The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

[extowgunner]

does any of this sound familiar to anyone but me?



The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

by Lawrence Britt

Spring 2003

Free Inquiry magazine
Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism, anyone?") Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy. The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism:
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. ###

[Barkley]

Yikes,

Looking at these 14 signs is Lawrence Britt suggesting that the Kerry/Edwards ticket would lead America down a fascist path? I’m not ready to accept his conclusion but it certainly looks like all the indicators are there.

It’s chilling when you ponder what could happen.

Great post!

[extowgunner]

what is utterly amazing is the level of denial and ignorance some people are in even when the plain and simple truth/evidence is staring them squarely in the face. such is life as a bushlicker, i suppose.
the bush/cheney '04 slogan should be "ignorance is bliss".

[ninjalooter1701]

Yikes,

Looking at these 14 signs is Lawrence Britt suggesting that the Kerry/Edwards ticket would lead America down a fascist path? I’m not ready to accept his conclusion but it certainly looks like all the indicators are there.

It’s chilling when you ponder what could happen.

Great post!
Barkley, your mental retardation sails forth in flying colors.

Take each of those 14 points, compare them either as being [+bush] or [+kerry] then total them up.

Tell you what, since counting to 14 is hard for you, I'll do it for you.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism:
[+bush]
[-kerry]

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights:
[+bush]
[-kerry]

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause:
[+bush]
[~kerry]
4. Supremacy of the Military:
[+bush]
[~kerry]
5. Rampant Sexism:
[+bush]
[-kerry]
6. Controlled Mass Media:
[+bush]
[-kerry]
7. Obsession with National Security:
[+bush]
[~kerry]
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined:
[+bush]
[-kerry]
9. Corporate Power is Protected:
[+bush]
[~kerry]
10. Labor Power is Suppressed:
[+bush]
[-kerry]
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
[++bush] (this is a high-level right-wing platform)
[-kerry]
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment:
[+bush]
[-kerry]
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption:
[+bush]
[-kerry]
14. Fraudulent Elections:
[+bush]
[-kerry]

Are you so blind? Yes....You're actually a waste of time.
Bush fills the Fascism Platform, you're too brainwashed to not see it.

Apply these criteria, which you yourself applauded, to your own Bush campaign. You can't, your tiny mind can't handle the truth.

[thaanatos]

ignorance is bliss
agreed. but I am unclear on which one is 'Bliss' extowgunner or ninja.....

[Barkley]

Thanks for clarifying that for me Ninja… I suppose I just didn’t see it before (or perhaps I just didn’t want to believe it).

But your analytical point-by-point break down removes any skepticism I might have had. So if we’re all in agreement that a Kerry/Edwards ticket will lead America down the fascist path, what can we do about it?

[elalumno]

What utter bullshit.

Once again we see some non lucid partisan moron attempt to label the party/candidate they don't like with some specious and over generalized faux logic.

If you have enough synapses to fire in that lame brain of yours, look at the definition of fascism.

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Now let’s just accept that you have a blind hatred towards Bush. That hatred aside, nothing happening in this country right now backs any allegation that either a Bush is a fascist or b this country is becoming fascist.

The courts are still working, the House of Representatives and Senate are still working, the individual states still have their governors and legislatures, etc., etc., etc.

So, proffer you hatred and ignorance all you want, it won’t change reality to coincide with your hate addled thoughts.

[Jayne B]

Moved to the election forum because of the Bush/Kerry slant

[ninjalooter1701]

So, you claim that Bush is against these 14 points?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism:
Vital interests: US or allies threatened; we can win & exit Q: How would you decide when it was in the national interest to use US force? BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means:
Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened.
Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.
Whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.
And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.
I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.
"I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are."
George Bush (SENIOR), Newsweek, (Commenting on the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the U.S. warship Vincennes, killing 290 passengers.), August 15, 1989

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights:
a. Strongly favors death penalty
b. Strongly opposes woman's right to choose
c. Strongly opposes "gay rights."


3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause:
a. Axis of Evil.
b. Saddam Hussein.

4. Supremacy of the Military:
a. Largest increase in defense $ in two decades: never too high:
b. Better equipment, better training, and better pay:
c. $1B more for salary; $20B more for R&D for new weapons:
d. $1B more in personnel raises; more for housing too:
Increase military salaries & weapons spending:

5. Rampant Sexism:
a. Woman's right to choose.
b. Gay rights.
c. Lack of classification of "gay-bashing" (violent) as hate crime

6. Controlled Mass Media:
"There ought to be limits
to freedom..."
- George W. Bush, commenting on the website www.gwbush.com
7. Obsession with National Security:
a. Patriot Act
b.Largest increase in defense $ in two decades: never too high Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports 3 great goals for America: We will win this war, we will protect our homeland, and we will revive our economy.

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month-over $30 million a day-and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.


Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.

Source: State of the Union speech to joint session of Congress Jan 29, 2002

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined:
FODDER:
a: I strongly respect the separation of church and state. Source: White House news conference Feb 22, 2001
b. "Our priorities is our faith."
c. One of first acts was establishing faith-based initiatives One of the President's first official actions was to establish the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose of the initiative is to recognize our greatest strength-the hearts and souls of the American people-and apply that strength to Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 29, 2003
d. The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002: Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the mythof separation of church and state."
e. On January 12, 2003, Supreme Court Justice Scalia speaking at an event called Religious Freedom Day, publicly attacked the separation of church and state signaling the problems this important principle would have under a Supreme Court with a Scalia majority.
f. According to Americans United, the Pennsylvania chapter of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign has sent out emails, seeking 1,600 congregations in Pennsylvania "where voters friendly to President Bush might gather on a regular basis."
g. US chosen by God to be a model among nations. (Aug 2000)

9. Corporate Power is Protected:
a. Limitations on lawsuits against insurance companies.
b. Deregulation of energy industry.
c. No-bid contracts with Haliburton
etc, etc...

10. Labor Power is Suppressed:
a. Weakened OSHA, slashed funding 64%
b. Named Eugene Scalia, son of the Supreme Court justice, solicitor of the Department of Labor (look up some of his comments)
Scalia: He ... attacked and mocked the very idea of repetitive stress injuries, calling them "junk science," "exotic and absurd, like a trip through Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean."
c. Repealed federal regulations that prohibited federal contracts from going to corporations that violated federal labor laws. (Wall Street Journal, 4/2/01; Washington Post, 3/31/01; Associated Press, 1/3/02; National Journal's Technology Daily, 1/2/02)
d. Executive orders banning project labor agreements
e. Executive orders requiring federal contractors to post anti-union notices f. Executive orders eliminating the National Partnership Council
g. Executive order revoking job protection for service industry workers that contract with the federal government.
h. Bush Budget Cuts Labor Department Funding. In his 2005 budget proposal, Bush seeks a 5 percent decrease in funding-to $57.3 billion-for the Department of Labor, mostly because of a cut in projected spending on unemployment benefits. [Federal Funds Information for States, 2/9/04]
etc etc...
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
a. I don't even need to start with Bush nor the "Right Wing" stance here.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment:
a. Most executions of any governor.
b. Supports some waiving of Miranda Rights.
etc...


13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption:
a. Hey Scalia, wanna go hunting?
b. Hey Jeb, how are things in Florida?
c. Hey Neil Bush, director of Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan in Denver, Colorado, from 1985 until 1988, how is business? (Silverado's failure was due at least in part to the fact that Neil's two partners welshed on $132 million in loans. )
d. Hey Ken Lay, thanks for letting me fly on your plane during the 2000 campaign!


14. Fraudulent Elections:
a. USA.

[elalumno]

ninny,

You and gun boy are no different that the stupid morons that spent hours and hours trying to convince the world that Clinton was Hitler.

Do a simple search and see all the wasted cyber space on that specious and moronic comparison that mirrors yours.

Such comparisons only paint those making them to be mindless dumb shits. Of course knowing you well, it does fit you perfectly.

You know if you find a good Clinton is Hitler site you could just cut and past it and replace Clinton with Bush and you'd probably have an orgasm. I'd almost feel sorry for you leading such a pathetic, hate filled and fucked up life, but seeing what an asshole you are, you richly deserve it.

[ninjalooter1701]

ninny,

You and gun boy are no different that the stupid morons that spent hours and hours trying to convince the world that Clinton was Hitler.

Do a simple search and see all the wasted cyber space on that specious and moronic comparison that mirrors yours.

Such comparisons only paint those making them to be mindless dumb shits. Of course knowing you well, it does fit you perfectly.

You know if you find a good Clinton is Hitler site you could just cut and past it and replace Clinton with Bush and you'd probably have an orgasm. I'd almost feel sorry for you leading such a pathetic, hate filled and fucked up life, but seeing what an asshole you are, you richly deserve it.
Thanks for demonstrating that you yourself are an asshole.

[elalumno]

Thanks for demonstrating that you yourself are an asshole.


:rofl

Really? And why would that be? Because I have correctly and aptly pointed out what a hate filled, partisan shit you are. Because I have demonstrated that you are willing to post any lie, exaggeration or faux logic to proffer your hate.

:rofl

Fine, then, if proving what a worthless shit you are makes me an "asshole", so be it.

BTW, did you know that the second letter in your name is "i" and that the last two letters are "er"? That is the EXACT SAME PATTERN as Hitler. I guess that makes you Hitler. Now refute that.

See how fun your logic can be.

[extowgunner]

You know if you find a good Clinton is Hitler site you could just cut and past it and replace Clinton with Bush and you'd probably have an orgasm. I'd almost feel sorry for you leading such a pathetic, hate filled and fucked up life, but seeing what an asshole you are, you richly deserve it.

hate? the poster is accusing another of hate with a post like that? typical right wing conservative hypocrisy.
sounds like a nerve has been hit. the truth hurts, doesn't it? and the truth that has been staring us in the face is that the bush regime is, within the context of the original post, a borderline fascist government as ninja has so eloquently detailed.
ninja has provided clear and concise reasoning and explanations and el, barkley and thaanatos have provided nothing but, but, but bile and invective and a stunning ability to behave like spoiled little children.

[elalumno]

hate? the poster is accusing another of hate with a post like that?

Yes, you a ninny. Do you need help in understanding that.

typical right wing conservative hypocrisy.


Then take that up with a right wing conservative you dumbshit.

sounds like a nerve has been hit. the truth hurts, doesn't it? and the truth that has been staring us in the face is that the bush regime is, within the context of the original post, a borderline fascist government as ninja has so eloquently detailed.

That any lucid person would make such a specious analogy is ridiculous. Of course you aren't lucid so we understand.


ninja has provided clear and concise reasoning and explanations and el, barkley and thaanatos have provided nothing but, but, but bile and invective and a stunning ability to behave like spoiled little children.

You want proof, okay, her it is.

The third letter in Hitler's name is "t" and the last two letters are "er". It is no coincidence that The third letter in your name is "t" and the last two letters are "er".

Obviously you are Hitler.

No disprove that.

[ninjalooter1701]

I'd like to thank our conservatives such as El Alumno for showing our friends in other countries just what the USA Conservatives are all about...

[extowgunner]

You want proof, okay, her it is.

The third letter in Hitler's name is "t" and the last two letters are "er". It is no coincidence that The third letter in your name is "t" and the last two letters are "er".

Obviously you are Hitler.

No disprove that.


your aforementioned stunning ability to act like a spoiled third grader is crystal clear el, you must be a speechwriter for mr bush.

[elalumno]

your aforementioned stunning ability to act like a spoiled third grader is crystal clear el,

Awww...boo hoo hoo...poor little toeman got upset....

:moon



you must be a speechwriter for mr bush.

See, that is what I like about ignorant dumbshits like you. Unable to post anything lucid the best you can do is accuse people, that prove what an ass you are, of being Bush supporters. Geez, you are as stupid as krammie.

Here's a little factoid to addle you pea brain a bit more, not that you will grasp it, but I'm not a Bush supporter. Your claim that I am only confirms what a moronic ass you are.

:bleh

[elalumno]

BTW you did not disprove my "facts" as to your being identical to Hitler. Therefore it must be true.

:rofl

[ninjalooter1701]

Again, ElAlumno, I thank you for presenting such a lucid display of what it means to be a Conservative American.

You are truly a representative of your party. I overwhelmingly thank you for demonstrating, publically, to the world, just what you are like.

WORLD: THIS IS AMERICA! (Why do you hate us so?)

[elalumno]

Again, ElAlumno, I thank you for presenting such a lucid display of what it means to be a Conservative American.

Really?

Okay, let's play a game.

Here is your challenge, not that you are honest or intelligent enough to face up to it.

List the political positions I take that make me a "Conservative American".

Will you do it?

Of course not, because you cannot prove a lie.

You are truly a representative of your party.

Part II of the game.

What party is that? Show me where I have claimed party affiliation. Show me the positions that I have taken that are indicative of a party affiliation.

Will you do it?

Once again, of course not, because you cannot prove a lie.


I overwhelmingly thank you for demonstrating, publically, to the world, just what you are like.

You are more than welcome. Demonstrating what a hate filled, partisan and sub human POS you are is more than satisfying.

[elalumno]

And this goes for you too niny boy.

BTW you did not disprove my "facts" as to your being identical to Hitler. Therefore it must be true.

[elalumno]

Hey niny boy, I hope you don't get too winded or twist an ankle running away from your challenge.

:rollin

[ninjalooter1701]

Hey niny boy, I hope you don't get too winded or twist an ankle running away from your challenge.

:rollin
Thanks again, for your wonderful demonstration of "Right Wing America."

[GunnyL]

what is utterly amazing is the level of denial and ignorance some people are in even when the plain and simple truth/evidence is staring them squarely in the face. such is life as a bushlicker, i suppose.

What's even MORE amazing is that fascism is ultimate LEFT, not right. Dumbass.

[GunnyL]

Sorry El Al ... Got carried away. I see you already addressed the point in my previous post.

[GunnyL]

Again, ElAlumno, I thank you for presenting such a lucid display of what it means to be a Conservative American.

Are you making a point, Ninja? Concerning conservatives? I'm far more conservative than El Al is, and I'm not very. There is such a thing as sitting in the middle and making fun of both sides ....

[ninjalooter1701]

Again, ElAlumno, I thank you for presenting such a lucid display of what it means to be a Conservative American.

Are you making a point, Ninja? Concerning conservatives? I'm far more conservative than El Al is, and I'm not very. There is such a thing as sitting in the middle and making fun of both sides ....
Perhaps you've missed ELAL's commentary...

[GunnyL]

Not really. I happen to agree with his opinion on the topic of this post. It starts out with misidentification, and goes down from there.

It is your opinion that anyone that speaks out against the left is a conservative?

[ninjalooter1701]

Not really. I happen to agree with his opinion on the topic of this post. It starts out with misidentification, and goes down from there.

It is your opinion that anyone that speaks out against the left is a conservative?
You agree with his opinion and his invective, his words and his flames.

How are my words "The left." Do you have any direct refutations of my quotes of GWB?

[GunnyL]

You agree with his opinion and his invective, his words and his flames.

Ninja ...

You aren't exactly the epitome of "tact," yourself. Matter of fact, you get petty and nasty at times and I can say I don't care for it myself.


You bitched at me about defending El once before, so I'll say this: I never have to GUESS what he's thinking, and he tells it like he sees it. No bullshitting around, word-twisting, relativism, no secret hidden political agenda, just straight up in your face.

If you don't like the way he responds to you, don't debate with him. Nobody makes you.

[ninjalooter1701]

You agree with his opinion and his invective, his words and his flames.

Ninja ...

You aren't exactly the epitome of "tact," yourself. Matter of fact, you get petty and nasty at times and I can say I don't care for it myself.


You bitched at me about defending El once before, so I'll say this: I never have to GUESS what he's thinking, and he tells it like he sees it. No bullshitting around, word-twisting, relativism, no secret hidden political agenda, just straight up in your face.

If you don't like the way he responds to you, don't debate with him. Nobody makes you.Intersting point of view. You're right, I'm not the epitome of TACT. But then, who started where?

Nobody makes me, you're right. But then, you're the man who stands up for what is right. What does your enlightened sense of justice tell you here? There's no need to turn it off just for this thread.

[GunnyL]

What I think is right?

When you allow yourself to lighten up and have a sense of humor, I don't think you and I ever have a cross word.

And, what I think is right as far as you debating with El is what I said ... if you can't handle it, don't. There's a poster here who pisses me off if I just see that he posted. I do my best to stay away, period. I know beforehand there is not going to be an even semi-intelligent debate. Just a pissing contest. I can get that here with my wife without logging on!

[ninjalooter1701]

Sure thing, then, like you say. But then, it seems odd that you don't stand up against blatant mistruths in some circumstances, but you do in others. Odd to me, in any event.

[GunnyL]

What blatant mistruths?

That would be a matter of opinion, would it not? I consider your opinion of conservatives a blatant mistruth. What you and I consider the "truth" is subjective.

[ninjalooter1701]

What blatant mistruths?

That would be a matter of opinion, would it not? I consider your opinion of conservatives a blatant mistruth. What you and I consider the "truth" is subjective.
I'm asking about the direct quotes that I placed in this thread, to which the "conservatives" replied with "typical rhetoric."

[elalumno]

Thanks again, for your wonderful demonstration of "Right Wing America."

:rofl

I expected no less from the ballless wonder niny. Cowards are always like that.

But let's have some fun.

So tell me ninnyboy, what makes me a "right wing", "conservative", "republican"?

Is it my support of a woman's right to chose? I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

Is it my support of gay rights? I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

Is it my oposition to the amendment prohibiting gay marriage? I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

I bet it is my opposition to the current war in Iraq. I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

Or perhaps it is my dislike for Rumsfeld and his running the war in Iraq just like McNamarra did Vietnam? I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

Maybe it is my dislike of Ashcroft? I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

Or perhaps my view on decriminalizing drugs and putting the money from the WOD into treatment instead of prosecution? I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

Hey, I got it; it’s my opposition to prayer in school. I guess that is what makes me a "right wing" "conservative" "republican".

Yep, all those positions really make me a right winger, an ultra conservative, a staunch Republican.

Or we could look at the reality of it and see that the reality is that you are a dishonest, cowardly extremist who never has a lucid thought. A shithead that needs to avoid reality, and label people since he cannot think outside of his cloistered, hate filled partisan world.

[elalumno]

And I fully expect you to ignore the facts here ninnyboy.

You don't have the honesty, integrity or courage to face reality.

[elalumno]

Not that ninnyboy and toegun will get this, but here it goes anyway.

Everyone of those 14 points could be applied to just about any president. Think of FDR and JFK in particular.

I guess FDR and JFK were just a couple of right wing fascists

[ninjalooter1701]

How about, then, ElAlumno, that you show how those 14 points apply to JFK. Show your high, enlightened regard for the truth.

Grats, Thaanatos, Elalumno is a bigger dipshit than you, and that's no small feat.

[elalumno]

How about, then, ElAlumno, that you show how those 14 points apply to JFK. Show your high, enlightened regard for the truth.

Well at least you admit FDR was a fascist. But as always your most recent post is nothing more than a pathetic dodge there ninnyboy, but wholly expected.

Keep running away, it really is comical.

[elalumno]

Isn't specious logic and gross over simplifications fun.


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism:

Ask not what your country can do for you….

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights:

On the same evening, President Kennedy addressed the public in a speech broadcast by all television networks. It was clear break with JFK's prior and lukewarm position on civil rights.

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Civ%20Rts.html

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause:

Cuba and the USSR

4. Supremacy of the Military:

Vietnam

5. Rampant Sexism:

Multiple affairs and no women on cabinet

http://www.potus.com/jfkennedy.html#cabinet

6. Controlled Mass Media:

Manipulation of media on his affairs, Cuba and VN.

7. Obsession with National Security:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined:

Strong Catholic.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.


9. Corporate Power is Protected:

Persecution of Hoffa.
Selection of McNamarra.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed:

Persecution of Hoffa.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts



12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment:

Going after the mafia

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption:

Appointing his brother as AG

14. Fraudulent Elections:

One of the most closely contested elections in U.S. History. Speculation is that Kennedy bought votes in key states.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.%20presidential%20election,%201960

[thaanatos]

What's even MORE amazing is that fascism is ultimate LEFT, not right. Dumbass.

I would have to start by saying you are both wrong....this is another situation where we may need another set of directions....left, right, backwards, forwards?.....

when most people consider 'fascism'....they are generally thinking about 'totalitarianism'....

'totalitarianism' has had a number of advocates over the years.....Nazi fascism, Japanese Imperialism, Soviet Communism....

American conservatism.....at least those that advocate a small federal government and a shift of authority down to state and local levels are unlikely candidates for 'totalitarians'.....

libertarians and liberals who closely identify with them....those in favor of strong personal liberties without any restriction what so ever.....are also unlikely candidates for 'totalitarians'....

However, within the left you can find those who favor a strong central government, with the 'state' doing everything for the people, cradle to grave, .....that would be the closest thing to 'totalitarianism' in the US political system......

[ninjalooter1701]

You've listed a few "country wide" phenomea rather than systematic presidential decrees/bills signed by them. Your evidence pales in its incompletion

[Fredfredson]

Thaanatos

Well said, I agree with that.

F
:pooter

[elalumno]

You've listed a few "country wide" phenomea rather than systematic presidential decrees/bills signed by them. Your evidence pales in its incompletion

No, what I did was use the same specious, lame, and ridiculous "logic" based on gross stereotypes and selective information and ignoring of facts to make a point akin to yours. The problem is that I did it knowingly and not believing in it only to demonstrate, via exaggeration, how lame you are.

FDR and JFK were no more fascist than Bush. You are too pent up in your hatred and blind partisan extremism to be able to see.

[ninjalooter1701]

You've listed a few "country wide" phenomea rather than systematic presidential decrees/bills signed by them. Your evidence pales in its incompletion

No, what I did was use the same specious, lame, and ridiculous "logic" based on gross stereotypes and selective information and ignoring of facts to make a point akin to yours. The problem is that I did it knowingly and not believing in it only to demonstrate, via exaggeration, how lame you are.

FDR and JFK were no more fascist than Bush. You are too pent up in your hatred and blind partisan extremism to be able to see.
You posted virtually zero information, while I provided in many cases upwards of six and many more examples to prove my point. In your case, you posted very little supporting evidence as your proof.

[elalumno]

Don't worry ninnyboy, you weren't expected to get it.

I provided just as much proof as you did.

Only a really hate filled and unintelligent moron would attempt to call the President of the United States and the United States fascists.

Of course that does explain you, doesn't it.

[sarmajor]

I must agree with thaanatos.

The quoted characteristics are common to most totalitarian regimes and not restricted solely to those with fascist leanings.

The tactics involved would have been employed long before Caesar grew out of knee pants.

As long as despots paid lip service to a popular illusion (Bush: democracy and freedom - Caesar: the senate and people of Rome) they were home and hosed with a compliant following.

Caesar had his bread and circuses, Bush has his evil empires.

[ninjalooter1701]

Don't worry ninnyboy, you weren't expected to get it.

I provided just as much proof as you did.

Only a really hate filled and unintelligent moron would attempt to call the President of the United States and the United States fascists.

Of course that does explain you, doesn't it.
Did you also step up and call Barkley a partisan asshole for saying that the 14 points are characteristic of Kerry?

As for "you providing proof" like I did, it shows how well you can(t) count.

[elalumno]

Lame attempt again ninnyboy. I want addressing Barkley's sarcasm pointing out the stupidity of your point. But I do find it telling how you missed (or should I say INTENTIONALLY IGNORED so as to fit your lie) this.


You and gun boy are no different that the stupid morons that spent hours and hours trying to convince the world that Clinton was Hitler.

Do a simple search and see all the wasted cyber space on that specious and moronic comparison that mirrors yours.

Such comparisons only paint those making them to be mindless dumb shits. Of course knowing you well, it does fit you perfectly.

Now I will help you even more, since obviously your meds and psychoanalysis are falling short.

IF someone really, seriously tries and apply those 14 lame ass points to Kerry and call Kerry a fascist, then indeed they to are a partisan asshole who are ignoring what true fascism really is.

Now I just can't wait to see your pathetic dodge and lies that follow.

[thaanatos]

Did you also step up and call Barkley a partisan asshole for saying that the 14 points are characteristic of Kerry?
Ninja, I think it is time to admit that what Barkley was trying to 'prove' was not that Kerry was a fascist, but that your test could be equally applied to any politician......

this would certainly distinguish his actions from yours, if you actually think you have submitted 'proof' that Bush is a fascist.....

[elalumno]

Ninja, I think it is time to admit that what Barkley was trying to 'prove' was not that Kerry was a fascist, but that your test could be equally applied to any politician......

Yes, and thus my FDR and JFK examples.

Yet ninnyboy is so all consumed with hate that he has become a sociopath in that he will accept anything that affirms his hatred and denounce anything that proves him factually incorrect.

[ninjalooter1701]

Ninja, I think it is time to admit that what Barkley was trying to 'prove' was not that Kerry was a fascist, but that your test could be equally applied to any politician......

Yes, and thus my FDR and JFK examples.

Yet ninnyboy is so all consumed with hate that he has become a sociopath in that he will accept anything that affirms his hatred and denounce anything that proves him factually incorrect.
You missed quite a few of the 14 points. how come?

[elalumno]

You missed quite a few of the 14 points. how come?

Gee, ninny boy lies once again and tries to change the subject.

No surprise there.

[ninjalooter1701]

Isn't specious logic and gross over simplifications fun.


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism:

Ask not what your country can do for you….

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights:

On the same evening, President Kennedy addressed the public in a speech broadcast by all television networks. It was clear break with JFK's prior and lukewarm position on civil rights.

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Civ%20Rts.html

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause:

Cuba and the USSR

4. Supremacy of the Military:

Vietnam

5. Rampant Sexism:

Multiple affairs and no women on cabinet

http://www.potus.com/jfkennedy.html#cabinet

6. Controlled Mass Media:

Manipulation of media on his affairs, Cuba and VN.

7. Obsession with National Security:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined:

Strong Catholic.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.


9. Corporate Power is Protected:

Persecution of Hoffa.
Selection of McNamarra.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed:

Persecution of Hoffa.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts



12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment:

Going after the mafia

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption:

Appointing his brother as AG

14. Fraudulent Elections:

One of the most closely contested elections in U.S. History. Speculation is that Kennedy bought votes in key states.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.%20presidential%20election,%201960
You list ONE point about Kennedy. I listed multiple support for Bush in each criteria, in some cases well over five.

[ninjalooter1701]

Not really. I happen to agree with his opinion on the topic of this post. It starts out with misidentification, and goes down from there.

It is your opinion that anyone that speaks out against the left is a conservative?
Is it your opinion that anyone who speaks out against the Right is a liberal?

If you don't hold that opinion, why are you defending "It is your opinion that anyone that speaks out against the left is a conservative?" but not "anyone who speaks out against the Right is a liberal?"

Are you *sure* that you're standing up for the truth, standing up for "correct nomenclature?"

[elalumno]

You missed quite a few of the 14 points. how come?

Gee, from my count and your qutoing me, it would seem I only missed one point, no. 11

So you can't even get that right.

And that doesn't even touch upon the whole point of this, which is your analogy is specious, lame, ridiculos and false.

But once again don't worry, no one expects you to get it or address it.

[ninjalooter1701]

If you think that JFK's pursuit of criminal allegations against Jimmy Hoffa is some sort of Fascist attempt at "controlling labor," then...there's not much help for you. Your points are not valid.

[elalumno]

If you think that JFK's pursuit of criminal allegations against Jimmy Hoffa is some sort of Fascist attempt at "controlling labor," then...there's not much help for you. Your points are not valid.

GOD!!!

You really are that fucking stupid!

:rofl

You really are a absolute moron!

:rofl

I mean it really isn’t an act with you, it is real life stupidity. You are so wrapped up in your anger, hatred and obsession of me you can’t even grasp any portion of reality.

:rollin

Let me repeat it for you, you dumb ass, lame, ignorant shit.

Here it goes AGAIN. See if you can keep up, okay dummy.

NO, WHAT I DID WAS USE THE SAME SPECIOUS, LAME, AND RIDICULOUS "LOGIC" BASED ON GROSS STEREOTYPES AND SELECTIVE INFORMATION AND IGNORING OF FACTS TO MAKE A POINT AKIN TO YOURS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT I DID IT KNOWINGLY AND NOT BELIEVING IN IT ONLY TO DEMONSTRATE, VIA EXAGGERATION, HOW LAME YOU ARE.

FDR AND JFK WERE NO MORE FASCIST THAN BUSH. YOU ARE TOO PENT UP IN YOUR HATRED AND BLIND PARTISAN EXTREMISM TO BE ABLE TO SEE.

Do you get it now asshole? Or are you still too lost in the shit you wallow in to get it?

You know, you really are SO STUPID that I almost pity you. :lol

[ninjalooter1701]

Wow, such anger. Do you take medication?

[ninjalooter1701]

NO, WHAT I DID WAS USE THE SAME SPECIOUS, LAME, AND RIDICULOUS "LOGIC" BASED ON GROSS STEREOTYPES AND SELECTIVE INFORMATION AND IGNORING OF FACTS TO MAKE A POINT AKIN TO YOURS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT I DID IT KNOWINGLY AND NOT BELIEVING IN IT ONLY TO DEMONSTRATE, VIA EXAGGERATION, HOW LAME YOU ARE.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed:
a. Weakened OSHA, slashed funding 64%
b. Named Eugene Scalia, son of the Supreme Court justice, solicitor of the Department of Labor (look up some of his comments)
Scalia:

Quote:


He ... attacked and mocked the very idea of repetitive stress injuries, calling them "junk science," "exotic and absurd, like a trip through Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean."


c. Repealed federal regulations that prohibited federal contracts from going to corporations that violated federal labor laws. (Wall Street Journal, 4/2/01; Washington Post, 3/31/01; Associated Press, 1/3/02; National Journal's Technology Daily, 1/2/02)
d. Executive orders banning project labor agreements
e. Executive orders requiring federal contractors to post anti-union notices f. Executive orders eliminating the National Partnership Council
g. Executive order revoking job protection for service industry workers that contract with the federal government.
h. Bush Budget Cuts Labor Department Funding. In his 2005 budget proposal, Bush seeks a 5 percent decrease in funding-to $57.3 billion-for the Department of Labor, mostly because of a cut in projected spending on unemployment benefits. [Federal Funds Information for States, 2/9/04]
Yeah, such vague stereotypes.

[elalumno]

Wow, such anger. Do you take medication?


Anger??

:rofl

Anger??

:rofl

Nah, as always you're too stupid to get it. You confuse my ridicule of you as anger...but don't worry, as I have repeatedly stated, no one expects you to get it.

:rofl

[ninjalooter1701]

Wow, such anger. Do you take medication?


Anger??

:rofl

Anger??

:rofl

Nah, as always you're too stupid to get it. You confuse my ridicule of you as anger...but don't worry, as I have repeatedly stated, no one expects you to get it.

:rofl
Funny, I think the same of you. I publically humiliate you, repeatedly, and you whine that "I'm angry at you." I guess it's your best retort, that, or a string of 9 or 10 emoticons, to get your point across. If pictures help you, then by all means, go for it! You're essentially an angry board troll who is so frustrated with his repeated humiliations on this board that he has to lash out in anger, continually, at board members.

[elalumno]

tsk, tsk, tsk...

You're projecting again ninny boy....

Time you take your meds, get some rest and come back tomorrow.

:bleh

[ninjalooter1701]

tsk, tsk, tsk...

You're projecting again ninny boy....

Time you take your meds, get some rest and come back tomorrow.

:bleh
Interesting that you accuse me of:

1) Projecting.
2) Needing to take meds.

Its as if...you're projecting your own needs. Not surprising, you have some weird definitions of reality. Call us back when you finish high school.

[GunnyL]

However, within the left you can find those who favor a strong central government, with the 'state' doing everything for the people, cradle to grave, .....that would be the closest thing to 'totalitarianism' in the US political system......

I thought that's what I said, only a lot simpler. :)

[thaanatos]

I publically humiliate you
Ninja....it is time for a serious reality check.....you haven't humilated anyone on this board.....ever...................ever............. .

in fact, in the last year of posting, I think you have made less than a handful of posts that even approached being rational, let alone compelling.....

you remind me of a cartoon movie that my kids used to watch, I don't remember if it was Lady and the Tramp, or All Dogs Go to Heaven.....but there was this little dog that used to run along next to the hero...yipping and yapping and fawning over the hero dog....and every once in a while the hero would get sick of him and slap him across the side of the head and make him bounce off the wall.....and the little yippy dog would pick himself up and thank the hero for doing it......

wish I could remember the name of that little yippy dog...... :rollin

[ninjalooter1701]

I publically humiliate you
Ninja....it is time for a serious reality check.....you haven't humilated anyone on this board.....ever...................ever............. .

in fact, in the last year of posting, I think you have made less than a handful of posts that even approached being rational, let alone compelling.....

you remind me of a cartoon movie that my kids used to watch, I don't remember if it was Lady and the Tramp, or All Dogs Go to Heaven.....but there was this little dog that used to run along next to the hero...yipping and yapping and fawning over the hero dog....and every once in a while the hero would get sick of him and slap him across the side of the head and make him bounce off the wall.....and the little yippy dog would pick himself up and thank the hero for doing it......

wish I could remember the name of that little yippy dog...... :rollin
Thaanatos, if you could count as high as the times that you've been humiliated, why you'd roll an 8 on its side.

[GunnyL]

Ninja ...

You honestly belive you "won" that little exchange?

[ninjalooter1701]

Ninja ...

You honestly belive you "won" that little exchange?
Oh, no, the comparisons are all equal, especially on labor!

And, I see you standing up against "mindless flaming" and I also see that you noticed Elalumno's initial flame. You're a credit to truth!

[GunnyL]

Ninja ...

WHAT are you talking about? And how come it is you have me pegged as "Superman?" "In a neverending quest for truth, justice, and the American way ..."

Do you see "moderator" under my name? No, you don't. I'm a poster on the board, simple as that. I tried to reason with you last night, and all you wanted to do was pick a fight with me over religion, and then you went right back to fussing with El today.

And what is it you would have me do? Tell El to quit being mean to you?

I actually haven't gone back and re-read the thread and I don't really remember who said what. I just picked up from where I left off.

Really, I just don't get what it is you think I am or expect of me ......

[sarmajor]

GunnyL

Noticed that you are now using your old rank badge as an avatar.

Great minds must think alike as I have been doing the same for a while.

Although mine is the Australian coat of arms it was also my badge of rank as a Warrant Officer Class 1.

Anyway mine is prettier than yours...............hate your colours.

Red and yellow would be most inappropriate for marine NCOs....... even I would not suggest that they are indicative of their wearer's politics or lack of moral fibre.

Perhaps that may reflect the personal views of those lesser mortals of the rank and file who acknowledge that out of the arse of their gunnery sargeants the sun rarely shines.

[elalumno]

Ninnyboy AKA “The Black Knight” claims victory once again…


http://www.montypythonpages.com/pictures/HG/BKNIGHT3.JPG "Tis but a scratch"

[GunnyL]

Anyway mine is prettier than yours...............hate your colours.

Red and yellow would be most inappropriate for marine NCOs....... even I would not suggest that they are indicative of their wearer's politics or lack of moral fibre.

SarMajor ... the colors are scarlet and gold, not red -n - yellow. They offset the Marine Corps dress blue uniform that is undoubtedly the finest uniform is existence. And all you have to do to wear it is earn the right.

For someone who has a kangaroo and an emu for a rank, you have nerve casting stones at me! :lol

[GunnyL]

And, I see you standing up against "mindless flaming" and I also see that you noticed Elalumno's initial flame. You're a credit to truth!

The "truth" as requested by Ninja ...

extwogunner attacked Barkley. First blood is on him.

Followed immediately by you attacking Barkley personally by calling him mentally retarded, a waste of time, and too brainwashed to see something (that Bush is a fascist) that is factually untrue.

Then you chose to repeat and re-explain your breakdown of the original post. THEN El attacked you. El's first comment was on the original post.

The honor of slinging the first mud, Ninja, belongs to extwogunner, followed by you.

There's your factual "truth." It's all on page one.

[ninjalooter1701]

And, I see you standing up against "mindless flaming" and I also see that you noticed Elalumno's initial flame. You're a credit to truth!

The "truth" as requested by Ninja ...

extwogunner attacked Barkley. First blood is on him.

Followed immediately by you attacking Barkley personally by calling him mentally retarded, a waste of time, and too brainwashed to see something (that Bush is a fascist) that is factually untrue.

Then you chose to repeat and re-explain your breakdown of the original post. THEN El attacked you. El's first comment was on the original post.

The honor of slinging the first mud, Ninja, belongs to extwogunner, followed by you.

There's your factual "truth." It's all on page one.
So, you're standing up against me, denouncing me for flames, correct?

[GunnyL]

Ninja ...

You're a trip. You asked for the "truth" and referenced the past pages of the thread. So I went back and read them. Makes sense, right?

I posted the facts as they are presented on page one of the thread. Are you denying that they are correct?

What is this choosing sides shit? I'm not for or against anyone. This is an internet message board, Ninja. Keep some perspective. This isn't the real world. Most of the people who post here don't have the balls to say what they do here to anyone in person.

But I will stand for THAT. Anything I say on this board I'll say to anyone's face, anytime.

But let me clarify how I feel about this .... You and extwogunner went after Barkley personally. I'm glad someone came in and helped him out whether it was intentional or not. The bullying and gang tactics of the liberals on this board suck, and it's led me elsewhere as of late.

I think it's about time a few of the conservatives on this board started fighting fire with fire and helping one another out.

[ninjalooter1701]

Ninja ...

You're a trip. You asked for the "truth" and referenced the past pages of the thread. So I went back and read them. Makes sense, right?

I posted the facts as they are presented on page one of the thread. Are you denying that they are correct?
Not at all.
But let me clarify how I feel about this .... You and extwogunner went after Barkley personally. I'm glad someone came in and helped him out whether it was intentional or not. The bullying and gang tactics of the liberals on this board suck, and it's led me elsewhere as of late.
Indeed. Interesting way to look at it. Gang tactics. Look at it this way: When confronted with factual data, how do many of the conservatives reply? Phrase your answer in light of how the liberals reply. Do the conservatives take those facts into account, or do they repeat the same arguments?
I think it's about time a few of the conservatives on this board started fighting fire with fire and helping one another out.
This is one of the first times I've seen you take a stand against flaming, although you're ultimately for it. I find it odd that you didn't stand against it sooner.

[ninjalooter1701]

Let me ask you this, how do you view Barkley's initial reply?

Let me ask you this: Does Barkley respond to questions even if they're posed kindly?

Do some of our posters listen to anything but "brute force?"

[GunnyL]

When confronted with factual data, how do many of the conservatives reply? Phrase your answer in light of how the liberals reply. Do the conservatives take those facts into account, or do they repeat the same arguments?

If the data is factual, I am sure they take it into account. I haven't noticed much factual data floating around here lately.

What I see here is the pot calling the kettle black.

This is one of the first times I've seen you take a stand against flaming, although you're ultimately for it. I find it odd that you didn't stand against it sooner.

If you go back into the archives and find the first thread I was in -- Gay Marriages" or something like that ... I asked Spyder several times to stop before I fired back.

I am not ultimately for it. Anyone can call someone else an idiot. There comes a point in time where I'm not going to take any more of it and I respond in kind.

Let me ask you this, how do you view Barkley's initial reply?

Barkley giving a smartass response.

Let me ask you this: Does Barkley respond to questions even if they're posed kindly?

I do not know Barkley well enough to do more than speculate; which, I won't.

Do some of our posters listen to anything but "brute force?"

My idea of those posters are complete morons and flamers themselves, and while I'm not perfect, I TRY to stay away. Doesn't always work. And they don't listen to even being flamed back.

I'm not judging you Ninja. I told you what I thought. If you pick a fight, don't get mad and cry foul when you get socked in the nose. If you don't like getting socked in the nose, don't pick nor join in a fight.

[ninjalooter1701]

If the data is factual, I am sure they take it into account. I haven't noticed much factual data floating around here lately.

What do you call these? 10. Labor Power is Suppressed:
a. Weakened OSHA, slashed funding 64%
b. Named Eugene Scalia, son of the Supreme Court justice, solicitor of the Department of Labor (look up some of his comments)
Scalia:
Quote:
He ... attacked and mocked the very idea of repetitive stress injuries, calling them "junk science," "exotic and absurd, like a trip through Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean."

c. Repealed federal regulations that prohibited federal contracts from going to corporations that violated federal labor laws. (Wall Street Journal, 4/2/01; Washington Post, 3/31/01; Associated Press, 1/3/02; National Journal's Technology Daily, 1/2/02)
d. Executive orders banning project labor agreements
e. Executive orders requiring federal contractors to post anti-union notices f. Executive orders eliminating the National Partnership Council
g. Executive order revoking job protection for service industry workers that contract with the federal government.
h. Bush Budget Cuts Labor Department Funding. In his 2005 budget proposal, Bush seeks a 5 percent decrease in funding-to $57.3 billion-for the Department of Labor, mostly because of a cut in projected spending on unemployment benefits. [Federal Funds Information for States, 2/9/04]
etc etc...
If these aren't "Facts," what are they?
If you pick a fight, don't get mad and cry foul when you get socked in the nose. If you don't like getting socked in the nose, don't pick nor join in a fight.
Who said I cried foul? Just you yourself dont' get mad when you join in...like you HAVE done here.

[thaanatos]

If these aren't "Facts," what are they?

propoganda....you characterize these acts as 'suppression' of labor

consider the examples you use
a. Weakened OSHA, slashed funding 64%
budget cutting or, as you depict it, an anti-labor agenda....were other agencies cut as much or more that were not labor-oriented?

b. Named Eugene Scalia, son of the Supreme Court justice, solicitor of the Department of Labor (look up some of his comments)
has Scalia acted out a suppression of labor since he was appointed?

c. Repealed federal regulations that prohibited federal contracts from going to corporations that violated federal labor laws.
After a company has been penalized for violating the law, how long do you think they should be prevented from engaging in federal contracts?

d. Executive orders banning project labor agreements
need more info....what is a 'project labor agreement"?

e. Executive orders requiring federal contractors to post anti-union notices
can you link the order? I would be interested in knowing what this 'anti-union notice' was that was required...

f. Executive orders eliminating the National Partnership Council
What was the National Partnership Council and what did it accomplish while it existed....at what cost to the taxpayer?

g. Executive order revoking job protection for service industry workers that contract with the federal government.
One of my favorites....this came up in connection with the Homeland Security Act as well.....can't let the government fire someone just because they are lousy at their job, can we......

h. Bush Budget Cuts Labor Department Funding. In his 2005 budget proposal, Bush seeks a 5 percent decrease in funding-to $57.3 billion-for the Department of Labor, mostly because of a cut in projected spending on unemployment benefits.
Say, you don't think that might be because they anticipate a lower need for unemployment benefits, do you?

I guess it boils down to whether "Suppression of Labor" is the antithesis of "Suppression of Taxpayers"...or whether it is merely rhetoric to whip up union support for Dumbocrats

[ninjalooter1701]

consider the examples you use
a. Weakened OSHA, slashed funding 64%
budget cutting or, as you depict it, an anti-labor agenda....were other agencies cut as much or more that were not labor-oriented?
I voted for the OSHA funding before I voted against it?

b. Named Eugene Scalia, son of the Supreme Court justice, solicitor of the Department of Labor (look up some of his comments)
has Scalia acted out a suppression of labor since he was appointed?
Will you provide John Kerry with such a clean slate as the one you provide for Scalia?

c. Repealed federal regulations that prohibited federal contracts from going to corporations that violated federal labor laws.
After a company has been penalized for violating the law, how long do you think they should be prevented from engaging in federal contracts?Do you have any idea of the severity of these laws?

d. Executive orders banning project labor agreements
need more info....what is a 'project labor agreement"?
Are you incapable of looking for yourself?

e. Executive orders requiring federal contractors to post anti-union notices can you link the order? I would be interested in knowing what this 'anti-union notice' was that was required...
It's quite simple.

f. Executive orders eliminating the National Partnership Council
What was the National Partnership Council and what did it accomplish while it existed....at what cost to the taxpayer?Again, you are incapable of a 3 term search?

g. Executive order revoking job protection for service industry workers that contract with the federal government.
One of my favorites....this came up in connection with the Homeland Security Act as well.....can't let the government fire someone just because they are lousy at their job, can we......
Nope, we gotta link it in with their patriotism.

h. Bush Budget Cuts Labor Department Funding. In his 2005 budget proposal, Bush seeks a 5 percent decrease in funding-to $57.3 billion-for the Department of Labor, mostly because of a cut in projected spending on unemployment benefits.
Say, you don't think that might be because they anticipate a lower need for unemployment benefits, do you?
No Worker Left Behind? Compassionate Conservatism...OR....if there's money left over throw it in the surplus.

Do you just live "paycheck to paycheck," yourself? Do you have any savings "just in case?"
I guess it boils down to whether "Suppression of Labor" is the antithesis of "Suppression of Taxpayers"...or whether it is merely rhetoric to whip up union support for Dumbocrats
Apply your same level of scrutiny to "JIMMY HOFFA WAS PERSECUTED SO JFK SUPRESSED LABOR."

[thaanatos]

I voted for the OSHA funding before I voted against it?
I suspect, if you are referring to Bush, that he didn't 'vote' for anything.....

Will you provide John Kerry with such a clean slate as the one you provide for Scalia?
I sincerely hope I don't have to provide him with a slate at all.....doesn't change the fact that you have provided no evidence that Scalia is 'suppressing' labor.....

Do you have any idea of the severity of these laws?
nope, never looked them up....do you propose to make them less severe or more?

Are you incapable of looking for yourself?
nope, but figured that since you were presenting this as evidence of 'suppression' of labor that you might have some information available about them....

It's quite simple.
good, then there is a better chance you will able to explain it.....or do you mean that the notice they were required to post stated "It's quite simple".....

Again, you are incapable of a 3 term search?
nope, but I expected since it meant so much to you that you might have the information at hand.....

Nope, we gotta link it in with their patriotism.
actually, I would object to continuing the employment of an incompetent government service worker, even if he were patriotic.....

No Worker Left Behind? Compassionate Conservatism...OR....if there's money left over throw it in the surplus.

Do you just live "paycheck to paycheck," yourself? Do you have any savings "just in case?"
quite comfortable, actually.....irrelevant to the question of how much money we need to finance the Unemployment Compensation system, but in any event, I have no complaints.....

Apply your same level of scrutiny to "JIMMY HOFFA WAS PERSECUTED SO JFK SUPRESSED LABOR."
okay, I would say that statement was equally as stupid as yours.....

[thaanatos]

Project Labor Agreements

ABC strongly opposes union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) on construction projects. These agreements not only exclude open shop contractors from bidding on projects paid for by their own tax dollars, but also drive up the cost of construction by reducing competition for the work.

A union-only PLA is a contract that requires that the project be awarded only to contractors and subcontractors who agree to:

* recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job
* use the union hiring hall to obtain workers
* pay union wages and benefits
* obey the union’s restrictive work rules, job classifications and arbitration procedures


sounds like a great thing to ban.....I get it now, you don't mean Bush is suppressing labor, you just mean he is anti-union.....and I take it you see that as a bad thing...... :rollin

[thaanatos]

Executive Order 13201
horrible suppression of labor here.......

``NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Under Federal law, employees cannot be required to join
a union or maintain membership in a union in order to
retain their jobs. Under certain conditions, the law
permits a union and an employer to enter into a union-
security agreement requiring employees to pay uniform
periodic dues and initiation fees. However, employees
who are not union members can object to the use of
their payments for certain purposes and can only be
required to pay their share of union costs relating to
collective bargaining, contract administration, and
grievance adjustment.

``If you do not want to pay that portion of dues or
fees used to support activities not related to
collective bargaining, contract administration, or
grievance adjustment, you are entitled to an
appropriate reduction in your payment. If you believe
that you have been required to pay dues or fees used in
part to support activities not related to collective
bargaining, contract administration, or grievance
adjustment, you may be entitled to a refund and to an
appropriate reduction in future payments.

[thaanatos]

[quote]In October 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12871 which created the National Partnership Council to promote the formation of labor-management partnerships throughout the government. The Order represented an effort to reinvent labor-management relations and turn adversaries into partners with a common purpose and vision to make government work better and at less cost. The preamble of the Executive Order begins:

"The involvement of Federal Government employees and their union representatives is essential to achieving the National Performance Review's government reform objectives. Only by changing the nature of Federal Labor-Management relations so that managers, employees, and employee's elected union representatives serve as partners will it be possible to design and implement comprehensive changes necessary to reform government. Labor-management partnerships will champion change in Federal Government agencies to transform them into organizations capable of delivering the highest quality services to the American People."

Partnerships vary by organization, but one characteristic exists in all - a changed labor-management relationship. As this relationship matures, collaborative problem solving becomes the preferred method of resolving workplace issues. It is through this changed behavior and attitude that partnerships thrive.

A successful partnership is characterized by:

* An environment that respects and values all employees.
* A willingness to share power.
* Respect and trust for all or the desire to work to this goal.
* Open and candid sharing of information.
* Joint decision-making on issues of common concern and agreement reached through consensus.
* Cooperation even though some may disagree on specific issues.
* Patience for and commitment to partnership for the long haul.
* Problems identified and solved jointly to better serve customers and achieve the mission.
* Faith that partnership will lead to a more effective organization.

Labor-Management partners can expect the following from their partnership:

* Increased commitment to achieving the agency's mission.
* Better customer service, productivity, and work product quality.
* Joint resolution of problems.
* Shared responsibility and accountability for results.
* A more constructive relationship between labor and management.
* Enhanced employee morale and job satisfaction.
* Increased communication and information sharing that fosters support for organizational decisions.
* Recognition of the Federal Government as a model employer.

[ninjalooter1701]

nope, but figured that since you were presenting this as evidence of 'suppression' of labor that you might have some information available about them....

Hearsay.

I didn't see you demanding links when JFK/Hoffa was mentioned.

why not?

[elalumno]

I didn't see you demanding links when JFK/Hoffa was mentioned.

why not?

:rofl

Maybe because he is intelligent enough to realize it was an exaggeration, made sarcastically, to demonstrate the stupidity of your point.

But even after you have repeatedly been told that, you still stick to it as if it were a serious point...

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

[ninjalooter1701]

Good spin.

[thaanatos]

uhhh, spin aside, Ninja....I have responded to your post....do you intend to engage yourself in the debate?

[ninjalooter1701]

I've replied to your posts, you don't address the issues, you dodge.

[thaanatos]

ah........ :rollin

[ninjalooter1701]

Whatever a person is like, I try to find common ground with him so that he will let me tell him about Christ and let Christ save him....
1 Corinthians 9:22

[Barkley]

…getting back to the 14 signs of fascism, the whole premise of this thread was to somehow imply that Bush is a fascist. Therefore, I responded as a smartass because I found the post to be a juvenile attempt at absurdity.

Bush never sat before the US Senate and confessed to committing and/or witnessing war crimes and acts of barbarism that were later determined unfounded. I would think lying about atrocities before the Senate is more in line with the pathology of someone capable of leading us toward fascism then Bush’s witless drunk escapades in the guard.

What I’m saying is that I believe Kerry is more intelligent then Bush but has taken some truly disturbing and bizarre actions in his past that frankly scare the bajeevers out of me. Most that know him say that he has sought the Whitehouse for most of his life. By all accounts Kerry was against the Vietnam war even before enlisting and basically spent four months there trying to injure himself to earn Purple Hearts in order to return and run for political office.

These are the deliberate and methodical actions of one that seeks power for power’s sake – Kerry in my opinion has a diabolical mind. You may disagree with this but that’s what I believe to be true based on what I have learned of him.

Anyway, just for the record, I have never engaged in personal attacks or name calling. That is not to say that I won’t spar with someone that has it coming.


Peace.

[GunnyL]

Who said I cried foul? Just you yourself dont' get mad when you join in...like you HAVE done here.

?

I haven't gotten mad at anything on this thread. Mostly, I just responded honestly to your questions. Trust me ... it takes a lot more than you and El or you and Thaantos verbally sparring to get me mad.

As far as you crying foul, eerytime I say anything in defense of one, you question why I don't do the same for the opposing debater, and imply that I am being biased. Of course I', biased. Just like you and everyone else that breathes.

Ninja, just becasue I am not a hard-line conservative does not mean I am not conservative in most of my views. I do not consider myself, nor have I ever represented myself as being exactly in the center between right and left.

However, I HAVE and you are well aware attacked certain conservative views when I thought they went a bit too far.

In this case, as I previously stated, I agree with El, Barkley and Thaantos regarding the initial post, and I believe my first post was attacking that, and not a single poster.

If I'm going to post and be a contributing member of this board, then I am going to comment on topics, and if they're ridiculous, I'm going to say so.

Now, seeing as I am conservative, plus the previous statement, would you say that it is fair to assume I am not going to agree with the original post?

As far as facts go, if the source is hard-right or left, I uusally take it with a grain of salt. You can make your point and post facts without posting a skewed, biased version.

Be all that as it may, I am sitting in front of a computer screen .... a bunch of plastic and metal. You take it far more personally than that.

And I have to agree with Barkley about his last statement ... I don't come here to fight, but if somebody starts dishing, it's only going to go so far before they get a shovelful-or-two back.

Thaantos played the game YOU asked for. He dissected your "facts." You responded by deflecting and dismissing what he had to say. Besides just accepting your word as gospel, just WHAT is it you want?

[ninjalooter1701]

Thaantos played the game YOU asked for. He dissected your "facts." You responded by deflecting and dismissing what he had to say. Besides just accepting your word as gospel, just WHAT is it you want?
He didn't "dissect" the facts, and if you consider that dissection...then, well, "Have fun in Texas," you live in a different world than I do.

[ninjalooter1701]

Thaantos played the game YOU asked for. He dissected your "facts." You responded by deflecting and dismissing what he had to say. Besides just accepting your word as gospel, just WHAT is it you want?
He didn't "dissect" the facts, and if you consider that dissection...then, well, "Have fun in Texas," you live in a different world than I do.
Actually yeah, Gunny, you do have some messed up versions of what a "fact" is...

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2982

[GunnyL]

Why is that? Because I don't post extremist bullshit and try to pass it off as fact?

Or because if I make a statement then I back it up instead of deflecting or flaming?

Or maybe it's because I can admit when I'm wrong, and actually change my opinion based on new and verified facts? Something you are incapable of. No matter what. you can't be wrong.

[thaanatos]

you live in a different world than I do.

doggone it, Ninja....congratulations!.....I just KNEW that sooner or later you had to post something I agreed with!

[ninjalooter1701]

Why is that? Because I don't post extremist bullshit and try to pass it off as fact?

Or because if I make a statement then I back it up instead of deflecting or flaming?

Or maybe it's because I can admit when I'm wrong, and actually change my opinion based on new and verified facts? Something you are incapable of. No matter what. you can't be wrong.
I see, again, I ask, again, you won't answer...what part of my post where I listed various actual events was not fact, or was extremist bullshit.

You're the one saying "bullshit" and saying that "the fact that you say bullshit is fact,"

I used to respect you, now you've absorbed enough cognitive dissonance to slide on over to the Bobboi side. You aren't standing up for "the truth," only standing up for "the truth" when the right is being "slighted." Try selling bullshit somewhere else. I have cited nu merous facts, you have said I have posted "bullshit." I've called you on your "bullshit" pleas and you have not backed up your shit.

I used to not expect that from you. I was wrong.

[GunnyL]

Ninja ...

Please feel free to show me where I said you posted bullshit. I did not. All I said was I don't post bullshit and try to pass it off. You're reading something that isn't there.

I used to respect you, now you've absorbed enough cognitive dissonance to slide on over to the Bobboi side.

Yeah, whatever. :lol

You aren't standing up for "the truth," only standing up for "the truth" when the right is being "slighted."

I stand up for the truth as I see it. Not as you, the right nor the left see it.

I have cited nu merous facts, you have said I have posted "bullshit." I've called you on your "bullshit" pleas and you have not backed up your shit.

You haven't called me on shit. I really haven't posted anything in this thread to be called on but my personal opinion, and if you don't like that, too freakin bad.

As far as YOUR facts go, I really couldn't discredit them half-as-well as Thaantos did, so what would you like for me to do? Repeat his post?

Such an angry young man. How come you aren't ever pleasant?

[ninjalooter1701]

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2982
Second time I've posted this.

Such an angry young man. How come you aren't ever pleasant?I'm quite pleasant. Trouble is, I don't see much politeness here. I correspond.

Go ahead and try your condescension with "angry young man," implying that you're older and "wiser," You flame, you just couch it differently. It's still bullshit.

You've also got some frenchified versions of facts. Keep running from your own words.

[GunnyL]

Ninja ...

I have no reason to run from you, nor anyone else for that matter. That ploy isn't going to work.

Look, let me make this real simple for you: I find comparing different version of the Bible extremely uninteresting. It has nothing to do with running from anyone. It has to do with just not being interested.

If you want to have a religious debate, find Thaantos or Tolivr. They're more than happy to debate religion. I find it to be a waste a time. Nobody can actually prove a damned thing, and nobody ever changes their mind. So what is the point?

You quoted some verse from a revisionist version of the Bible that turned something benign into something hateful. I posted the same verse from my Bible.

Did you change your mind? No. Did I? No. So, there's no point to arguing about it is there?

Go ahead and try your condescension with "angry young man," implying that you're older and "wiser," You flame, you just couch it differently. It's still bullshit.

You go ahead and assume whatever you like. Are you not a young man? To me, you seem to always be pissed about something. But you go ahead and take it any way you want to.

Obviously you haven't read many of my posts. I have no problem flaming when the need arises, and there's no doubt about what it is when I do.

You've also got some frenchified versions of facts. Keep running from your own words.

Do I? It'll be a cold day in Hell before I need to run from you, much less my own words.

[ninjalooter1701]

Look, let me make this real simple for you: I find comparing different version of the Bible extremely uninteresting. It has nothing to do with running from anyone. It has to do with just not being interested.
Except for the fact that you said: I lied about quotes, then fled when I called you on your assertion. Yeah, keep denying it.

[GunnyL]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


Quote:
This isn't a condemnation of homosexuality?


Let's try this:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Seems your cheesy-ass Bible, no doubt worded just the way you like it, has added a few things.

Timothy 1:9-10 "9.Who hath saved us and called us with an Holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.
10. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

I have no idea where you got that drivel you're calling Timothy 9&10. Is it from the Christian Hater's Bible? It doesn't eve come close to the same subject.

The Romans one is pretty close; which is good, so I don't have to retype it.

And your point is what? I DO appreciate you finding at least one of three passages that actually does condemn it, since most of you anti-Christians claim the Bible doesn't say a thing about it. Good job. I stand corrected and you just shot down a whole bunch of arguments made my others of your ilk for quite a while.

I didn't see you quoting up anything on pedophilia though. Must've slipped your mind.

I find it quite odd that you anti-Chrisitan folks quote the Bible more than Christians; although, I have no idea where you got yours from.. Good thing someone believes it's a book of rules verbatim. I do not.

Except for the fact that you said: I lied about quotes, then fled when I called you on your assertion. Yeah, keep denying it.

Try again. Where do I call YOU a liar? I called your references revisionist versions of the Bible. Whoever translated the Bible, which I certainly do not believe was you, is the one who is deceiving people.

So you calling me on my "assertion" is rejected since it was never made.

And get something straight here and now ... IF I call you or anyone else a liar, I have absolute proof before I do. I do not take that accusation lightly.

Not believing the validity of a book you did not write is not calling you a liar. It is questioning the author of the book. You have taken offense where there is none.

[ninjalooter1701]

I asked you to verify your bold claims. You haven't stood up to do so.

[GunnyL]

Please specify which claims.

[GunnyL]

Quote:
Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


I notice your post above omits this little version you used in the original thread. Compare THIS version with the rest. THIS is the verse I questioned. If you can't see the difference between this and YOUR OWN examples above, then I don't know what to tell you.

And you said this was from the King James Version. I said it was skewed, or words to that affect. I stand by that.

Quote:
...they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads


THIS is the statement in contention. You presented it as proof that Jesus/Christianity condemns homosexuality. Nowhere does it appear in any other version of the Bible YOU present, nor in mine. You don't consider that putting a twist on what is written? I DO.

I posted this also in the other thread. I wish you would confine it to one, please.

[ninjalooter1701]

Quote:
Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


I notice your post above omits this little version you used in the original thread. Compare THIS version with the rest. THIS is the verse I questioned. If you can't see the difference between this and YOUR OWN examples above, then I don't know what to tell you.

And you said this was from the King James Version. I said it was skewed, or words to that affect. I stand by that.

Quote:
...they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads


THIS is the statement in contention. You presented it as proof that Jesus/Christianity condemns homosexuality. Nowhere does it appear in any other version of the Bible YOU present, nor in mine. You don't consider that putting a twist on what is written? I DO.

I posted this also in the other thread. I wish you would confine it to one, please.
Was I quoting the King James version there? You forgot that.

[GunnyL]

After re-reading the thread, I see that you did not identify which Bible you took that particular verse from. I originally read it to be the KJV; which, you clearly did not state, and I apolgize for misreading your post.

Point remains, you initially tried to pass that statement in question off as what "the Bible" says, and it is to that which I took exception. I did not take exception to the rest of your examples as they all essentially say the same thing.

I do not however apologize for calling you or even implying that you are a liar because I did not. I questioned the validity of that particular version of the verse.

How come you abandoned it after your original statement? All you had to do was say it was bullshit and move on. Would've saved a lot of heartburn and bad blood.

But you just play your little games. It's more fun that way.

[ninjalooter1701]

You're right, it's more fun that way.

Your game is to stand up and defend right wingers when they're slighted, never mentioning when they also slight others, including our proclaimed Christians who proclaim Christ's love in their sig.

As for "not apologizing because you're not wrong," you're never wrong, it's part of your cognitive dissonance.

[GunnyL]

You're right, it's more fun that way.

Playing word games serves no real purpose.

Your game is to stand up and defend right wingers when they're slighted, never mentioning when they also slight others, including our proclaimed Christians who proclaim Christ's love in their sig.

Sure I do. :lol You are the one who decided I was something I wasn't, and have some issue with me over the fact that I turned out to not be as your imagination painted me. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

As for "not apologizing because you're not wrong," you're never wrong, it's part of your cognitive dissonance.

I apolgized for the error I made. If that isn't apologzing for being wrong, I don't know what is. I'm not going to apologize for something you read into my words that was never there.

As far as the statement I questioned that you tried to pass off as the teachings of Chrisianity, I am not wrong. It's a bullshit statement and you tried to run it on me never dreaming I'd look up the actual verse.

But for that, and accusing me of calling you a liar which I did not, have YOU apologized? No. No matter how you have to twist shit, you aren't going to be wrong. This isn't about learning anything, or intelligent discourse to you, it's win at all costs. You have nerve using the term "cognitive dissonance" in relation to anyone but yourself.

[sarmajor]

Quote:
Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

OK..........lets all cut to the chase and forget the bullshit.

Do all who believe that the bible is the actual word of God support capital punishment for homosexuals.

If not.............why not?

Incidentally..................what about a woman who "lies" with a woman?

Does this also apply or is there some sort of sexual discrimination
involved?

[ninjalooter1701]

Sure I do. You are the one who decided I was something I wasn't, and have some issue with me over the fact that I turned out to not be as your imagination painted me. That's YOUR problem, not mine.
You're right, I thought you were a moderate who disagreed with the current administration on several issues, I thought you were someone who sought the TRUTH more than his political agenda. I was wrong on that. I painted you out to be someone who stood up for truth. I was wrong on that, big time.

[GunnyL]

You're right, I thought you were a moderate who disagreed with the current administration on several issues,...

And? Being a moderate who disagrees with the current administration on several issues does not mean I am going to condemn the entire administration, nor does it make me any less conservative in my beliefs.

You contend that just because I disagree with a few decisions made I should just condemn them all and turn into a liberal? Isn't likely.

...I thought you were someone who sought the TRUTH more than his political agenda.

I do not have a political agenda. I have a set of beliefs that I have not measured on any scale to see what labels I can attach to them.

I was wrong on that. I painted you out to be someone who stood up for truth. I was wrong on that, big time.

I tell the truth as I see it. Simple as that. Truth is subjective, not just how YOU see it. It's all black or white with you ... no middle ground.

What this is all about appears to be some problem you have beyond anything I can do about it. If you're waiting for me to turn into something I'm not, don't hold your breath.

[GunnyL]

Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


Do all who believe that the bible is the actual word of God support capital punishment for homosexuals.

Sarmajor ...

I don't know about them, but will say this .... that verse you quoted, in particular: "they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." doesn't seem to appear in anyone's bible but one another poster pulled up from somewhere.

If not.............why not?

As one who believes the Bible is Man's interpretation of God's word, I do not take it literally; however, it does not say to put homosexuals to death.

God judges Man for violating God's laws -- Man judges Man for violating Man's laws. There is no law in the US making homosexuality unlawful.

Incidentally..................what about a woman who "lies" with a woman?

No difference.

Does this also apply or is there some sort of sexual discrimination
involved?

Homosexuality is homosexuality IMO, whether by man or woman.

What I am curious about here is your interest. As in: What are you trying to stir up? :lol

As I recall, you are either Atheist or Agnostic, and one who believes Christians are hypocrites. So I can't see where your sudden interest is looking good for me! :lol

[ninjalooter1701]

I don't know about them, but will say this .... that verse you quoted, in particular: "they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." doesn't seem to appear in anyone's bible but one another poster pulled up from somewhere.
I quoted it as one of MANY verses.

Here's where it can be found:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=LEV+20&language=english&version=NIV
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm
Looks like it is in the "New International Version."
This is almost identical to Leviticus 18:22. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam." However, it adds a compulsory death penalty to the participants. In various translation the passage has been translated:
The links provide discussion as to the added death sentence, check on "gospelcom.net' for more.

[tolivr]

OK..........lets all cut to the chase and forget the bullshit.

Do all who believe that the bible is the actual word of God support capital punishment for homosexuals.


Sometimes you guys really kill me.

Yes, 3000 years ago that WAS the penalty for sodomy; similarly, it was the penalty for adultery, worshiping a false god, blasphemy, and many other offenses.

I suggest you check out the second part of the Bible commonly referred to as the New Testament. Your answer lies therein. Would Christ condemn a homosexual to death? Well, did he condemn the adultress? Both are capital offenses. The answer is clearly no, but he would expect this sexually troubled person to "go and sin no more," namely, to refrain from homosexual behavior.

By the way, what was the topic of this thread?

[Barkley]

Having followed this pissing contest it seems to me that Ninja can’t accept the fact that someone as intelligent and articulate as Gunny could possibly have religious and/or conservative positions.

Arrogant liberal atheists are angry because deep down inside they realize that their faith in a bankrupt inane ideology can never be as strong as Christian faith in God.

This War in Iraq has somehow been adopted by the elitist left as the seminal event to prove to the world that their ideas and insight was right all along.

The only problem is that they have never been right about anything and the war only proves that cowards and crackpots rarely get a footnote in history.

…and so it goes.

[ninjalooter1701]

Having followed this pissing contest it seems to me that Ninja can’t accept the fact that someone as intelligent and articulate as Gunny could possibly have religious and/or conservative positions.
Way to not understand. I've known that he was conservative from day 1. I used to think he was open minded.

Arrogant liberal atheists are angry because deep down inside they realize that their faith in a bankrupt inane ideology can never be as strong as Christian faith in God.
I'm not an atheist.

Try again? You seem to get quite a bit wrong. Consistently. Why's that?

[Barkley]

…sorry, but I’m not going to enter a pissing contest with a dickless opponent, wouldn’t be fair.

[ninjalooter1701]

…sorry, but I’m not going to enter a pissing contest with a dickless opponent, wouldn’t be fair.
Claiming the high road from all the way down there, eh?

[sarmajor]

As I recall, you are either Atheist or Agnostic, and one who believes Christians are hypocrites. So I can't see where your sudden interest is looking good for me!

Not quite right GunnyL as I am really all of these and none of these at the same time.

My religion is like my politics. I do not support a party line and take little on trust.

Quite frankly I have an open mind on religion and would be as happy as a pig in shit if I could be convinced of what is the TRUTH.

Let's face it.........I do not think that I am a complete idiot and would not intentionally try to get offside with someone to whom I may be paraded - once I drop off the perch. What idiot would worship Baal if they KNEW that he/she was not the Creator and that the latter would be pissed off with me for being such an idiot.

I said KNEW because all that we know about religion is what has been handed down by man and has man's slant on the alleged word attributed to God. In fact theology is as much the result of politics over 2,000 years as it is of religion.

I believe that hypocrits abound in all religions (and not just in christianity) the trouble being that so many have a vested interest in the religion industry. By this I do not necessarily mean the general public but those whose living and status is determined by inducing people to follow their teachings or those who follow Marx's dictum of religion being the opiate of the masses.

Just as a very minor example I draw your attention to some of the medaeval popes. To their contemporaries they had the ear of God but we now know that some were the most evil and corrupt inhabitants of this earth.

Such examples may be found in all religions. For instance do you think that, if their version of religion is correc, Allah would welcome those Mullahs who advocate terrorism in the name of Islam?

To summarise I am not irreligious and am a baptised christian. What I reject (until I can be convinced otherwise) is what is often shoved down my throat as being God's will.

As a child I can recall the criticism directed by our sunday school teachers at a "Doubting Thomas". Subsequently I realisel that was only the current political correctness of attempting to stop embarassing questions being asked.

Anyway GunnyL.... I think my approach to religion is similar to both our attitudes to politics. Don't unquestionably accept all that you have been told and retain an enquiring mind on all subjects.

The trouble with faith is that one is expected to accept the most outlandish statements as gospel purely because someone (with a vested interest) says that it is so. My attitude is that if you can convince me with logic I will go along with it but not if I have to accept it solely on faith.

[Anonymous Idiot Savant]

Wow another religion thread!

Imagine that.