BillyBob

[aikido7]

Let’s see you hate

Communists
Muslims
Homosexuals
Mexicans
Catholics

I may have missed a few but the point is that you may run out of people to love and will end up an angry bitter old man

It is a disease BillyBob and you have all the symptoms

Unhappiness or unfulfillment is different than being bitterly angry. That's why it's good to unload frustration on TOL!

And unload jokes!

 

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: That is the :Commie: spin on the word "progressive."

It was a Republican vote in the US Senate that made the 2/3 majority necessary to refer the 19th Amendment to the states for ratification.

The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, was voted through Congress by Republicans.

Desegregation was mandated by a Supreme Court decision. Supreme Court Justices are allegedly non-partisan. The subsequent Civil Rights Act was supported by more Republicans than Democrats.

Those laws were enacted by state legislatures.

And you are full of crap. :Commie:

Let's not forget that Lincoln was a Republican!

 

[MrRadish]

Commies don't like Government??? Their main idea is there should be as big govermnent as possible.

Hmmm. Evidently you don't understand communism.

Just out of interest, if said that conservative = fascist, would you disagree?

 

[Frank Ernest]

Commies don't like Government??? Their main idea is there should be as big govermnent as possible.

Hmmm. Evidently you don't understand communism.

Just out of interest, if said that conservative = fascist, would you disagree?

I would. Fascism is just another variation of left-wing political theory. Mikhail Gorbychev's "state-controlled free market" was an excellent example of it. The fascist-leaning politicians who currently inhabit our legislatures are all liberals.

 

[MrRadish]

I would. Fascism is just another variation of left-wing political theory. Mikhail Gorbychev's "state-controlled free market" was an excellent example of it. The fascist-leaning politicians who currently inhabit our legislatures are all liberals.

Hmm. I rather think that the nation-centric foreign policy and enforcement of morality pursued by fascist states smacks of right-wing statism, personally. Clearly there were some socialist elements in fascist governments, but to a large extent this was pragmatism to gain the support of the lower-class for just enough time to place executive power in the hands of a single person.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Hmm. I rather think that the nation-centric foreign policy and enforcement of morality pursued by fascist states smacks of right-wing statism, personally.

Of course you would. You subscribe to the left-wing Weltanshauung which assumes the world is fundamentally socialist with the communists on the left and the fascists on the right. I do not know how left-wingers go through the mental gymnastics required to label Hitler a right-wing statist fascist, but I do recognize a distinction without a difference. I would consider it shifting the blame. As far as equating this to "conservative" in the liberal paradigm, it's laughable.

Clearly there were some socialist elements in fascist governments, but to a large extent this was pragmatism to gain the support of the lower-class for just enough time to place executive power in the hands of a single person.

Exactly the plan of all socialist/communist/fascist movements. Latest example is Venezuela. I remind that Hitler never called himself anything other than a socialist. He never called his movement anything other than socialist. I also remind that socialist/communist/fascist movements are always run by an executive who has pretty close to absolute power. V. I. Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mau Tse Dong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega (stay tuned), Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Nikolai Ceaucescu, Wladyslaw Gomulka, just to name a few.

The Big Three for the 20th century were Hitler, who sought world domination through a Third Reich, Stalin, who sought world domination through Russification, and Mao Tse Dung, who sought world domination as an inherent right of the ancient Chinese Empires.

 

[BillyBob]

Yeah, what Frank said!

 

[koban]

Does Billy Bob love anybody?

Beer truck delivery guys. :wave:

 

[obsolete53]

what is a "n-" ?

 

[GeneCosta]

Ah, looking back on this thread shows just how ignorant conservatives are of real Leftism. They complain about their own agents.

Proletarii vsekh stran, soedinyaytes! Anarchy is order! Such fascist things to say.

 

[BillyBob]

:Commie:

 

[Joe Roberts]

You forgot blacks!

:rotfl:

And BillyBob is one of Knights favorites.

 

[GeneCosta]

:Commie:

Yep. Viva la revolucion and all that good stuff. :bannana:

 

[BillyBob]

And BillyBob is one of Knights favorites.

We need a :jealous: smiley for Joe.

This will have to do :loser:

 

[elyah]

Of course you would. You subscribe to the left-wing Weltanshauung which assumes the world is fundamentally socialist with the communists on the left and the fascists on the right. I do not know how left-wingers go through the mental gymnastics required to label Hitler a right-wing statist fascist, but I do recognize a distinction without a difference. I would consider it shifting the blame. As far as equating this to "conservative" in the liberal paradigm, it's laughable.

Exactly the plan of all socialist/communist/fascist movements. Latest example is Venezuela. I remind that Hitler never called himself anything other than a socialist. He never called his movement anything other than socialist. I also remind that socialist/communist/fascist movements are always run by an executive who has pretty close to absolute power. V. I. Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mau Tse Dong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega (stay tuned), Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Nikolai Ceaucescu, Wladyslaw Gomulka, just to name a few.

The Big Three for the 20th century were Hitler, who sought world domination through a Third Reich, Stalin, who sought world domination through Russification, and Mao Tse Dung, who sought world domination as an inherent right of the ancient Chinese Empires.

>uuum

As far as equating this to "conservative" in the liberal paradigm, it's laughable.

:
Clearly there were some socialist elements in fascist governments, but to a large extent this was pragmatism to gain the support of the lower-class for just enough time to place executive power in the hands of a single person.

I also remind that socialist/communist/fascist movements are always run by an executive who has pretty close to absolute power. V. I. Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mau Tse Dong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega (stay tuned), Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Nikolai Ceaucescu, Wladyslaw Gomulka, just to name a few.

Very interestink heir Frank, ... ...So it is conceivable, that if our governmental format permited the emergence of such "Executive types," in our system, allowing them empowerment and political sway under some opportunistic National crisis-alert, .. then it follows that they could also make strides to contort the powers of their offices in ways similarly to the doings of your selection of fiends?

For I think, the "mind-craftiness," of those "types" work within the contexts of the political "cards" they have been dealt, ... even as the adage goes; .. If they look like, talks like, walk like and do alike, then there is a good probability that they are cut from the same fabric, ... huh?

The Big Three for the 20th century were Hitler, who sought world domination through a Third Reich, Stalin, who sought world domination through Russification, and Mao Tse Dung, who sought world domination as an inherent right of the ancient Chinese Empires.

So to your list of "Executives," I'ld like to add George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Chaney, aah heck, the whole kicking caboodle of Neo Cons!

Of course in this instance, instead of "Russification" (per your example), ... the Iraki citizenry and the West have been offered the euphemism," democratisation" (or Westernization)... for similar objectives...

 

[GeneCosta]

I also remind that socialist/communist/fascist movements are always run by an executive who has pretty close to absolute power. V. I. Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mau Tse Dong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega (stay tuned), Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Nikolai Ceaucescu, Wladyslaw Gomulka, just to name a few.

Hitler and Mussolini were as hard-right as they come in the West when you consider the fact capitalism flourished under their leadership and the masses were considered inferior to the elitists. Neither Hugo Chavez nor Danial Ortega come close to having absolute power, despite what FOX News and CNN would like us to believe. Pol Pot and Mao Tse Dong were fuedalists and trusted the people with nothing more than feeding their lazy, pathetic party members.

Socialism and communism are uncomparable to fascism. Communism abolishes the state, money, and unwanted labor. Socialism empowers the power to their full potential under a state made up of the working class.

Please, study Leftism before you try to attack it. You may actually find a lot of it you agree with.

 

[BillyBob]

Hitler and Mussolini were as hard-right as they come in the West when you consider the fact capitalism flourished under their leadership and the masses were considered inferior to the elitists.

You idiot, you have no friggin' clue! :doh:

:sozo: Learn some history!

 

[The Berean]

Hitler and Mussolini were as hard-right as they come in the West when you consider the fact capitalism flourished under their leadership and the masses were considered inferior to the elitists. Neither Hugo Chavez nor Danial Ortega come close to having absolute power, despite what FOX News and CNN would like us to believe. Pol Pot and Mao Tse Dong were fuedalists and trusted the people with nothing more than feeding their lazy, pathetic party members.

Socialism and communism are uncomparable to fascism. Communism abolishes the state, money, and unwanted labor. Socialism empowers the power to their full potential under a state made up of the working class.

Please, study Leftism before you try to attack it. You may actually find a lot of it you agree with.

Just last week Chavez declared that he is in favor on amending Venazuela's constitition to remove presidental term limits. Why do you think he is doing this Gene?

Chavez Reforms Get Initial OK In Venezuela Congress

By REUTERS
August 21, 2007

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's Congress on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to President Hugo Chavez's proposed constitutional reform, which would lift term limits to help the leftist leader cement his self-styled socialist revolution.

Chavez last week presented reforms to end central bank autonomy, increase state expropriation powers and give the president direct control over monetary reserves in a move critics called a "coup" to keep Chavez in power indefinitely.

The legislature, 100 percent controlled by Chavez allies, will hold two more votes to fully ratify the changes, which must be finally approved through a popular referendum that legislators say they hope will take place in early December.

"We are reforming the constitution to solidify ... the socialist nation, the socialist state, the socialist democracy," said Carlos Escarra, a legislator and constitutional lawyer who helped draft the reforms.

Lawmakers gave initial approval to changes in 33 articles of 350 in Venezuela's 1999 constitution, which Chavez supporters rewrote following his landslide election in 1998.

Chavez's leftist reforms have sparked the ire of critics and U.S. officials who portray him as an authoritarian leader who uses the OPEC nation's oil wealth to undermine democracy in the region.

But his mostly poor supporters have handed him repeated electoral victories thanks largely to a social spending crusade that has expanded free health and education services.

He has already secured a firm grip on key state institutions including the court system, the state oil company and most state and local governments.

This year, he nationalized the largest private telecommunications and electricity companies and took control of majority stakes in four multi-billion dollar crude projects, edging out oil giants Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips.

So Chavez isn't isn't trying to consolidate his power, Gene? :think:

 

[GeneCosta]

My guess is he believes he can win more elections and continue to work on bringing "socialism" to Venezuela. I'm not claiming he's a saint, but he's certainly no dictator. He's recently been empowering the municipalities.

This proposal, he maintained, is “profoundly revolutionary,” and necessary “to remove the old oligarchic, exploiter hegemony, the old society, and, in the words of Gramsci, to weaken the old “historic block.” “If we don’t change the superstructure, the old superstructure will defeat us,” he continued.

The proposal also allows municipalities, “with the acceptance of the people within the municipality,” to create territory or land in common, which would be under the direct government of the community and, according to Chavez, would constitute “the basic nucleus of the socialist state.”

Chavez also said unions or federations of self-governing communes, could be created through popular referendum, through the communal councils, and aggregations of communal councils.

Additionally, through the incorporation of the social missions into the constitution, “functional districts,” could be also be created by one or more municipalities, where the social missions would function as alternative administrations to the traditional bureaucratic institutions.

Chavez declared it was necessary to re-order the country in view of increasing population growth, saying, “one day Venezuela will have 40-50 million people.”

Article 70, Chavez assured, would also “reaffirm means of participation and protagonism of the people in direct exercise of their sovereignty for the construction of socialism,” through election to public positions, referendums, popular consultation, recall of elected officials (including the president), constitutional legislative initiatives, and open assemblies.

“Sovereignty rests with the people,” Chavez continued, “and should be exercised directly through the organs of popular power.” According to Chavez, popular power would be expressed through “the organized communities,” in various forms such as the communes, self-government of the towns and cities, the communal councils, workers councils, campesino councils, student councils, and others councils indicated in the law.
Political Sphere

In a move vehemently opposed by Venezuelan opposition parties, Chavez also proposed an amendment to article 203, which would allow for unlimited presidential re-elections, (countries such as France, Australia, Germany, and England allow for unlimited reelection), a move the opposition claims would lead to ‘dictatorship’. The proposed change would also extend presidential terms from six to seven years.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2389

Most of the state factories are now run by worker councils. He is wanting to abolish the autonomy of the Central Bank. The country paid off its debt five years ahead of schedule is now pulling out of the World Bank and WTO.

Venezuela can really go in either direction. I'm crossing my fingers.

 

[The Berean]

My guess is he believes he can win more elections and continue to work on bringing "socialism" to Venezuela. I'm not claiming he's a saint, but he's certainly no dictator. He's recently been empowering the municipalities.

Right. Only Chavez has the vision and the knowhow to bring socialism to Venazuela thus he must continue to be "president". He wants to keep running for president for the next 20-30 years. You think having one man be in power that long is a good thing?