed war were in fact pro-fascist, and in that if you didn't have the balls to fight against fasism then it would automatically win.

However, the irony is that Orwell himself promoted a fascist ideology. Obviously during times of peace and prior to the outbreak of war its a very, very good thing for people to oppose: "racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war" because that is what prevents war from starting. If the German liberals had done a better job at opposing: "racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war" then there never would have been a war in the first place. Of course once war starts, then the gloves have to come off, just as the "liberal" FDR took them off for WWII.

[Grammatron]

Every quote is taken out of context when it's put in the form of a signature. It does not tell you anything about a person who uttered it or the time it uttered in.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Tony
If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.

While the above statement may be semantically true, it's like saying "If you're not for sending humanitarian aid to Africans infected with HIV, then you're pro-AIDS." Which is, of course, ludicrous. More toublesome to me is that your sig betrays an exceedingly low tolerance for dissent. I value freedom of speech, and the right to dissent, even if it means criticizing our government and its policies. And besides, pacifists are in no danger of even minimally hampering our war effort. We have a volunteer army, conscienscous objectors need not apply.

Hmmm..just though about this...what about pacifist communists? Are they pro-fascist too?

Mike

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Every quote is taken out of context when it's put in the form of a signature. It does not tell you anything about a person who uttered it or the time it uttered in.

I don't know, my Jerry Springer quote is pretty easy to understand.

[Cain]

I love it when conservatives quote Orwell. Always good for laugh, but not quite as funny as when they invoke the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King to demonstrate a point about race relations. That's still the best.

[Mr Manifesto]

Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.



All that tells me is that Orwell was just as prone to the false dichotomy as others on this forum. Such as... Well, heck, the one who this thread is all about!

[Tony]

Originally posted by mfeldman



Hmmm..just though about this...what about pacifist communists? Are they pro-fascist too?

Mike

Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain
I love it when conservatives quote Orwell. Always good for laugh, but not quite as funny as when they invoke the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King to demonstrate a point about race relations. That's still the best.


I love it when leftists dont know what the hell they are talking about.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Just curious why you have this quote and if you know what it means?

Oh, phooey, Malachi. You spoiled the joke. :D

[Reager]

Originally posted by Tony


Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin.


Wow! You ignored the first part of my post, and gave a nonsensical response to the second part. Way to go Tony!!

Mike

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



I love it when leftists dont know what the hell they are talking about.

umm... so you mean opposites? :p

Anyway, that's just a truisim that really has no meaning anyway.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by mfeldman


So that means the roughly 30% of American who didn't support the Iraq war...about 90 million people in this country...are pro-fascist? Wow.

Mike

Not supporting war and supporting Saddam are two different things...

[Reager]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Not supporting war and supporting Saddam are two different things...


Yeah, that was kinda my point. :)

Mike

[Malachi151]

To drive this point home:

In fact, his journal entry for Oct.8 1938, describes how [Charles Lindbergh] received the Service Cross of the German Eagle, a civilian medal, that was to cause such a furor when he was campaigning for nonintervention in 1939-41.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by mfeldman



Wow! You ignored the first part of my post, and gave a nonsensical response to the second part. Way to go Tony!!

Mike

Ignorance and nonsense are two sides of the same intolerant attitude?

[specious_reasons]

Kodiak

Not supporting war and supporting Saddam are two different things...


mfeldman

Yeah, that was kinda my point. :)

Mike

I thought your point was that the protesters didn't affect the war effort, therefore they're not objectively fascist.

:D

[Tony]

Originally posted by mfeldman



Wow! You ignored the first part of my post,

Mike

I did? Sorry, I didn’t know it would damage your sensitive ego. For what its worth, I agree.

and gave a nonsensical response to the second part. Way to go Tony!!

Don't blame me if you lack the ability to comprehend at an 8th grade level.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Ignorance and nonsense are two sides of the same intolerant attitude?


:dl: :id:

Thats funny comming from a bigot like yourself. What exactly am I "intolerant" of?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
What exactly am I "intolerant" of?
"Leftists" comes to mind. Here's a few of your quotes

Originally posted by Tony
You can thank the leftist police state mentality and policies for this *****.

Originally posted by Tony
The left is home to the mexican nazis (cruz bustemonte is one) and the black nazis (Nation of Islam, New Black Panther Party, and the NAACP). Not only is this racism tolerated, it is accepted, my the mainstream leftists.
Originally posted by Tony
That no matter how many people he has killed, tortured or raped, the leftists of the world will be there to offer moral support.
Originally posted by Tony
I think it would be safe to say that all leftists are in favor of ignoring the constitution.

Originally posted by Tony
Always the propagandist, being a crybaby leftist, such tactics come natural. Nice, dishonest way to take my quote out of context.

Originally posted by Tony
...the outcry from the bedwetting leftists would be deafening.
I don't think I've ever heard you discuss them without conveying to everyone the image of yourself as an enraged, spittle-emitting bigot. Not to say that your are an enraged, spittle-emitting bigot, but that is what it comes off looking like. I blame the poor Houston schools.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tricky

"Leftists" comes to mind. Here's a few of your quotes

He hates people who generalise and leftists in general.....Lol. Take it easy on him Tricky, its not really his fault, something had to make him that way.... Although I do find his preoccupation with bed wetting a bit of a worry.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


Thats funny comming from a bigot like yourself. What exactly am I "intolerant" of?
Thanks for supporting my point.

[bangdazap]

But “functionally treasonable” is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term “objectively fascist.” This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as “objectively” treacherous. This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm where Ann Coulter does not really want to be.

David Horowitz, "The Trouble with 'Treason'" - Frontpage magazine.com, july 8, 2003 (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8793)

Also, the real quote is: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.", not the peace-camp. Orwell actually apologized for saying this after the war.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

"Leftists" comes to mind. Here's a few of your quotes


Yes, I am intolerant of people who want to control how I live, so what? But that is only in a political sense, I would still be friends with and hang out with a leftist.

I don't think I've ever heard you discuss them without conveying to everyone the image of yourself as an enraged, spittle-emitting bigot. Not to say that your are an enraged, spittle-emitting bigot, but that is what it comes off looking like. I blame the poor Houston schools.

I didnt go to a Houston school.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thanks for supporting my point.

Thanks for supporting mine.

[Tony]

Originally posted by bangdazap
But “functionally treasonable” is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term “objectively fascist.” This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as “objectively” treacherous. This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm where Ann Coulter does not really want to be.

David Horowitz, "The Trouble with 'Treason'" - Frontpage magazine.com, july 8, 2003 (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8793)

Also, the real quote is: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.", not the peace-camp. Orwell actually apologized for saying this after the war.


Thanks for the info. If my magnanimous nature gets the best of me (it usually does), I might decide to remove the Orwell quote.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Yes, I am intolerant of people who want to control how I live, so what?
I have a secret to share with you. Rightists want to control how you live too, just about different things. Rightists are much more likely to be "law and order" types than leftists. Oddly, though, I never hear you speaking about "bed-wetting rightists".

You're intolerant of a whole lot more too, based on your posts, but this was just one easy example.

Originally posted by Tony
But that is only in a political sense, I would still be friends with and hang out with a leftist.
One can like individuals and still be a bigot. It is the stereotyping of the ones you don't know that makes one a bigot. I can be that way too. Some of my best friends are bigots.

Originally posted by Tony
I didnt go to a Houston school.
Well, I tried to give you an excuse, and you threw it away. I suppose we can blame society. ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I have a secret to share with you. Rightists want to control how you live too, just about different things.


Duh!! When have I ever claimed otherwise? It is you guys who identify me as a "rightist". If you can find any recent quote from me where I claimed to be a "rightist", ill take it back right now.

Rightists are much more likely to be "law and order" types than leftists.

Perhaps, but the freedoms leftists seek to infringe are more important and fundamental IMO.

You're intolerant of a whole lot more too, based on your posts, but this was just one easy example.

No evidence? I thought so.

One can like individuals and still be a bigot. It is the stereotyping of the ones you don't know that makes one a bigot.

Who do I stereotype?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Duh!! When have I ever claimed otherwise? It is you guys who identify me as a "rightist". If you can find any recent quote from me where I claimed to be a "rightist", ill take it back right now.
No, I don't think you are. It just seems that you never seem to froth at the mouth at rightists, who want to keep drugs criminilized (an issue near and dear to your heart), make kids pledge to God, force you to fight in wars (though there is no draft currently, the rightists are always the ones in favor of it) and similar very controlling things. You seem to give them a free pass. Is it because it is more politically correct to rant at leftists? I know you love being politically correct. ;)

Originally posted by Tony
Perhaps, but the freedoms leftists seek to infringe are more important and fundamental IMO.
You don't think the ones I just mentioned are pretty fundamental?

Originally posted by Tony
No evidence? I thought so.
LOL. You mean quoting your exact words is not evidence? Do I have to get a notarized statement from you?

Originally posted by Tony
Who do I stereotype?
**SLAP*** Snap out of it dude. I just showed you. LEFTISTS!!!!

I'm beginning to think this (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html) was written with you in mind.
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame17.html) will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame25.html) will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Ferrous.jpg

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

I have a secret to share with you. Rightists want to control how you live too, just about different things. Rightists are much more likely to be "law and order" types than leftists. Oddly, though, I never hear you speaking about "bed-wetting rightists".

IMO, conservatives, by and large, are narrow constructionists of the Constitution, advocate strict "law and order", and are against increased federal government intrusion, while the liberals, by and large, are broad constructionists of the Constitution, advocate relaxed "law and order", and are for increased federal government intrusion.

There are, of course, exceptions in both groups. I would be a good example of one in the conservative camp.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak


IMO, conservatives are narrow constructionists of the Constitution, advocate strict "law and order", and are against increased federal government intrusion, while the liberals are broad constructionists of the Constitution, advocate relaxed "law and order", and are for increased federal government intrusion.

Erm, so it's actually the liberals that want to tell women what they can do with their body, tell kids in school what God to pray to, and tell people who they can and cannot sleep with? See, to me, that's all "government intrusion." Call me crazy, I suppose.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon


Erm, so it's actually the liberals that want to tell women what they can do with their body, tell kids in school what God to pray to, and tell people who they can and cannot sleep with? See, to me, that's all "government intrusion." Call me crazy, I suppose.

You're not crazy. Please read my entire post. I admitted that there are exceptions. In the conservative camp, many of those exceptions revolve around christian fundamentalism (AKA the "religious right").

As a "godless conservative", I have none of these hang-ups...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


Thanks for supporting mine.

I didn't. And now you've just made yourself look daft.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak

IMO, conservatives, by and large, are narrow constructionists of the Constitution, advocate strict "law and order", and are against increased federal government intrusion, while the liberals, by and large, are broad constructionists of the Constitution, advocate relaxed "law and order", and are for increased federal government intrusion.

There are, of course, exceptions in both groups. I would be a good example of one in the conservative camp.
Yes, there are exceptions to both groups, but I can't see that even non-religious conservatives show much less of a penchant for intrusion than liberals. The main thing that they differ in is which things to intrude on. Liberals tend to want the Fed to intrude on businesses, making them have safety rules, pollution guidelines, fair labor practices etc. Non-religious conservatives tend to want to intrude on individual rights, using wiretaps, hunting down Texas lawmakers, making people join the military, harassing Communists, etc.

So both are intrusive. That is why I take Tony to task for singling out leftists as being the ones who "want to control how he lives". There are lots of reasons to lean towards the left or right, but simply "because they are control freaks" is not one of them.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
Liberals tend to want the Fed to intrude on businesses, making them have safety rules, pollution guidelines, fair labor practices etc. Non-religious conservatives tend to want to intrude on individual rights, using wiretaps, hunting down Texas lawmakers, making people join the military, harassing Communists, etc.

Liberals tend to want to redistibute wealth, socialize medicine, remove/limit private property rights, infringe on one's right to self defense, standardize wages, punish behaviors like smoking, and punish lifestyles like SUV driving or pleasure boating.

Wiretaps and internal Texas politics are legal matters which I already covered, but...

Which individual rights do non-religious conservatives wish to intrude upon?

Who's calling for a draft?

Who cares enough about Communists to harrass them?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

No, I don't think you are. It just seems that you never seem to froth at the mouth at rightists, who want to keep drugs criminilized (an issue near and dear to your heart)


Thats a big issue, but largely irrelevant considering the ease at which those laws are to get away with breaking.

Do leftists want to legalize drugs?

make kids pledge to God

Thats just your propaganda, the true picture is much different.

force you to fight in wars (though there is no draft currently, the rightists are always the ones in favor of it) and similar very controlling things.

Bwahahahahah. Charles Rangel, the racist black congressman from new york is a rightist? Furthermore, the left wants to impose un-american hefty taxes, thats just as controlling, if not more, than the draft.

You don't think the ones I just mentioned are pretty fundamental?

Not as fundamental as self defense and freedom to run your own life and property.

LOL. You mean quoting your exact words is not evidence? Do I have to get a notarized statement from you?

Thats not evidence, just your subjective opinion.

**SLAP*** Snap out of it dude. I just showed you. LEFTISTS!!!!

You have yet to provide any objective evidence of my stereotyping.

I'm beginning to think this (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html) was written with you in mind.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Ferrous.jpg


Impervious to new ideas? Ha!! That shows how unqualified you are to say anything about me, I'm all about new ideas (as long as they dont infringe on freedom).

[DavidJames]

"You have yet to provide any objective evidence of my stereotyping."

How about your quote:

"You could be like all the other "progressives" throughout history and just murder everyone who holds a different opinion than you."

From this tread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28772

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
You have yet to provide any objective evidence of my stereotyping.
:con2:
(Sigh) Well I can see that it is pointless to try to penetrate the dome.

I'm sure that in your mind, you are the most open-minded person in the world, yet, somehow a large number of people here have been otherwise impressed. Why do you think that is? You gonna blame the leftists?:roll:

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"You have yet to provide any objective evidence of my stereotyping."

How about your quote:

"You could be like all the other "progressives" throughout history and just murder everyone who holds a different opinion than you."

From this tread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28772


All this proves is that you have to take quotes out of context to prove your point. A standard tactic used by extremists such as yourself.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm sure that in your mind, you are the most open-minded person in the world, yet, somehow a large number of people here have been otherwise impressed. Why do you think that is?

Because those people are bigots. I say again you, have yet to show any intolerance on my part, just some out of context quotes.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I didn't. And now you've just made yourself look daft.


Ok, being the bigger man, I am stopping this pissing contest now. Please continue with your immaturity, but count me out.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony


Because those people are bigots.http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/oa048.jpg

[DavidJames]

"All this proves is that you have to take quotes out of context to prove your point. A standard tactic used by extremists such as yourself."

How stupid do you think people are? The quote from you is your entire quote! You were responding to this quote from KOA.

"My political stance is Progressive at its heart, but until I have the rest of you thinking the same way, we are doomed to stay just as we are. "

Thats it young man, in context.

"Ok, being the bigger man, I am stopping this pissing contest now. Please continue with your immaturity, but count me out."

LOL

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/oa048.jpg


Do you think posting a cartoon and taking quotes out of context proves your point? Of course you do, you're not a critical thinker. You have yet to show how those quotes (which were taken out of context) demonstrate any bigotry or intolerance on my part. I already told you I would be friends with leftists, that in and of itself is evidence to the contrary of your unsupported contention. I doubt you even take that into consideration, how could you? You have biases to confirm.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony



Do you think posting a cartoon and taking quotes out of context proves your point? Of course you do, you're not a critical thinker. You have yet to show how those quotes (which were taken out of context) demonstrate any bigotry or intolerance on my part. I already told you I would be friends with leftists, that in and of itself is evidence to the contrary of your unsupported contention. I doubt you even take that into consideration, how could you? You have biases to confirm.
Oh Tony you are such a hoot!

All right. Here's your chance to prove what you say. Tell me, Mr. Critical Thinker, the context in which this quote would not be considered stereotyping:
Originally posted by Tony
I think it would be safe to say that all leftists are in favor of ignoring the constitution.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"All this proves is that you have to take quotes out of context to prove your point. A standard tactic used by extremists such as yourself."

How stupid do you think people are? The quote from you is your entire quote! You were responding to this quote from KOA.

"My political stance is Progressive at its heart, but until I have the rest of you thinking the same way, we are doomed to stay just as we are. "

Thats it young man, in context.


I was playing off KOA's "but until I have the rest of you thinking the same way". That type of arogance and hubris is characteristic of past "progressives", you know, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot ect... That is the same mentality that is responsible for the murder of millions.

LOL

Im glad you got my intentional irony, I just hope Billy has a sense of humor too. ;)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tony


Thats funny comming from a bigot like yourself. What exactly am I "intolerant" of?

Apparently, Tony is intolerant of giving people due process....

Because context is so important to Tony:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870143327
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto:

Oh, and speaking of tyranny and oppression, have any of those held at Guantanamo Bay been told what they've been charged with yet? Any access to legal advice? Just curious.


Tony's response:

I don't know (nor do I care), you have the affinity for fanatical muslim terrorists, you tell me.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tony



:dl: :id:

Thats funny comming from a bigot like yourself. What exactly am I "intolerant" of?

Tony, you support Bush's policies in Iraq? I think Dubya has been as bad for America as a President can be and think the Iraq policy is hideous misuse of American power. That is also the position of the National Libertarian Party, the CATO Institute and all of the libertarian journalists I have read. So, unlike all other libertarians you believe it is patriotic to blindly support an adminstrations policies and that it is unpatriotic to do otherwise? Furthermore, the Bush administration has done more damage to liberty in this country with their patriot act and their continued championing of the war on drugs than has been done since the time of Tail Gunner Joe.

[Tony]

Originally posted by billydkid


So, unlike all other libertarians you believe it is patriotic to blindly support an adminstrations policies and that it is unpatriotic to do otherwise?


Why do you think this?

[Tony]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Apparently, Tony is intolerant of giving people due process....

[/B]


You're wrong, Im not against giving them due process. If I were, that might be considered intolerant. Like I said before, I don't care one way or the other.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tony

You're wrong, Im not against giving them due process. If I were, that might be considered intolerant. Like I said before, I don't care one way or the other.

...must care a little bit, or you wouldn't call the people held in Cuba " fanatical muslim terrorists". Please, tell me why you don't care? Could it be that you thinK they're terrorist scum? That's the way to preserve the Constitution!

The only reason I find you amusing is the twisted logic you use to "prove" you're so open minded, Tony.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tony



Why do you think this?

Maybe I misunderstood something. Sorry if so. Then I thought I confused you with someone else. Am I correct in thinking you a libertarian? bdk

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151

There was also a sizeable contengent of Americans who wanted to join the war on the side of the Nazis.


hmmm

Define "sizeable."

(I realise there was the German American Bund, made up of mostly German immigrants before the war, but was there ever a "sizeable" effort to join the Nazis?)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mike B.

Define "sizeable."

(I realise there was the German American Bund, made up of mostly German immigrants before the war, but was there ever a "sizeable" effort to join the Nazis?)
Sizeable? Debatable. Visable? Definately. Charles Lindburgh was one of the most vocal proponants of this. He also hated Roosevelt and tried to do everything he could to discredit him.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Liberals tend to want to redistibute wealth, socialize medicine, remove/limit private property rights, infringe on one's right to self defense, standardize wages, punish behaviors like smoking, and punish lifestyles like SUV driving or pleasure boating.

Wiretaps and internal Texas politics are legal matters which I already covered, but...

Which individual rights do non-religious conservatives wish to intrude upon?


PATRIOT act?
Guantanamo Bay?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

PATRIOT act?
Guantanamo Bay?

Patriot Act: Increased federalism due to fear following a national crisis. Had bipartisan support. Not uncommon in American History.

Guantanamo Bay Prison: Most, if not all are suspected foreign terrorists. US Constitutional Law does not apply, as far as I know, as 1. they are not Americans, and 2. they are being held under military jurisdiction.

At least you didn't challenge my characterization of liberals... :)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Patriot Act: Increased federalism due to fear following a national crisis. Had bipartisan support. Not uncommon in American History.

"Bipartisan support", huh? So the Republicans AND Republicans Lite^tm supported it?

Guantanamo Bay Prison: Most, if not all are suspected foreign terrorists. US Constitutional Law does not apply, as far as I know, as 1. they are not Americans, and 2. they are being held under military jurisdiction.
Oh, well, that's okay then. How many are being detained under PATRIOT on American soil?

At least you didn't challenge my characterization of liberals... :)
That was me being lazy. ACLU?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
How many are being detained under PATRIOT on American soil?

See 2. in my above post...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
"Bipartisan support", huh? So the Republicans AND Republicans Lite^tm supported it?

By all means, please feel free to create a political party to the left of the Democrats. I'd love to see the support you'd garner... :roll:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


By all means, please feel free to create a political party to the left of the Democrats. I'd love to see the support you'd garner... :roll:

Being left isn't popular at the moment. Haven't you heard?