Journal damn_registrars's Journal: $freaks++ 11
Relationship Change
sent by Slashdot Message System
on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @12:05AM
hitchhacker (122525) has made you their foe.
At first I figured it was likely that this person foe'd me after I called out (slashdot heroes) Ron and Rand Paul as fascists. However this user posts so little it is hard to tell if they read that or not. I notice they do have Barbara on their foes list as well, which may have been the reason instead.
You drop the F-bomb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism does not require a bigger federal government, in fact a larger government is generally the opposite of fascism. Fascism requires more power in the hands of fewer people. There are many ways to de-centralize power - including growing the federal government. Centralizing power - such as aspiring to the "government you can drown in a bathtub" principle - is a giant step towards fascism.
And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.
For that matter, another good parallel between the Paul family and fascism is in the wikipedia entry on Benito Moussolini [wikipedia.org]:
Indeed, he was now convinced that socialism as a doctrine had largely been a failure
Going on...
An important factor in fascism gaining support in its earliest stages was the fact that it claimed to oppose discrimination based on social class and was strongly opposed to all forms of class war
Re: (Score:2)
And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.
Outside the scope of Slashdot--that is, the real world--what are you possibly talking about, please? Held your argument the slightest shred of validity, Ron would not have penned "End the Fed". Are you saying that there is some secret, hidden, inner plot unbeknownst to much of anyone?
Imma guessin' you've saddled your troll pony for a little ride.
Re: (Score:2)
And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.
Outside the scope of Slashdot--that is, the real world--what are you possibly talking about, please?
Have you paid attention to their platform? It seems likely no. I would spell it out for you, but you are so entrenched in your favorite conspiracies that I fear what might happen if you found yourself facing reality.
Ron would not have penned "End the Fed"
That is a catchy line, which his cult is fond of dishing out along with some of their other ones. As they like to do, they don't mention what it means to people who are below the top .1% of wealth holders in this country. While the fed isn't the dearest friend to the rest of us, complete d
Re: (Score:2)
Ron would not have penned "End the Fed"
That is a catchy line, which his cult is fond of dishing out along with some of their other ones. As they like to do, they don't mention what it means to people who are below the top .1% of wealth holders in this country. While the fed isn't the dearest friend to the rest of us, complete deregulation wouldn't help, either. In fact, his goal of returning to the gold standard would be nearly catastrophic for many.
It's actually a good read, "End the Fed", in stark contrast to Karl "Hash" Marx and his risible full diaper screeds.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually a good read, "End the Fed", in stark contrast to Karl "Hash" Marx and his risible full diaper screeds.
Have you read more of "end the fed" than you have of The Communist Manifesto? Granted, it would be hard to read less of anything than you have of the Manifesto, but you could read as little of it. So far you have not quite called yourself as much of an expert on "End the Fed" as you have of the Manifesto that you proudly refuse to read, if that is any indication of whether or not you have bothered to start reading it.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I grasp that it's far easier for you to whine in the small child fashion than hold up your end of a baragin; why would you carry out an agreement? That's such a *conservative* thing to do, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you'd hold up your end of the bargain (I checked the fine print on my martyr complex, and it did not extend to going solo any further into that septic field) the Commie Manifesto is still possible.
You have not shown any genuine independent reading of it, or genuine interest in doing such a thing. I haven't been able to get you to read any of it for yourself up to this point, why would I expect you to suddenly change colors and start reading it? I'm not the one who abandoned it; you abandoned it formally when your last JE on the matter was merely a meta-analysis of someone else's review of it where you quoted the reviewer several times and the original author not even once. You informally abandone
Re: (Score:1)
You have not shown any genuine independent reading of it
is just your piss-ant excuse for why you can't cant carry through with an agreement. It's a completely non-falsifiable fig leaf to paper over your general Lefty incontinence. Boo-hiss + haha, Lamer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a completely non-falsifiable fig leaf
No. All you need to do is actually write a review of the manifesto that shows you are reading it. You haven't done that once. While some of your earlier attempts were a bit phoned in, your last one essentially did not consult the original material at all. You are the one who backed away from the agreement to read the text. I would have happily read through it with you but you plainly abandoned it.
This is not a surprise in scope of your general war on reading. The only thing unclear about your war