Shut Down Downtown TACOMA! Against I.C.E! Against Raids! November 9th &10th
There will be a designated green zone at S. 17th and Pacific on the corner and in the grassy park across from the art museum. In this area only 100% LEGAL forms of protest will be taking place! Bring puppets, musical instruments, signs, banners, creativity and passion. The rest of down town will be open to diverse and creative tactics!
But remember the Green zone is 100% Legal and those in the Green should not feel obligated to join or participate in anything going on out side of that park and corner. But if you feel comfortable, fed up, and ready, feel free to join in or plan your own actions or marches with your organizations and/or friends and loved ones!
By deductive reasoning we can only conclude that if the "green zone" is legal that the activities planned for outside the "green zone" will be illegal. I suppose it is pretty poetic that criminals acts will be used to protest the detention of criminal aliens.
Keep up the good work guys, I'm sure that the average citizen who is trying to get home from work or do some grocery shopping will be persuaded to your cause due to your random acts of vandalism, name-calling, rock throwing, etc.
45 comments:
Just got my RNC "official" census document. Sending "Mike" Duncan another Gringo De Mexico Nada Pesos bill, with no due respect. Good riddance, mel "mr. amnesty" martinez!
In Miglavia, qualities such as creativity and diversity are criminal in nature. Also, the only appropriate forms of protest are those which have been approved by the government. All else is criminal, and will result in charges and jail time. Of course, these are qualities that, in previous periods, would have been found in fascist states.
Today, we find them in Miglavia.
Oh, that is why I got the notice in my box from my supervisor that Friday the 9th was an optional day for work. This is one reason I love working for the city. Sa-weeeetttttt! I think I will go hold a sign, too.
Anon 6:24
You're a complete idiot. I think I'll get "Creative " and protest you by throwing rocks at your home, and spray painting your car.
If someone did that, you'd consider it criminal would you not? You'd most likely file a Police report yes?
Of course you would.......you fascist!
Mr. DeLucca, accusing others of fascism ... ?
LOL!!!
DeLuggi spreads his "wisdom" once again. Fast Tony, you best stick to selling your lemmon cars to the trash in East County and leave the sophistry to Mr. Miglavs.
... and had Mr. Anthony DeLucca been in the vicinity of Boston in 1773, he surely would have stood his ground, faced with unruly colonists dumping crates of tea into the harbor. "Arrest them!" he would have shouted. "They are in open defiance of the Parliament and in violation of the rule of law! Order! We must have order!"
you two face bs, your still a criminal adn always will be a criminal
ANON 9:28 --
LOL. Now snap on an Elmer Fudd voice to your tea party scenerio and you have a visual that is just, well, PRICELESS. What color do you think the plume in Anthony's hat would be? Yellow?
Anon 9:05
OK, I still don't get why you think I sell cars in East County.
You're either poorly informed, or just stupid. Which is it?
The senate will probably vote on the latest amnesty bill-the Dream Act-on Wednesday. Please go to Numbers USA to fax or call your Senator and register your dissatisfaction of this latest attempt at amnesty.
Already did, Told them to "Vote "YES" on the DREAM Act!"
Amazing how many of you "family values" cons hate children. I guess when it comes to raping and molesting them and sending them to war, you love them. It is shocking.
http://dmv.odot.state.or.us/cf/dlrsliclkup/Search/index.cfm?fuseAction=getSingle&DealerNumber=DA5532&dealerStatus=current
Dealer Number: Business Name:
DA5532 TONY DE LUCCA SALES
Business Phone: Expiration Date:
(503) 663-1856 04/30/2008
Business Address: Mailing Address:
8501 SE 267TH AVE SAME
GRESHAM , OR 97080
Someones been outed. You are "Fast Tony". ahh hahahahah!!!
Anon 1:33 and 1:54
Nope, not me. I go by Anthony...always have.
Nice to see you making asses of yourselves though. Keep up the good work.
I'll give you some hints:
I'm currently a business owner, with my office located in Downtown Portland near Pioneer Square.
I've had the same business for two years now.
Good Luck bucket-heads!
Who gives a flying fuck who/where/what Anthony DeLucca is/was/does? Isn't it enough to know that he's a neo-fascist asshole?
I know what an asshole is....but please explain what a "Neo-Fascist" is.
Educate me.
O.K. In support of the Fairness Doctrine Proposal...I'm gonna be a sport and let you whiney little pansy assed liberals in on a few of your own secret debating tactics. Just to help out a few of the anon posters who are making complete dingle-berries of themselves.
Now mind you, these are in no particular order, but they will serve you well when attempting to "debate" one of us horrible "Neo-Con Fascist Assholes" as one poster so gracefully put it. So here goes:
1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.
2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.
3. Get as personal and vicious as you can, maybe it will distract your opponent from his train of thought.
4. If you are unable to insult him with the usual insults such as “racist,” “homophobe,” or “bigot,” then insult someone else on his side (someone related to the subject under discussion is preferable but not required).
5. When you’re losing, (and you usually will be), abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent’s argument.
6. Talk loudly and rapidly, don’t allow your opponent to get a word in edgewise. Remember the more time you consume, the less time your opponent will have to actually throw facts into the fray.
7. Use hyperbole as an example of your opponent’s argument and suggest that that is what they are suggesting.
8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.
9. Make up “facts” most people don’t check them and anyway, you’ll be long gone by the time the truth is known, and so will the audience.
10. Expect perfection. Focus on the slightest flaw in your opponent’s argument, any kind of mistake, grammatical, spelling, contextual, anything no matter how slight is sufficient to deflect attention away from how vacuous your arguments are.
11. Act insulted. Take umbrage at the slightest contradiction and act as if it is a personal insult. This will make your personal attack seem warranted and just.
12. Mug the camera or audience while your opponent is speaking, make faces, sneering is good, head-shaking better, and looking toward the ceiling is best [notice the avoidance of the word Heaven, Liberals avoid words of a religious nature]. Let the audience know you disagree with your opponent (even if you’ve no idea what he’s saying)
13. Use condescending laughter as much as you can. It serves two purposes, first, it dismisses your opponent as being unworthy of your respect and second, it shows your contempt for his arguments. This is a very powerful tool and can really annoy your opponent and disrupt his train of thought.
14. You’re an arrogant Liberal; demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority by acting in a condescending manner, and generally coming off as an asshole with an opinion.
15. Forget how many of the wealthiest in this nation are Liberals, (George Soros ring a bell?)always beat the drum of “Rich White Republicans” and “working class Democrats.”
16. Finally, always remember style trumps substance. Know it, Live it.
With these pearls of wisdom (yes, we're onto you) you can confidentally debate any conservative. Not effectively mind you, but you can debate them.
You are a "business owner" DeLuggi? Yeah, you ain't as you spend more time on this blog commenting than you would if you actually owned a business. Miglavs should let you take it over as you spend way more time on here than he does. Maybe Danny can make you his flunky...
Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.
I have to say that I whole-heartedly agree with Anthony DeLucca. He and I were having a discussion once about Iraq, and I pointed out how the war has been a disaster for the people there, hundreds of thousands killed, etc. That pissed him off, and he asked for "documentation" about Iraqi deaths. And so I provided it -- in quite a bit of detail. I directed him to an exhaustive study on the topic, gave him the publication, page numbers, authors, etc. He didn't care for that very much, and his responding "argument" basically amounted to the position that he didn't agree with that, or didn't believe it, or whatever. In short: Mr. DeLucca is not only entitled to his own opinion, but he is also entitled to his own facts -- and he is also entitled to throw out your facts if they are in conflict with his opinion.
Lesson learned: When conversing with Anthony DeLucca, avoid factual arguments; you might as well piss into the wind.
Antuny, Antuny, Antuny:
See you like to plagarize off of Little Annie Poultergiest. The funny thing is though, it seems you've adopted all these "debate techniques" as your own. I've been visiting this forum long enough to recognize all these tactics as being the exact arrows you keep in your little quiver there...really, it just sounds like you're talking about your self....interesting.
I especially like the one about focusing on errors in "grammar." That is "you" all over the place Antuny! Do you even know how many times you've corrected spelling and grammar on this blog? LOL, LOL, ROTFLMAO! Thank you for this little manual on how you tick! It's a blow by blow account of your behavior on this blog! This is too good!
In the interest of accuracy, I have to correct myself. DeLucca wasn't plagerizing Little Annie Poultrygiest, he lifted this straight off of The Liberal Debate Playbook from Will Malven, WORD FOR F'NG WORD and thought he could pass it off as his own.
Anthony Delucca's secret debating tactics, indeed, all goose-stepping "talking points regurgitating" wind-up decepti-cons "secret" debating tactics: do not think, simply follow these guidelines we have provided for you word for word...no original thought of your own is necessary, repeat after me:
1. Avoid factual arguments, plagarize from the approved reading list.
2. If for some obscure reason your
"imagination" isn't up to speed and you can't seem to "make up" facts fast enough, plagarize from the approved reading list.
3.Get as personal and vicious as you can, if you're having a hard time coming up with insults, plagarize from the approved reading list.
4. If you are unable to insult him with the usual insults: dipshit, bucket head, pansy-assed, idiot, complete idiot, fascist, dingleberries, etc., etc., then, by all means, plagarize from the approved reading list.
5.When you’re losing, abruptly change the subject and plagarize from the approved reading list.
6. Talk loudly and rapidly, don’t allow your opponent to get a word in edgewise or else you may not have time to plagarize from the approved reading list.
7. Use hyperbole as an example of your opponent’s argument and suggest they go fix themselves some ovaltine so you can distract them as you plagarize from the approved reading list.
8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent. This will buy you even more time to cut and paste entire sections, passing them off as your own, from the approved reading list.
9. Make up shit. Most people don’t believe you anyway. And when they catch you plagarizing, don't forget to call them names. It's lame, I know, but it will make you feel better, at least until you sell that damn Miata.
10. Expect perfection. Focus on the slightest flaw in your opponent’s argument, any kind of mistake, grammatical, spelling, contextual, anything no matter how slight is sufficient to deflect attention away from how vacuous your arguments are. (Antuny has already masterd this technique on his own, he no longer needs assistance from the decepti-con handbook for this one).
11. Act insulted. Take umbrage at the slightest contradiction and act as if it is a personal insult. This will distract them, enabling you to find the passage you want to plagarize and pass off as your own.
12. Expose your genitals to the audience while your opponent is speaking, make faces, sneering is good, head-shaking better. If you are a multi-tasker this provide yet another distraction so you'll have a few more minutes to get to the web site to cut and paste entire passages. It's so much easier than coming up with something on your own. Avoid words like "original thought" or "independent thinker." These are bad words. Refer to approved reading list.
13. Use annoying cackles as much as you can. It serves two purposes, first, it detracts your opponent so you can quickly plagarize from the approved reading list, and second, it shows your respect for Rush, ann, et al. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery you know, and that includes using their material word for word and passing it off as your own.
14. You’re an ignorant decepti-con. Demonstrate your obvious insecurity by plagarizing from the approved reading list and passing it off as your own. Post responses in condescending manner and never apologize for being an asshole who plagarizes entire passages from other people's work and passes it off as his own opinion.
15. Forget how many of the wealthiest crooks and perverts in this nation are Republicans. Larry Craig ring a bell? Always beat the drum of “Rich White Republicans really care about their fellow man", even when evidence to the contrary has reached critical mass. If you beat the drum loudly it will distract them so you will have more time to plagarize from the approved reading list.
16. Finally, always remember symbols trump substance. Don't forget to put on your flag pin. Know it, live it, wrap your flag around it.
With these pearls of plagarism(yes, Antuny, we're onto you) you can "con"-fidentally "con" any one who dares to have an opinion that is different from yours. Not effectively mind you, but you can at least try. Remember, if they catch you, deny, deny, deny and chew and swallow any talking points memos you might have in your possession. Remember, no one must ever know that you must be spoonfed what to say to a dissenter.
Of course it's word for word (the list anyway) I cut and pasted it dip-shit.
See anywhere wher I claim they are my words?? Nope.
See anywhere where you said they weren't? Nope. Busted.
See anyone even reading a blog written by "anonymous"?
Nope. He has to come here for an kind of attention. Even bad attention.
Busted.
Ahhh. I see you are employing tactic #10:
When you’re losing, (and you usually will be), abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent’s argument.
Deflect attention from the real issue by latching on to red herring: poster using "anonymous."
Oh...and yes, I do have a very popular blog, as a matter of fact. I'm paid to write it and I am paid to write a weekly column in my local newspaper as well.
Seems like we can't go more than a month before the words "Republican" and "Pedophile" don't pop up in the news somewhere. You know what they say, "birds of a feather flock together".
Giuliani Hires, Defends Accused Child Molester
Months after Catholic priest Alan Placa was accused of sexually molesting three children, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani hired Placa, his longtime friend, to work in Giuliani's consulting firm.
Victims' groups and some of Placa's accusers have begun protesting at Giuliani's campaign events. "This man did unjust things, and he's being protected and employed and taken care of. It's not a good thing," said a former student of Placa's.
Giuliani continues to defend Placa, saying "I know who he is, so I support him. We give some of the worst people in our society the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt ... of course, I'm going to give that to one of my closest friends."
Educating Anthony DeLucca:
Neo means "new."
Fascism, loosely defined, represents an authoritarian ideology that has come to be embraced by the administration of George W. Bush and the Republican Party -- two groups you've elected to criticize only because they aren't fascist enough. It is fiercely nationalistic, male-dominated, favors military supremacy, has an undisguised contempt for human rights, freedom of speech, and civil liberties, and features an anti-democratic fusion of government power with the nation's corporate and industrial elites (and turns a blind eye to the resulting corruption and cronyism). Fascists also tend to be obsessed with police power and the "rule of law" (at the expense of civil liberties). Fascists are also both paranoid about and hostile toward the arts, intellectuals, immigrants, labor unions, and economic and political liberalism -- to the point of suggesting that they represent a threat to the survival of the Republic itself. Scapegoating is a popular propaganda tool, as is the heavy reliance on appeals to religious backwardness and zealotry.
Excellent - Considering Bush was strongly behind the amnesty bill the obviously he isn't a fascist.
Hmm, lets see, fusion of government power with corporate elites - Damn, sure sounds like national health care to me, remember how the last time Hillary trotted out that old dead horse she had virtually every huge corporation behind her?
Male dominated - OK, whew, Bush skips that one. Hey, ya know, now that I think about it, Condi is about the only one that could announce tomorrow and have the election sewn up in about a week.
Military supremacy - OK so now I see where this is going, remember when Clinton was out of control and got us involved in Bosnia and was bombing people left and right to deflect from the Lewinski he got. I see where you are going with this. good point.
Fascists paranoid about economic liberalism - Well, now there I think the point is well made with Hillary threatening to take over health care, a portion of our economy equal to the entire economy of China. Point well made. Hats off to you!
Paranoid about the arts - Damn, spot on, remember when they tried to push the Child Decency act and censor the internet under Clinton. Bravo! Glad to see another person out there had big problems with Janet Reno.
Paranoid about political liberalism - Again, Bravo, I would certainly say this ties in well with the Democrats recent push for "the fairness doctrine" to try and censor dissenting points of view from the radio. Likewise with the McCain Feingold bill.
Scapegoating - Yes, Yes, Yes, the recent scapegoating of smokers is horrendous. Here in Oregon smokers are the subject of a recent initiative to tax them into oblivion. Hey, remember the S-Chip silliness? Now that was some scapegoating, taxing smokers to pay for rich kids health care.
Spot on post! Great to see another well reasoned person here, thank you.
Anyone who denies that there isn't a strong element of fascism amongst the neo-cons (and obviously among the far right wing of the Republican Party, which this blog represents well) is sufficiently uneducated about political economy and history that they probably shouldn't even try to discuss the topic. You've got as much credibility discussing your own political tendencies as someone educated in English lit is discussing the Periodic table of the elements.
You're either wildly uninformed, or stupid. I'd place my money on both.
Honestly, I'd far rather talk with a fascist who is at least intelligent and politically conscious enough to know what he is and principled enough to defend it, and you're neither.
Fascism is the mid path between Capitalism and Communism, government control of the economy through control of private corporations, by definition. Always has been that, always will be that. That's exactly how the person most closely associated with fascism, Adolph Hitler, ran his government. The interesting thing is the tendency of those on the left not to understand this point. They are simply used to name calling in their own little circle with no one questioning them. The hilarious thing is the sort of reaction we have above - "You don't know what you are talking about". The irony of it, and what is so funny, is saying someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they clearly don't even understand the definition of the word in question - Fascism, its a leftist thing.
Fascism, its a leftist thing ...
That is possibly THE most asinine statement I've ever read.
Well, Anon 12.56 - you might want to read up on your political theory then.
Fascist theory:
Its simply not refutable that Fascism was frequently referred to as a "third way" or "middle Path" between laissez fair capitalism and communist ideologies during its inception and heyday after WW1 and through WW2. It is therefore to the left of capitalism.
Fascisms founder.
Mussolini, who had been a hard line communist prior to WW1 is actually credited with both the invention of fascism and the theory of it being the "third way". Communism lacked the nationalism he felt his new fascism would inspire. Thus fascism was born of a communist. He affirmed the collectivist nature of fascism constantly throughout his rule.
Thus we see that fascism was invented by a communist, and is a left wing ideology when compared to capitalism.
Thus anon 12.56, you either have no basic historical knowledge or simply insist that a word can mean anything you think it does.
Fascism - Brought to you and implemented by the left.
QED
Equating socialism (like Germany's "National Socialism," for example) with fascism is one of history’s unfortunate ironies. The Nazis may as well have called themselves Christian Knights of Germany. It would have been as absurd, since there was obviously nothing Christian about what they believed or did.
Socialism and fascism represent currents of ideological thought and also refer to the characteristics of complex social systems. They have little, if anything, in common. They have different founders, different spokesmen, they originated from different philosophical traditions, and in practice, they are as different as oil and water. Historically, proponents of each tendency have been irreconcilably opposed to and, in fact, openly hostile toward each other.
1) Fascism is extremely nationalistic -- as opposed to socialism, which was conceived as a necessarily international imperative that was opposed to all forms of nationalism.
2) Fascism is subjectivist in philosophy – as opposed to Marxism, which is a dialectical and materialist approach.
3) Fascism, in practice, is totalitarian -- unlike socialism, which was always intended to be democratic … far, far more democratic than the United States is in 2007.
4) Fascism looks to the bourgeoisie and a concentrated aristocratic class for its strength and political legitimacy (and financing) and is opposed to the working class – contrasted with socialism, which looks to the working class and is intended to benefit the working class.
5) Fascism, in my opinion, represents a specific stage of capitalist society, one that has reached an advanced stage of imperialism. (In fairness, some dispute this analysis, but I think it has been defended sufficiently by over time.) Classical socialism, by which I mean socialism as envisioned by its founders, represents the antithesis of capitalism, a system that necessarily results from its demise.
These are the primary differences. There are countless others. For example:
6) The fascist conceptions of racial superiority (or, for that matter, national primacy) are abhorrent to socialists.
7) German fascists made extensive use of Christian imagery as a propaganda tool; socialists are opposed to religion (though not to people’s right to practice it as they wish) and mysticism.
This list, too, could go on.
8) Socialist thought was a product of the Enlightenment. Conceived by Marx and Engels, it evolved and was articulated in the work of Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov, Luxemberg, Bebel, Serge, Shachtman and many, many others.
9) Fascism, while not a monolithic world view, originated from a philosophical line that was hostile toward the Enlightenment values that were at the root of Marxism, and had its own “founders,” although that’s simplifying a complex process that unfolded over centuries: Maistre. Naumann. Heidegger. Nietzsche.
RHuse: Your comments suggest that you probably regard Stalinism (including Mao, Cuba, etc.) as legitimate manifestations of socialism. They were not, and are not. Stalinism was not the expression of socialism, it was a rebellion against it.
Stalin murdered millions, yes. There is no need to throw "The Black Book of Communism" or other such books in my face, I know what they say about the death toll. But they all proceed from the same lie -- the premise that Stalinism was socialism. Did you know that a great many of Stalin's victims, a tragic number of them, were socialists? Study the show trials of the 1930s. Who were the “defendants” in those cases? Do you know the names of any of them? Do you know what they stood for? Do you care? Do you know what they fought against?
Socialists were at the vanguard of opposition to the Nazis (long before Americans were, and even before a lot of Germans were.) Long before IBM was collaborating with Hitler’s regime, a socialist element within the European and Russian working class stood in fierce opposition. The Nazis went after the socialists just as they targeted Jews. Hitler was against the Left from the start. In 1933 he called for the extermination of Marxism, then moved to ban their meetings and publications. If Hitler were really attempting to implement and preside over a “socialist” society, as you say, this would be akin to a President Osama bin Laden calling for an Islamic state, and then proceeding to ban publication of the Koran and outlawing mosques!
Did the National Socialist German Worker’s Party claim to speak for working people? Sure. Did they? No. In this country, Democrats claim to embrace a political perspective, a set of ideas, that benefits working people, that represents “ordinary Americans.” I suspect you don’t take them at their word (nor should you, because they don’t), so why would you believe the ravings of a sociopath like Hitler? You may believe that National Socialism in the Third Reich was, in fact, socialism, but your view is not shared by most serious historians -- not even those who are, like yourself, hostile toward socialism!
It is you, RHuse, who needs to "read up" on political theory. Your comments reveal a staggering ignorance of the topic.
Well, one thing my comments do clearly reveal is your inability to read a paragraph
I wasn't equating fascism with socialism.
Assignment - Re - read.
I said fascism was between communism and laissez fair capitalism. Thus a leftist ideology.
You seem intent on claiming I said fascism was the same as socialism.
Sorry but I just simply refuse to debate you on a point of your choosing, and one I wasn't making.
My point remains proven as you seem quite unable to counter it.
Fascism - "the other leftist ideology". - Read up on it.
I do have to say you are right about one thing - I am hostile to socialism. Lets face it, I think we could both agree, the track record is abysmal. An ideology that has had so many leaders, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Saloth Sar, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Erich Honecker that have racked up deaths by the hundreds of millions in its name is pretty darn scary.
Woopsie - I forgot, those guys all get a pass because they weren't implementing "true socialism".
It would have been nice if those guys had been cut short by all the "true socialists" out there, before their horrors were visited upon the world. Somehow we never hear the criticism until the mass graves are dug up and the evidence is undeniable.
Oh well, better late than never I always say.
Gee, funny how I am supposed to be the one who is ignorant of history. Oh well, stupid me, Im just not a big fan of death camps. Im definitely not a big fan of letting one of you guys try it just one more time to try and get it right.
I wasn't equating fascism with socialism.
No, you didn't today. But you have before. You've made it clear that you believe that Germany's project of "National Socialism," which I hope we both agree was an expression of fascism, was an authentic manifestation of socialism. Your ruminations on the topic today are entirely in synch with your previous statement, and merely expand on your overall political perspective. Unless you are prepared to now argue that socialism does not fall on the left end of the political spectrum, then my comment stands and relates directly to the position you have taken on this board. It is hardly something I plucked out of thin air, something of "my own choosing."
The suggestion that Mussolini was a "founder" of fascism is not one that a serious student of history would make. Not, at least, if we have general agreement on what it means to be the "founder" of a political ideology. If we approach that question honestly, I cannot think of ANY ideology that was "founded" by a single individual. Yes, he was among the first to practice a variation of it, but the idea that he invented it is laughable.
A final observation: You have made no effort to refute or argue any of the nine points above. Collectively, they represent a demolition of the fantasy about equating fascism with political perspectives that originate on the left, including socialism. The only place your argument (either in whole or part) "remains proven" is in your own mind.
In fact, your position has been utterly demolished. But I'll make a proposal: If you'd like to talk about "the founder" of fascism, how about weighing in on the influence of Maistre? I'm assuming you've read him, that you're familiar with his work, correct?
Or would it be true that, prior to tonight, you'd never heard of him?
Well, I didn't weigh in on any of your arguments for the reason I stated, you were arguing a point I wasn't making.
As for my position being utterly demolished? You never addressed it, so you kind of miss there.
The point stands, as it is something of a truism, Fascism is between capitalism and communism. You are seriously going to argue that?
Fascism has been addressed as the third way or middle path between communism and capitalism so much it is absurd for you to be arguing against it.
As for the founder of modern fascism, sorry, most do in fact credit the former hard line communist, Mussolini. Not a lot to really say to that one.
>how about weighing in on the influence of Maistre? Or would it be true that, prior to tonight, you'd never heard of him?
Ok now that's funny, thanks for the name dropping tactic, made me giggle a little. Socialists always undermine their position as being for the proletariat when they assume elitist tactics.
Fascism - "Most of the collectivism, with half the death camps!" try some today.
I ain't no communist, but I don't think you have to be to see, RHuse, that the "socialist" just kicked your ass around the block.
Oh good lord, now you are posting as "anonymous" to try and establish your own peanut gallery?
Ok, now that's funny. I love it.
Look, you argued a point I wasn't making and got your ass whooped. Live with it.
But thank you for the smile. It was almost as funny as the "Maistre" faux pas.
This will conclude my contribution to the discussion, which, thanks to the incoherence of your own statements, is starting to resemble a Kafka nightmare.
[First of all, I didn't post the Anon remark. Although it does make one thing clear: He/she is smarter than you are.]
I'll concede: The Maistre remark obviously smacks of arrogance. Nonetheless, your response essentially answers the question, and it's a relevant one: You don't know who he is, which leaves you wide open to the legitimate charge that you are unprepared to discuss in a serious manner who the "founder" of fascism is, or what he said, why he said it, and what he did about it -- notwithstanding your laughable declaration that it was Mussolini. Yes, Wikipedia tells us that the Italian dictator coined the word fascism. So what? Someone out there in the world also coined the word "blogosphere," but that does not mean, RHuse, that he invented the blogosphere!
While it is technically true that I have not specifically addressed the question of fascism as a "middle path," it nevertheless is irrefutable that I have, in fact, directly addressed the general position/strategy you have adopted -- both in this post, and in others: The equation of fascist (and Nazi) political ideologies with a "left" or socialist political perspective.
Whether you actually intended that to be the "point" in your post at 8:32 a.m. [and, given the concluding, parting-shot sentence in that post -- "fascism, it's a leftist thing" -- what else could a reasonable person possibly expect your "point" to be? ] you have made it overwhelmingly clear that an equation of the two is the foundational premise from which ALL your "points" and other misguided fantasies and delusions flow, and that is precisely what I HAVE addressed. [And in far more detail, in hindsight, than I probably should even have bothered with.]
I see no purpose in continuing the discussion. If you cannot comprehend or even bring yourself to acknowledge your own position, why should I expect you to understand mine?
Regarding Tony De Lucca: I happened to see him in court the other day. He was being sued in Multnomah Small claims court for breach of contract. He appeared with several witnesses that in the end gave evidence against his own interests. Appears he expected them to lie under oath and when they did not he was red faced mad.The creditor in the case ended up prevailing. Tony left the court before the Judge could throw him out for his poor behavior.
Post a Comment