Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
"
- 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
- 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.
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.
And why would he be the only pharmacist in town? Because no liberals are willing to step up and help society? They just want to mooch off of society while demanding everyone else step up?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.
So if you're the only pharmacist in town, you can decide to not sell blood pressure medication to white folks or black folks because you don't like them...
And you wonder why you're correctly thought of as an idiot.
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
"
- 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
- 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.
Your definitions were all written by liberal English majors who don't know diddly squat about economics. The various isms refer to different economic systems, or they are utterly meaningless. Racism, dictatorship and nationalism are not peculiar to fascism nor are any of the other irrelevant criteria the authors of your definitions attempt to use to distinguish fascism from other economic systems.
And why would he be the only pharmacist in town? Because no liberals are willing to step up and help society? They just want to mooch off of society while demanding everyone else step up?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.
So if you're the only pharmacist in town, you can decide to not sell blood pressure medication to white folks or black folks because you don't like them...
And you wonder why you're correctly thought of as an idiot.
Furthermore, even if he was the "only pharmacist in town", why couldn't the person in need just drive to another town?
This is the problem with liberals. They prefer absurd, make believe, what-if, tear-jerking scenario's over reality. Either drive to another town or use the pharmacists poor decision as a business opportunity. That's all a successful business is really - finding a need and filling it (any successful entrepreneur will tell you that). So now that your far-fetched tear-jerker has been covered, what else do you have for me? Are you ready to admit that people should be free to live their lives (even if that means living as bigots) or do you want to present some more far-fetched scenarios for me to cover?
So if you're the only pharmacist in town, you can decide to not sell blood pressure medication to white folks or black folks because you don't like them...
And you wonder why you're correctly thought of as an idiot.
So I guess if a hospital doesn't want black patients...they can do that? The patients should suck it up and open their own hospital? If the ambulance doesn't want to pick up whites...they should suck it up and limp to the next town? If the suspected Ebola patient isn't of a preferable color to be admitted..are you okay with them catching the local bus..or maybe they have smallpox???
The courts ruled on this long ago. Only bigoted idiots like you and brifart see the need to be able to discriminate.
So if you're the only pharmacist in town, you can decide to not sell blood pressure medication to white folks or black folks because you don't like them...
And you wonder why you're correctly thought of as an idiot.
Most reasonable and prudent people do not let there political fanaticism influence their direct interactions with the public. As a pharmacist I would think as long as you met legal requirements you would be treated irregardless of skin color or race ..................
Also as one who dispenses medications for the betterment / continuation of life, ones political preferences would be of the least of your concerns ...............
You see it is only petty and vengeful people like you who would withhold medication from a sick person because of their beliefs ............. what a shit bag for even suggesting such a thing !!
So if you're the only pharmacist in town, you can decide to not sell blood pressure medication to white folks or black folks because you don't like them...
And you wonder why you're correctly thought of as an idiot.
Most reasonable and prudent people do not let there political fanaticism influence their direct interactions with the public. As a pharmacist I would think as long as you met legal requirements you would be treated irregardless of skin color or race ..................
Also as one who dispenses medications for the betterment / continuation of life, ones political preferences would be of the least of your concerns ...............
You see it is only petty and vengeful people like you who would withhold medication from a sick person because of their beliefs ............. what a shit bag for even suggesting such a thing !!
Thanks for another reason to laugh.
So suggesting it makes one a "shit bag". How about those who think the Pharmacist has every right to do so?
So I guess if a hospital doesn't want black patients...they can do that? The patients should suck it up and open their own hospital? If the ambulance doesn't want to pick up whites...they should suck it up and limp to the next town? If the suspected Ebola patient isn't of a preferable color to be admitted..are you okay with them catching the local bus..or maybe they have smallpox???
The courts ruled on this long ago. Only bigoted idiots like you and brifart see the need to be able to discriminate.
You keep wanting to make this about medical care, only a piece of shit denies medical care to a needy / injured individual ............
The right to refuse service that is being discussed here is for denial of goods or services, such as wedding cakes or photos for gay marriages, that is what the reasonable and prudent people in this conversation are trying to discuss .............................
I'm all for denying your services. Just because you have $100,000 dollars, J-Lo shouldn't have to sing at your birthday if she doesn't want to. If she inks the deal then decides that it's too "low brow" for her to do such a thing or finds you to be repugnant due to your idiotic ramblings on the Internet...too bad. She signed the deal. The same with the churches and bakers. If you refuse before hand...no problem with it. If you refuse after you find out the parties are in love with someone with the same anatomy (oh the horror)...too bad.
As for goods; that is a different animal. You don't have to like people you sell to and the transaction usually lasts a few moments; no injury is suffered by either party.
Health care is where it is most acute so that is why I bring it up. You don't like it...feel free to ignore it.
I'm all for denying your services. Just because you have $100,000 dollars, J-Lo shouldn't have to sing at your birthday if she doesn't want to. If she inks the deal then decides that it's too "low brow" for her to do such a thing or finds you to be repugnant due to your idiotic ramblings on the Internet...too bad. She signed the deal. The same with the churches and bakers. If you refuse before hand...no problem with it. If you refuse after you find out the parties are in love with someone with the same anatomy (oh the horror)...too bad.
As for goods; that is a different animal. You don't have to like people you sell to and the transaction usually lasts a few moments; no injury is suffered by either party.
Health care is where it is most acute so that is why I bring it up. You don't like it...feel free to ignore it.
It's not what this conversation is about and you are trolling
We will all start to report you for off topic trolling till you are gone, let games begin ..............
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.
So if you're the only pharmacist in town, you can decide to not sell blood pressure medication to white folks or black folks because you don't like them...
And you wonder why you're correctly thought of as an idiot.
You can't be fascist and Socialist at the same time. They are at political extremes. Make up your mindYou wish...Nazi would not allow Gays to exist in their country ... the fact that you're soooooooo stupid to say "Nazi liberal" makes me laugh at your stupidity in these matters... after all being Nazi are conservative you know ... hitler supported the conservative way of thinking you moron
Now back to reality. Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party. Far from conservatives, the other end of political spectrum.
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.
So if you're the only pharmacist in town, you can decide to not sell blood pressure medication to white folks or black folks because you don't like them...
And you wonder why you're correctly thought of as an idiot.
Pick ANY town in America and I'll find you a minimum of 3 pharmacies within 20 miles of the center of town.
I tell ya, these grannys running around with their unwed children and THEIR brats, are just too much.That's great! What's up with people letting their brats ruin it for everyone? Maybe they are deaf to it but we don't all live that way.A sign at my business reads ... "If your child is unruly, we will give them a double shot of exspesso and a free puppy."
I am really sick of ill-mannered children, and give them the Scowl from Hell when their fuckin' parents aren't looking.
Often times that shuts them up for a bit.
If the people at the Pioneer market didn't want to sell heart medication on Saturday...I guess we'll just do what the GOP prefers...let them die.
When it comes to services; I think the conservatives have a point; when it comes to goods, they have no point. What if every pharmacy decided they wouldn't sell heart medicine to blacks? This is what the hateful conservatives see as a "tough shit" proposition.
However, when you are talking about services such as photography for a wedding or a sitting or someone to do write resumes or what have you, unless you have a contract and THEN decide you don't want to work with blacks, you should have a right to simply refuse to do business in my view. I mean, I may want Taylor Swift to play at my graduation party. If I came up with her asking price, would she be bound to play? I hope not.
Wrong. Again.
Libs love to play with words. When told as candycorn did, mostly everyone would agree. Just in this wedding cake case, disagreement is in the issue. We're not talking about pharmacy denying sale of heart medicine to blacks, we're not talking about refusing to serve meal in restaurant, we're not talking about refusing to serve shirtless person, we're not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We're talking about baking a cake for wedding that for Christians represent little bit more then just "I do". We're talking about specific ceremony that people of faith believe god created and ordained. They could deny baking cake for straight people who are marrying the second time for the same, religious reason.
Liberals should learn the difference between public and private. This is not an issue of gay people being treated differently then straight people by their government. Government has no right to do so, just as government has no right to deny religious freedom to anyone. The problem is, if liberal can't get something they want, they will force it on everyone with court order. Bottom line, it would be much easier to find gay bakers...
If we have a contract then you honor the contract.....if not the provider of services is or should be free to refuse service for any reason.
Goods are an entirely different matter.
My favorite is when you are in a big ass grocery store and the brat is busting your ear drums from the other end of it. Someone needs to slap the mother.
Whatever happened to going into business to make money rather than turning customers away. Maybe owners figured that out and took those stupid signs down...
When it comes to services; I think the conservatives have a point; when it comes to goods, they have no point. What if every pharmacy decided they wouldn't sell heart medicine to blacks? This is what the hateful conservatives see as a "tough shit" proposition.
However, when you are talking about services such as photography for a wedding or a sitting or someone to do write resumes or what have you, unless you have a contract and THEN decide you don't want to work with blacks, you should have a right to simply refuse to do business in my view. I mean, I may want Taylor Swift to play at my graduation party. If I came up with her asking price, would she be bound to play? I hope not.
Wrong. Again.
Libs love to play with words. When told as candycorn did, mostly everyone would agree. Just in this wedding cake case, disagreement is in the issue. We're not talking about pharmacy denying sale of heart medicine to blacks, we're not talking about refusing to serve meal in restaurant, we're not talking about refusing to serve shirtless person, we're not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We're talking about baking a cake for wedding that for Christians represent little bit more then just "I do". We're talking about specific ceremony that people of faith believe god created and ordained. They could deny baking cake for straight people who are marrying the second time for the same, religious reason.
Liberals should learn the difference between public and private. This is not an issue of gay people being treated differently then straight people by their government. Government has no right to do so, just as government has no right to deny religious freedom to anyone. The problem is, if liberal can't get something they want, they will force it on everyone with court order. Bottom line, it would be much easier to find gay bakers...
If we have a contract then you honor the contract.....if not the provider of services is or should be free to refuse service for any reason.
Goods are an entirely different matter.
No argument from me here.
Problem with that gay couple was that baker refuse to enter the contract with them. IMO, baker was within his/her rights.
