Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[hipeter924]

Context matters. Right wing in Iran means something different than right wing here. State sponsored capitalism is state control over the market. That is NOT right wing here. That is the aim of the left. The right wants the market to prevail, free market capitalism, freedom of religion and strong state rights. The left here are the central planner/big federal government types. So the left is increasingly moving towards a form of social/fascism.

Iran is not a fascist state, so that is flawed analogy, your context is incorrect.

State sponsored capitalism is supported by the GOP and Democrats, through subsidies to corporations, special tax rates for US companies, and attacks on small business. Also both parties support monopolies. So only a very small minority of the right wing support a 'free market', the right wing you are talking about doesn't exist - then it is easy to believe there is a 'free market' if you tell yourself a lie long enough you start to believe it. No nation on Earth exists that doesn't follow state sponsored capitalism.

Freedom of religion is no excuse for restricting civil rights or freedom of speech or expression, though many on 'the right' argue for abortion bans and state sponsored morality, and want to stop people counter to their religious beliefs (like 'atheists') holding public office - even though it is unconstitutional for one religion to dictate how everyone else can live their lives or whether people can hold public office.

Though ultimately 'right wing' and 'left wing' are political talking points, and don't exist outside of populist or partisan politics. The only clear scales are those that go from authoritarianism to anarchy, and no civil rights to anarchy, and no political rights to anarchy. Fascism is 'right wing', though in reality there is no 'right wing' or 'left wing', only a scale from authoritarianism to anarchy.

 

[Iceweasel]

Context matters. Right wing in Iran means something different than right wing here. State sponsored capitalism is state control over the market. That is NOT right wing here. That is the aim of the left. The right wants the market to prevail, free market capitalism, freedom of religion and strong state rights. The left here are the central planner/big federal government types. So the left is increasingly moving towards a form of social/fascism.

Iran is not a fascist state, so that is flawed analogy, your context is incorrect.

I said right wing, your brain saw fascist.

State sponsored capitalism is supported by the GOP and Democrats, through subsidies to corporations, special tax rates for US companies, and attacks on small business. Also both parties support monopolies. So only a very small minority of the right wing support a 'free market', the right wing you are talking about doesn't exist - then it is easy to believe there is a 'free market' if you tell yourself a lie long enough you start to believe it. No nation on Earth exists that doesn't follow state sponsored capitalism.

No system is pure, capitalism is a system, not a religion. I also didn't say we have a purely free market, you see words that aren't there and don't see words that are. A tax break for a corporation isn't always a bad thing. If it offers incentive for a business to build and operate in an area, providing jobs, it's a plus to the community, business and government.

Freedom of religion is no excuse for restricting civil rights or freedom of speech or expression, though many on 'the right' argue for abortion bans and state sponsored morality, and want to stop people counter to their religious beliefs (like 'atheists') holding public office - even though it is unconstitutional for one religion to dictate how everyone else can live their lives or whether people can hold public office.

No one is forcing religious views on you and you don't have the authority to make people abandon their principles. That's why we vote. The left feels free to vote their principles but cry foul when the right does.

Though ultimately 'right wing' and 'left wing' are political talking points, and don't exist outside of populist or partisan politics. The only clear scales are those that go from authoritarianism to anarchy, and no civil rights to anarchy, and no political rights to anarchy. Fascism is 'right wing', though in reality there is no 'right wing' or 'left wing', only a scale from authoritarianism to anarchy.

Here, fascism is much more closely found in leftist principles, big government, heavy regulation, group think enforced by law, etc.

 

[Nosmo King]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

I'll bet you used to run the lunch counter at some Southern shithole Woolworth's.

 

[hipeter924]

I said right wing, your brain saw fascist.

That's because fascism is a 'right wing' ideology, in the words of Mussolini 'a fusion of state and corporate power'. Iran is a 'right wing' theocracy though it contains elements of fascism.

No system is pure, capitalism is a system, not a religion. I also didn't say we have a purely free market, you see words that aren't there and don't see words that are. A tax break for a corporation isn't always a bad thing. If it offers incentive for a business to build and operate in an area, providing jobs, it's a plus to the community, business and government.

Capitalism is an ideology, with a value system built on acquiring goods and services. The belief in the ideology becomes a religion of sorts when it bases claims not on empirical data but how things should be (same thing happens with Communism).

You claimed that the US 'right wing' believes in a 'free market', yet only a fraction of Republicans are tea party members, and an even smaller fraction actually believe in non-state, non-monopolistic capitalism. No real 'free market' supporters exist in Congress or the Senate, from either party. The reason for that is that the pusedo-free market is easier to create and propagate, as you just make up what capitalism is as you go along.

Tax breaks are bad things, taxation itself is a bad thing. The government creating artificial jobs, or any incentive by government is monopolistic and an act of economic protectionism. The fact that corporations and unions exist in response to government, is another sign there is no free market. A free market can't have such things, only a pseudo free market can.

No one is forcing religious views on you and you don't have the authority to make people abandon their principles. That's why we vote. The left feels free to vote their principles but cry foul when the right does.

Of course people are forcing their religious or moral opinions upon me. There are laws against 'public disorder' which quash rights to protest or to not be part of the system. If I wanted to be naked in public I would be arrested for violating 'public decency', if I was Muslim and wanted to pray on the street I could be arrested, if I wanted to 'loiter' outside places I could be arrested, and the state dictates whether I can marry, to whom, or what I can call myself. Not very 'free' to me.

Democracy is collectivist, and anti-individualist, where a majority opinion is valued above the rights of individuals. Hence, why America attempted a republic, out of fear of a 'tyranny of the majority'. Though Cold War paranoia and post 9/11 paranoia showed that those checks and balances were inadequate - as we live under daily monitoring by the government (or 'a little liberty' has been given up in the interests of 'security').

I just hope that by the time I am 60, 80, or 90, that America and world doesn't spiral into another world war. With world one like factions battling it out over economic empires and territory. Though as long the institution of government and corporations exist, they will be driven by greed or altruism and the desire for moral intervention - making another war a certainty.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's because fascism is a 'right wing' ideology, in the words of Mussolini 'a fusion of state and corporate power'. Iran is a 'right wing' theocracy though it contains elements of fascism.

American liberalism contains elements of fascism. The right wants more freedom, less government.

Capitalism is an ideology, with a value system built on acquiring goods and services. The belief in the ideology becomes a religion of sorts when it bases claims not on empirical data but how things should be (same thing happens with Communism).

Huh? Capitalism has worked great for us, we don't need a flow chart or data points. Only liberals deny it because it contradicts their religious dogma. But we on the right have history.

You claimed that the US 'right wing' believes in a 'free market', yet only a fraction of Republicans are tea party members, and an even smaller fraction actually believe in non-state, non-monopolistic capitalism. No real 'free market' supporters exist in Congress or the Senate, from either party. The reason for that is that the pusedo-free market is easier to create and propagate, as you just make up what capitalism is as you go along.

I don't even know what you are babbling about. There's no such thing as a totally free market just like there's no such thing as total freedom.

Tax breaks are bad things, taxation itself is a bad thing. The government creating artificial jobs, or any incentive by government is monopolistic and an act of economic protectionism. The fact that corporations and unions exist in response to government, is another sign there is no free market. A free market can't have such things, only a pseudo free market can.

A free market can't have government? I see, you are using terms as if reality didn't exist. In the real world, no government is survival of the fittest and we'll all be living in a Mad Max movie. That isn't a free market might makes right.

Of course people are forcing their religious or moral opinions upon me. There are laws against 'public disorder' which quash rights to protest or to not be part of the system. If I wanted to be naked in public I would be arrested for violating 'public decency', if I was Muslim and wanted to pray on the street I could be arrested, if I wanted to 'loiter' outside places I could be arrested, and the state dictates whether I can marry, to whom, or what I can call myself. Not very 'free' to me.

That's because your rights stop where the other guy's begins. No one wants to see your ass in public or have their travel restricted so that you can masturbate your ego and feel like you are accomplishing something.

Democracy is collectivist, and anti-individualist, where a majority opinion is valued above the rights of individuals. Hence, why America attempted a republic, out of fear of a 'tyranny of the majority'. Though Cold War paranoia and post 9/11 paranoia showed that those checks and balances were inadequate - as we live under daily monitoring by the government (or 'a little liberty' has been given up in the interests of 'security').

Democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner.

I just hope that by the time I am 60, 80, or 90, that America and world doesn't spiral into another world war. With world one like factions battling it out over economic empires and territory. Though as long the institution of government and corporations exist, they will be driven by greed or altruism and the desire for moral intervention - making another war a certainty.

Without government someone will kill you and take your shit.

 

[hipeter924]

American liberalism contains elements of fascism. The right wants more freedom, less government.

What 'right'?

You mean this 'right':

Or this 'right': Republicans call for extension of Patriot Act at debate - CBS News

In a debate on national security issues, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said President Barack Obama has "essentially handed over our investigation of terrorists to the" American Civil Liberties Union. "Our CIA has no ability to investigate," she said.[...]
Neither Gingrich nor any other Republican mentioned that Obama like President George W. Bush before him, signed legislation extending the Patriot Act. He did so while traveling in Europe last May, putting him name on a four-year extension of the law that gives the government sweeping powers to search records and conduct wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

Or maybe this 'right': The High Price of Republican Hypocrisy - Reason.com

Take Rick Perry. He sings the praises of "the free-market enterprise [system] I grew up with." But in Texas, his Enterprise Fund and Emerging Technology Fund have shoveled nearly $650 million of the taxpayers' money into the pockets of private corporations, either by purchasing equity stakes or simply by giving companies cash to relocate. Conservative groups have called the programs "slush funds" and termed Perry "more pro-business than he is pro-free markets."

Huh? Capitalism has worked great for us, we don't need a flow chart or data points. Only liberals deny it because it contradicts their religious dogma. But we on the right have history.

And? Just because a system works doesn't mean it is the best system, or that it can't be improved upon.

I don't even know what you are babbling about. There's no such thing as a totally free market just like there's no such thing as total freedom.

There is no such thing as a free market, only a pseudo free market. Though you probably think Stiglitz and the like are heretics for pointing out in their economics textbooks that a free market is a market without monopolies or government interference or support of the market (laissez faire), and in many circles without a government (non-state capitalism).

A free market can't have government? I see, you are using terms as if reality didn't exist. In the real world, no government is survival of the fittest and we'll all be living in a Mad Max movie. That isn't a free market might makes right.

No, a free market can't have government interference in the economy, or alternatively have corporations or businesses running the government. Guess neo-liberal economic theory, for all its faults, has passed you by - even though laissez faire has been the goal of economic advisers in the US since Reagan.

That's because your rights stop where the other guy's begins. No one wants to see your ass in public or have their travel restricted so that you can masturbate your ego and feel like you are accomplishing something.

Public or moral decency is not a defense for restricting someone's rights, any more than it is a defense for restricting the rights of someone that says or does something offensive. Though, if you want a state that rules by fear, the threat of violence and force - or otherwise coercion based on their conception of morality, then that is the religious conservative aspect of fascism.

Democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner.

Democracy is one lion wanting all the lamb for himself, one wolf wanting to share the lamb with his pack, and a lamb wanting to be left alone.

Without government someone will kill you and take your shit.

Without government there will be no organized effort to kill you and take your shit.

 

[P@triot]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

I'll bet you used to run the lunch counter at some Southern shithole Woolworth's.

Well that's an intelligent response. But no, I've never lived in the south (no capitalization on "southern" my friend), nor have I ever worked at a Woolworth's, nor have I even worked at a lunch counter anywhere. As a matter of fact, I've never held a job anywhere that involved food - not fast food, not a counter, not as a waiter, etc.

So, as usual, you were wrong on a 100% of the things you stated. Just out of curiosity - why the hostility? I'm assuming it's your inability to dispute what I've stated is frustrating you?

 

[P@triot]

When I was in USSR they taught me Hitler and Nazis ate babies, then in America they taught me that Nazis made lampshades and mattresses out of Jews, and now the Fox Newsified Americans are trying to tell me that Nazis were on the side of gays. Oh boy. no wonder you don't see me posting much any more.

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

Well that's like saying "liberals are on the side of blacks". No. Liberals are on the side of power and control over others. They believe how you achieve that is to find "useful idiots", cater to them, and patronize them so long as they support your cause. They believe in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So even though they hate black people, they will tolerate them so long as those black people are voting Democrat.

But if they don't vote Democrat, you see immediately just how fiercely racist liberals are. The attacks on black conservatives like Mia Love, Allen West, and Condi Rice by the left are excessive and fiercely racist. That's because these African American's refuse to be "useful idiots" and thus you see the true colors of libs.

So are liberals "on the side of gays". No. Not at all. But they are on the side of "vote to give me power and I will tolerate and pacify you".

 

[P@triot]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

If you're dumb enough to treat your business that way, you deserve to go under.

Exactly! So then you agree that there is absolutely no reason for the left's obsession with forcing business to do what they want.

I also have always found it comical that liberals demand that business owners do everything that liberals want, instead of liberals just launching their own business and doing it themselves. If you're a liberal and you think McDonald's doesn't pay enough, then launch your own fast food restaurant and pay everyone $72,000. But you never see liberals do that because they are too lazy and too greedy (it's easier to mooch than it is to build a business).

Except for the fact that our tax dollars help pay for the road that leads to your bakery, for your police protection, and fire department. If you want to discriminate, you need to own a private club, you boob.

None of those are federal matters.

Except for the fact that our tax dollars help pay for the road that leads to your bakery, for your police protection, and fire department. If you want to discriminate, you need to own a private club, you boob.

It is absolutely fall-down hilarious how liberals always make their case for federal control and tax dollars based on local items (like roads, police, fire, etc.). These people literally cannot figure out which way is up.

By the way, the police department & the fire department still protect a "private club" and the roads still lead to the "private club" - so you literally just defeated your own argument. First you cite those things as reasons why a private bakery has no right to decide for themselves who to conduct business with and then you turn around and say it's ok for a "private club" though...

 

[P@triot]

Interesting project I'm working on (I'm part of the team). Our board decided that we would have speakers during 2015, every other month or so.

Anyway, we have some celebrities coming out to the desert to chat up the troops and provide a day of "food, fun, and fellowship".

The reason I bring it up is that we were turned down by some celebs who have confirmed open dates on their schedule (or rather their handlers--not sure the celeb ever heard the offer). Anyway, again, we have money to pay them...cash; they have an opening in their schedule. They just aren't interested.

I say, "Good for them." Nobody should be forced to do anything just because you want their services and can pay for it. If Bill Engvall signed a deal, however, and then said, "I really want to get away from corporate events. I'm not doing it." That's wrong.

Goods are a different matter. Businesses shouldn't have the right to refuse sale based on perceptions of lifestyle. If you've shop-lifted from them before...different story. IF there is nothing except the business owner's mis-conception of what you do in your spare time...that's not enough.

Can I ask why there is a perceived difference here in your mind? I was about to give you kudos for your post as I read about how you think nobody should be forced to attend speaking events, etc. if they don't want to. But then you contradict yourself and claim that "products" are different. How and why are they "different"? Bill Engvall's has a product - his comedy. How is that any different from somebody whose products are cupcakes?

And I'd still like for someone to explain to me why they feel the need to force people to do something they are not comfortable with? If someone refuses to make wedding cakes for gay marriages, that just opens up a market for someone who is willing to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages. That's why the free-market works so flawlessly when left alone. It balances itself perfectly every time. Any void created by someone unwilling to do something will be filled by someone just looking for an opportunity.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously? I've explained it like 20'x already, including the post you just responded to. I'm guessing you're struggling with some sort of reading comprehension condition?

You're assuming I'm going to bother actually reading that nonsense then.

Actually I think I know why you think Fascism is left wing. It has a lot to do with the Nazis being "National Socialists" in name only. They weren't Socialists at all, the Socialists were purged long before Hitler was taking over Europe and killing the Jews. Night of the long knives I think was the major purge of the gay and left wing element of his party.

fascism definition of fascism in Oxford dictionary American English US

"An authoritarian and nationalisticright-wing system of government and social organization."

American Heritage Dictionary Entry fascism

"
1. oftenFascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."

Definition of ldquo fascism rdquo Collins English Dictionary

"

1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc"

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"often capitalized: 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 centralizedautocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

fascism - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed"

Fascism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radicalauthoritariannationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated inItaly during World War I, combining more typically right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics,"

From Wikipedia, suggesting that it is mostly right wing, though at times has elements of left wing policies, which I won't dispute. However I will dispute that it is left wing.

"Although fascism is often placed on the far-right on the traditional left–right spectrum, a number of academics have said that the description is inadequate."

Which is probably true.

So, while some dictionaries describe it with extreme right wing, others don't. However they all say more or less the same thing.

So what does right and left wing mean?

right wing definition of right wing in Oxford dictionary American English US

"
The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.
[with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789–91), where the nobles sat to the president's right and the commons to the left]"

So it comes from the French National Assembly, extreme left and right weren't really there as a major force, so the terms far left and far right have developed since then, especially in the 20th Century when both Communism and Fascism came to play a major role in the world.

But the reality is that the definitions of what are far right and far left have come to be Fascism and Communist respectively.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they can't share aspects that might be considered left or right. Stalin's Communism wasn't Communism. Whatever it was, wasn't going to be considered by anyone as anything other than dictatorial, oppressive and not particularly looking out for equally or the people as might be considered in traditional leftist terms. But still we might call this far left.

Same with Fascism.

I'd guess that you're trying to make out that Stalin was extreme left, and Communist, therefore it was similar to Fascism, therefore Fascism is far left too. Which is really non-nonsensical.

 

[Nosmo King]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

I'll bet you used to run the lunch counter at some Southern shithole Woolworth's.

Well that's an intelligent response. But no, I've never lived in the south (no capitalization on "southern" my friend), nor have I ever worked at a Woolworth's, nor have I even worked at a lunch counter anywhere. As a matter of fact, I've never held a job anywhere that involved food - not fast food, not a counter, not as a waiter, etc.

So, as usual, you were wrong on a 100% of the things you stated. Just out of curiosity - why the hostility? I'm assuming it's your inability to dispute what I've stated is frustrating you?

No. You're just not worth it.

 

[bripat9643]

Uh...yes you can (and you are). The problem is, like everything else, you've allowed the left to brainwash you into believing that fascism is "right-wing". It is not. It is absolutely and indisputably left-wing. I've explained this a zillion times on USMB and it's a damn shame that it even needs to be explained. But here it is once again RW. Please do your best to retain the information this time:

Right-wing: How we know Hitler was right wing. Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Left-wing: How we know Hitler was right wing. Page 69 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I understand your definition.....everything bad must be left wing

But both extreme left and extreme right are undesireable. Extreme left is pure socialism, extreme right is pure fascism. There is no way you can make them the same thing

Not at all. In fact, if you had actually read the links I posted, you would see that I mercilessly bashed the right-wing radicals (libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists).

Incidentally, you didn't even get the left's side of the political spectrum correct. Socialism is not the "extreme left". You can go much further left (and thus much worse) than socialism. You could have a Democracy where everyone is free to work where ever they chose and the people freely vote for socialism. Further left is communism/fascism where everyone is forced into socialism.

The fact remains, fascism is as left-wing as it gets while the most radical and dangerous form of right-wing extremism is anarchy. No rules, no laws, complete and total freedom - even to rape, pillage, and murder. In other words, the complete opposite of fascism (so they simply can't be on the same side of the spectrum my friend).

Communism and fascism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum

You can't be both

Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Anarchy (no rules or laws and no government) and fascism (complete government control) are what are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

The fact that you can't articulate why or how communism and fascism are at "opposite ends of the political spectrum" but I have clearly articulated all of it kind of proves which of us is correct - wouldn't you say?

The further right you go, the smaller and less powerful government becomes. That is the complete opposite of fascism. And since the opposite of right is left, that means fascism is clearly left-wing. The end of the political spectrum on the right is anarchy. The end of the political spectrum on the left is fascism/communism (two sides of the same coin).

Rightwinger is correct here.

Rightwinger has never been correct about anything in his entire life.

 

[Iceweasel]

American liberalism contains elements of fascism. The right wants more freedom, less government.

What 'right'?

You mean this 'right':

Or this 'right': Republicans call for extension of Patriot Act at debate - CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-call-for-extension-of-patriot-act-at-debate/
Bush as no fiscal conservative and Reagan didn't get his tax cuts like the Dems agreed to. Defense spending went way up, thanks to PeanutHead Carter. But libs love to cut the budget by gutting the military.

In a debate on national security issues, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said President Barack Obama has "essentially handed over our investigation of terrorists to the" American Civil Liberties Union. "Our CIA has no ability to investigate," she said.[...]
Neither Gingrich nor any other Republican mentioned that Obama like President George W. Bush before him, signed legislation extending the Patriot Act. He did so while traveling in Europe last May, putting him name on a four-year extension of the law that gives the government sweeping powers to search records and conduct wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

and?

Or maybe this 'right': The High Price of Republican Hypocrisy - Reason.com

http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/11/the-high-price-of-republican-hypocrisy
LOL

Take Rick Perry. He sings the praises of "the free-market enterprise [system] I grew up with." But in Texas, his Enterprise Fund and Emerging Technology Fund have shoveled nearly $650 million of the taxpayers' money into the pockets of private corporations, either by purchasing equity stakes or simply by giving companies cash to relocate. Conservative groups have called the programs "slush funds" and termed Perry "more pro-business than he is pro-free markets."

Texas is doing pretty good economically, sorry if that pisses you off.

And? Just because a system works doesn't mean it is the best system, or that it can't be improved upon.

Socialism improves capitalism?

There is no such thing as a free market, only a pseudo free market. Though you probably think Stiglitz and the like are heretics for pointing out in their economics textbooks that a free market is a market without monopolies or government interference or support of the market (laissez faire), and in many circles without a government (non-state capitalism).

Now you are repeating yourself.

No, a free market can't have government interference in the economy, or alternatively have corporations or businesses running the government. Guess neo-liberal economic theory, for all its faults, has passed you by - even though laissez faire has been the goal of economic advisers in the US since Reagan.

You claimed corporations run government, not me.

Public or moral decency is not a defense for restricting someone's rights, any more than it is a defense for restricting the rights of someone that says or does something offensive. Though, if you want a state that rules by fear, the threat of violence and force - or otherwise coercion based on their conception of morality, then that is the religious conservative aspect of fascism.

You don't have the right to walk around naked. There is no need to defend accusations of a right you think you've lost.

Democracy is one lion wanting all the lamb for himself, one wolf wanting to share the lamb with his pack, and a lamb wanting to be left alone.

And the lamb becomes lion food. That's why we have a Republic.

Without government there will be no organized effort to kill you and take your shit.

Government wants to kill you and take your sleeping bag and tent? I doubt it.

 

[bripat9643]

Not at all. In fact, if you had actually read the links I posted, you would see that I mercilessly bashed the right-wing radicals (libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists).

Incidentally, you didn't even get the left's side of the political spectrum correct. Socialism is not the "extreme left". You can go much further left (and thus much worse) than socialism. You could have a Democracy where everyone is free to work where ever they chose and the people freely vote for socialism. Further left is communism/fascism where everyone is forced into socialism.

The fact remains, fascism is as left-wing as it gets while the most radical and dangerous form of right-wing extremism is anarchy. No rules, no laws, complete and total freedom - even to rape, pillage, and murder. In other words, the complete opposite of fascism (so they simply can't be on the same side of the spectrum my friend).

Oh this should be good.

How is fascism left wing exactly?

Or is this one of those "if you say it enough times it becomes true" malarkeys?

Business decisions were all made by the government. The "owners" were effectively nothing more than factory managers carrying out the orders of government bureaucrats. The Nazis even had 5 years plans, just like the communist. "ownership" doesn't mean a thing without control. If you don't make the decisions regarding how some property is used, then you don't really own it. There was no private ownership of productive enterprises in Nazi Germany, so their economy was a form of socialism.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually I think I know why you think Fascism is left wing. It has a lot to do with the Nazis being "National Socialists" in name only.

No, it's because the ideology that wants big government, higher taxes, more centralized government, more regulation, less freedom of personal choice and more spending is the left.

 

[bripat9643]

A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

LMAO What's not open for debate is that you cannot refuse service to people because you don't like their color, religion, ethnicity, life style, size, shape, politics, etc. and so on. If you think you can, you're an idiot.

That's what the law says, but it's not a moral principle. In fact, it's violation of your rights.

 

[bripat9643]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

If you're dumb enough to treat your business that way, you deserve to go under.

Exactly! So then you agree that there is absolutely no reason for the left's obsession with forcing business to do what they want.

I also have always found it comical that liberals demand that business owners do everything that liberals want, instead of liberals just launching their own business and doing it themselves. If you're a liberal and you think McDonald's doesn't pay enough, then launch your own fast food restaurant and pay everyone $72,000. But you never see liberals do that because they are too lazy and too greedy (it's easier to mooch than it is to build a business).

Except for the fact that our tax dollars help pay for the road that leads to your bakery, for your police protection, and fire department. If you want to discriminate, you need to own a private club, you boob.

So paying taxes means you toss all your freedoms on the scrap heap? That's the mentality of a serf.

 

[bripat9643]

I consider these folks who want to use aparthied type behavior in order to not have to deal with or accept people because they don't like their color, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. to be completely un-American. It's repulsive the joy you take in disaproving of and hating others, and it is truly un-American.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, you're not entitled to impose your opinion on business owners.

 

[bripat9643]

Interesting project I'm working on (I'm part of the team). Our board decided that we would have speakers during 2015, every other month or so.

Anyway, we have some celebrities coming out to the desert to chat up the troops and provide a day of "food, fun, and fellowship".

The reason I bring it up is that we were turned down by some celebs who have confirmed open dates on their schedule (or rather their handlers--not sure the celeb ever heard the offer). Anyway, again, we have money to pay them...cash; they have an opening in their schedule. They just aren't interested.

I say, "Good for them." Nobody should be forced to do anything just because you want their services and can pay for it. If Bill Engvall signed a deal, however, and then said, "I really want to get away from corporate events. I'm not doing it." That's wrong.

Goods are a different matter. Businesses shouldn't have the right to refuse sale based on perceptions of lifestyle. If you've shop-lifted from them before...different story. IF there is nothing except the business owner's mis-conception of what you do in your spare time...that's not enough.

Sure they should. You have failed to post a single reason why they shouldn't, other than your indignation. You see, freedom means you get to do what you want with your property, even if someone else doesn't like it.