Liberals, Conservatives, Islamists and all - Your opinion please?

I think they are pure evil. I don't agree with the previous comments suggesting that American liberals share anything in common with them. Aryan nation is like some dormant parasite on humankind. They linger on, just waiting for the right conditions in society where they can plant there seeds of hate. I was unaware they were "friends" with any Islam group. How sad. I couldn't even bear to go to there website, I try not to fill my mind with such negativity. Still, it is good to stay informed and talk about such things, so good thread.

 

Rebecca, thanks for bringing the thread back on track. This threads isn't a chance to bash liberals and conservatives yo-yo, ferret, spencer and lorien

 

I bashed someone?!? Why I never!

 

please post some links to support your blathering, you are starting to just seem like a paranoid nut job

yeah nazis and liberals are the same, nevermind that facists are considered a extreme right wing ideology

 

Fascists are considered that only by people who don't know any better.

I am not responsible for the beliefs of stupid people, not matter how many of them there might be.

For all I care those people can "consider that the moon is made of green cheese" -- it doesn't make it any more true.

 

For more amusement, I recommend Joseph Kennedy and the Jews.

 

Will, you lost me - fascism is not an extreme right wing ideology?

 

I think technically it is. I remember my friend's dad, the head of history and Master degree politician, explaining how technically leftism cannot support fascism. Also, northpointaiki, you condone Deer hunting?

 

Yes it is, a right wing ideology, which is why I raised the question to Will.

And, yes, I hunt deer, along with many other animals; consciously, respectfully, aware of what I am doing and how I do it. I live in a wilderness area of the United States, and honor what lives here - just as my ancestors did.

I eat meat, and as a chef, I cook it regularly. I find hunting it myself a far cry better than buying some piece of god knows what, entirely removed from the living thing it once was, living in misery and dying as no living thing should die. My chefs need to know how to kill, then how to butcher, a whole animal. Hunting, I know an animal lived well, and I own the responsibility for taking its life.

Do you eat meat, or use any kind of animal product, or by-product in your daily life? (i.e., chicken - how was it raised? How did it die? Eggs - free range, or battery? Milk - what's in it? Beef - fattened on grain to speed the process, or allowed to live on natural feed? How about your fruit - do you buy only sweet, mature fruit - or do you accept the unripe crap the local grocery store tries to foist off as "fruit" when in actuality it is simply a place-holder, sped up on the vine, branch or bush, to make room for more agri-sales?).

In other words, unless you are entirely conscious in all your eating and cooking decisons, you may want to look at what you do before seeing "hunting" and making a snap decision based on that.

 

I regret to say yes I do eat meat. Only beef, but I know that's no excuse. I'm seriously considering going veggie. I'd never kill a sentient being though, that I can be proud of.

 

Brum - do you not see the hypocrisy you just posted?

You'll eat beef - and have no idea how it lived or died - and you blithely try to foist your karma off on a butcher, or some other person. Somebody killed that cow, and by eating it, you are every bit as "culpable" in the chain. I acknowledge my "culpability," so do what I can to know the animals I eat lived and died well. How can you be "proud" of consuming the flesh someone else killed, and likely killed so inhumanely?

This is no better than the untouchables of India, or the eta of Japan. The eta are people who, by trade, use animal products in their work, such as tanners. Buddhists will gladly eat the meat once encased by the tanner's hides, but will consign the tanner to buddhist hell for tanning skins.

Sheer nonsense - sorry.

 

Mate I know it's not an excuse! I even said:

And I didn't mean I was proud that I didn't kill the animal, I was just saying I'm proud that I'll never kill anything that's all. I know my part in the consumer chain. Come to think of it, I don't think I do play a part in it, let me explain:

Firstly, I live with my parents, so here's how I think I don't play a part:

Mum buys x amount of meat > Mum, Dad, Brother and I eat it. What if I didn't eat it?

Mum buys x amount of meat > Mum, Dad and Brother eat it > I don't eat x amount > what would be my amount is therefore eaten/stored/binned.

So whether or not I eat it, what would be my portion is still used, either restored, eaten or wasted.

However, if I lived on my own or with a partner, it would be affected.

 

Sorry, Brum, but your logic is flawed. If you didn't eat meat, Mum wouldn't buy your portion. If mom didn't buy your portion, there would be less demand. Less demand, less slaughter.

I was merely pointing out what I feel is a false distinction - you indicated you were "proud you didn't kill any sentient being." I pointed out that, in effect, you were.

I am sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but you clearly condemned my hunting, without any consideration whatsoever. I drew out how not only do I think your logic was flawed, but your condemnation was wholly hypocritical.

You haven't answered my questions, actually. Do you know how the cows you eat lived, and how they died? The chickens, the eggs (if you do)? Milk? Fruit? Do you know anything about the food you eat? If you're answer is, essentially, no, then I ask you: how can you condemn my killing the animals I eat, when I make my choices from among creatures that lived free and well, and see that I kill quickly, and just as well?

 

You ask for proof from Will, can you give proof on your facists = extreme right idea?

 

debunked -

Please forgive me jumping on board, but fascism has been a subject of my interest for over 20 years (mainly, how the hell could a Nazi Germany have come about?). This is my view.

Fascism was a revolutionary historical movement rooted in the interwar (post-WWI) period (though its first whisperings were found earlier, near the end of the 19th Century). It exalted the state as the centerpiece of all political and economic power, and was borne on the back of middle class, mass politics - though not liberal politics (liberal in Will's, correct, use of the word), but rather corporatist aggregation. It destroyed any nascent worker movement in the countries where it flourished, principally, Germany, Spain and Italy. It was not internationalist in reach, but squarely nationalist in viewpoint. It was an entirely militaristic, authoritarian model, and viewed leftist movements - primarily, communism and socialism - as its ideological enemy.

In other words, an extreme, far right ideology, just as Ferret said it was.

 

Since FDR, statism has been a tenet of left wing politics. Small government has been promoted (though not necessarily well implemented) by right-wing politicians.

The concepts underlying fascism are now aligned with the "modern" left wing movement, for example fascism's opposition to free-market capitalism.

Fascism promoted an agenda of state control of the economy. Who does that sound more like, the D's or the R's?

Fascism promoted a division of races. Who supports race-based legislation, the D's or the R's?

Fascism and Communism started out as friendly ideologies, and in fact are almost indistinguishable in practice. They fell out only after having difficulties dividing the world between themselves.

Let us never forget that the most "successful" facist party was the National Socialist party of Germany.

The only thing that appears "un-fascist" about modern American liberals is that they despise their own country. Of course, the Nazi's were also very critical of Germany -- before they took it over.

 

Northpointaki, don't feel like that please, you haven't ruffled my feathers I'm merely just putting forth an argument. Have you considered what if the beef wasn't purchased in portions? What if it was a rump or something. Like a big morsal lump ^^

Well, if my logic is flawed again, I can still be proud that I don't directly kill anything, this isn't a dig at you or anything, just a personal thing for myself I suppose.

OK fair point. My asnwer is no. But I'll receive less negative kamma than the people who kill the animals. I think I may become vegetarian now anyway.

 

Will, let's be careful to call a spade a spade. You know better.

Fascism was borne of a particular time and place. Throwing it around in facile usage serves nothing and may only confuse those who have a genuine interest. I'll take your points one-by-one.

"Big Government" - what you are calling "statism" - is simply not the same thing as fascism.

Fascism, socialism, and communism all shared extra-market political solutions to deal with the rise of mass politics in the industrial age. By your definition, the social democracies of the nordic states - for instance, Sweden - were fascist states after WWI. The ascendancy of socialist politics took place, and capitalism was squarely opposed. Fascist? Sweden? Norway?

Fascism aggregated all aspects of the economy under its singular roof, and it did so for a particular (militaristic ascendancy) end. No relation to your objection to Democratic politics.

There was nothing in common between the history of the KPD and NSDAP, outside of their common hatred of the Weimar Republic and its democratic process. None. From the inception of both, they fought each other as mortal enemies on the streets of Bavaria, then Berlin. There is absolutely no historical basis for your claim here. To take an easy example, the KPD was internationalist in outlook - Workers of the World Unite, with the enemy being a class enemy, globally - while the NSDAP was absolutely, unequivocally nationalist in bent - "Deutschland Uber Alles." The same was repeated throughout the fascist states. Hitler went to bed with the KPD as it was politically expedient, to quash the SPD - then, as soon as he was able, he renewed his attack on the KPD, this time armed with the instruments of state.

The NSDAP was no more "socialist" than was Bismarck before them. Remember, it was Bismarck - the authoritarian, imperialist, monarchist bastion of right-wing politics in Germany, post-unification - who also happened to introduce the first social welfare program in the entirety of German history. I have answered this already, on another thread. (If you'd like, I can dig it up).

You rightly and skillfully point out the murderous acts done in the name of Jihadism - usually, when someone lamely points to the excesses of Christianity, or judaism, or western state practices ("well, you can tell your brothers to quit cutting off heads as a start") in excusing the crimes committed in the name of Allah.

You need to hold to the same standard here. My late father fought fascists, as did my uncle. My wife would not likely be here now were it not for Hitler's end. If you want to simply call liberals "fascists" because you don't agree with their politics, OK. But no Democrat, no Liberal, ever dropped Cyclon B.

What you are saying has no basis in historical fact. You know it.

 

-And therein lies the problem, friend. I believe you are simply avoiding the obvious. This is no different than the eta argument. (see above). I choose to kill, with compassion, rather than support, thoughtlessly, the inhumane treatment of animals, and the spoilage of consolidated agri-business.

If you eat meat, don't condemn hunters. Work with them.

 

Ah but, the act of murder even with compassion still mounts heavy negative kamma. You are taking a sentient being's life - I am directly not. Yes, I will still receive negative kamma, but you will receive more per every deer you kill. The Buddhists eating the meat already there due to the tanners killing the animals is totally fine. I cannot see any negative kamma given to them doing that, as the meat WILL be there, the same amount, whether they do or don't eat it.