Sir Bandelot

Not a nazi, a fascist. There is a difference. Actually a post neo-fascist

Grand Council of Fascism, article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation," then goes on to say in article 9 that: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."

I hear he also added a ministry of truth, and a ministry of peace...

Yes and now after waiting in line for 3-6 hours, or more, they get the privledge of picking either one from column A, or one from column B.

I'm inclined to think that anyone who comes here has at least some interest in politics and history. Even if someone is wrong about something, thats not a moron. People who throw such terms around frivolously, do morons a great injustice.

Read the definition above and show me where IT is wrong. It describes the neocon ideology fairly well. I am not the one who wrote it.

Ugliness is an attitude, not an appearance. Thus one can also be physically attractive, and still be ugly.

Perhaps, although I have never looked at Napoleon that way before. But the worm always turns. And by that definition posted above, one could also argue that Steven Harper and the CPC are a form of "Neo-Fascists".

Its not unusual to have an argument about the meaning of fascism. The word has been abused in its meaning since the defeat of the nazis, used as an insult for all kinds of things that are not at all fascist in its original conception. I said fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, because that is a direct quote from Benito Mussolini, the man who basically created fascism. But he also went on to say that fascism is many other things too, even including spiritualism. Fascism attenpted to embrace all aspects of human society. For the record, here is what historical experts agree is the meaning of fascism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism "English-speaking (and other) historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism.[41] However since the 1990s scholars have begun to gather a rough consensus on the system's core tenets." Sounds a bit like you guys. I wonder if they called each other moron. "Fascism is a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity. It manifested itself primarily to generate a populist mass movement through a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence." Does it sound familiar at all...

Oh. Woke up a little grouchy today? Can't think of a real criticism, so a simple insult works for you. Doesn't do much to me... the definition of fascism still stands, as quoted by Benito Mussolini himself, author of "Il Fascismo". I am happy to engage a real debate or discussion anytime, how about you?

Let me try to explain for you Argus, using a different example. If I see two bad guys and they are fighting each other, who should I cheer on? Or in terms of the Bush doctrine vs. AlQaeda, who do I support. Certainly not the terrorists. But also not the ruthless ones who use war to prop up their corporations, who make deals with corrupt foreign governments while ordinary people gets screwed. They helped create AlQaeda, by their injustice. And their solution to the problem, is further injustice. Canada is not exempt from that criticism, I might add. I have read some world history, and it is a mountain of blood. And I know that will not change, or if it ever does, it wil not be not by these means as they continue the same for thousands of years. So I reject outright those who involve themselves in the same old forms of conflict. Such harsh intolerance as expressed by the poster is just another part of the problem.

That is very disconcerting. I suppose in one way the use of computers would help to eliminate that problem, but it raises other issues. I thought that all the votes were recounted anyway by an independant group after the election. (?)

Polls can be very misleading and are used as a form of propaganda by both sides. Its possible that the race is close but it could also be that Obama has a much beigger lead than polls show. No one really knows if they indicate what the balance of votes will be. Some polls show a huge margin, others show it neck-and-neck with a significant number undecided. Tomorrow its all over... many will be thankful the circus is ending. Polls are continuing to move towards Obama, he has the momentum which is bad news for John McCain. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081103/usa/us_vote JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Nov 3, 2008 (AFP) "Barack Obama stood on the threshold of history Monday as polls gave the Democrat a solid lead over John McCain on the last day of campaigning for the most dramatic US presidential vote in a generation. The 47-year-old Democrat stressed the historic nature of his quest to be America's first black president, striking an optimistic tone as fresh polls gave him a wide lead and heaped further pressure on McCain. The final pre-election poll of Gallup-USA Today published Monday gave Obama a yawning lead of 11 points -- 55 percent to 44 for McCain." Hmm, first black president it says, right there. Someone tell bush_cheney, because he's in denial over that fact. Maybe he should write to MSNBC and complain. After all if the truth hurts, just change the truth!

No I don't think so... but you continue to ignore the facts. Obama voted against war funding the war in May 2007, proven by the link that I provided. You wrong in your own claim. No, I did not "make that crap up", unless I can post bogus news on MSNBC. Of course, when the truth hurts some people chosse to close their eyes and plug their ears, and make funny noises like "duh". That works in high school maybe, but not on me buba. And you say that you are an American... at least I know whats going with politics on with my side of the border. To be wrong about such a thing, as a citizen, is completely unconscionable in my view. So continue blustering and ignoring, as I know you must...

If thats how serious you get, I am not at all worried. My feelings do not get hurt... but its so patently obvious that you are just dieing to see that happen, to give you a rise. Far too obvious... and please, stop apologizing already! You on the other hand, when directly challenged seem to ignore it when you are proven wrong, as you were in my post above about the votes on Iraq. I will sleep well tonight, knowing that I have put you to the mat, and all you can do about it is moan or cry... eat your heart out baby and sweet dreams!

Like I said, when you have something serious to say I might pay attention. If not you can continue with the "dude..' and the "duh!" Whatever suits you better.

Canada is far more socialist than the United States. Thanks to socialism we now have a 40 hour work week, lunch breaks, vacations, sick leave. Aside from the obvious examples of national health care, unemployment insurance. Socialism helped to build this country. See Tommy Douglas (voted the greatest Canadian of all time), crown corporations, the bill of rights.

So what... tell that to the people who think he is the messiah. May 25 2007 "The two Democratic frontrunners in the race for the presidency, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, last night voted against a bill to fund the US war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/25/iraq.usa1 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18862112/

I also said that although he did not vote, he claims to have opposed it from the start, and that is still the public perception. You claim that he supported funding the war, and that is not the case.

When you raise serious challenges, I will be happy to provide serious answers. No need to apologize...

Which world are you talking about? i was talking about the people around the world who are crazy about Obama, as was the original question. Fine, not a vote but the fact remains as a public perception- "Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote but opposed the war from the start." http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...923153320070212 And this is why he is admired by people around the world who opposed the war. It's a hypothetical statement, as is your supposition she wouldn't be. The problem of Bills baggage overshadowed any of her achievements. Although many US voters would welcome a female president in principle, it seems. I've heard his name, but never read the story. I don't care for the politics of distraction. -They all don't have a Rev. Wright somewhere in their past- "Obama is not a "black man"...he is of mixed race for those who consider such things important." I know, But looks black enough to me. That, plus a muslim name is plenty enough to get the dander up on many a good ol' white boy. Lets settle on the fact that, he's not a white Anglo-saxon. "These are your perceptions of public perceptions." Yes they are, I do not attest them to be the hard and dry truth on behalf of thousands of others. Are you just flapping for the sake of flapping? Because answering you is a burden on my typing skills.

The public is easily swayed by the cult of personality. That is not a problem particular to the "left" or "right".

"Their countries wouldn't change to tolerate us so why should we?" Exactly, two wrongs make a right. This statement and the earlier one show exactly why, intolerant factions in Canada are really no different than the ones in islamic countries, only by varying degrees. In thruth its you who support sharia law, or some parts of it anyway. Right is always right, not copying the errors of those who oppose us! You guys remind me of that BBC documentary,"The Power of Nightmares", the one that shows the similarity between fundamental islamic ideology and the ideology of the Straussian neocons. "We treat traditional Canadians as second class citizens while we give the foreigners everything while inciting self hatred in traditional Canadians." Not true! I and many others will always defend freedom and tolerance, whether it is threatened by radical islamicists or back woods red necks. Because in many ways they are one and the same, and we who defend ARE the real traditional Canadians.

No I don't, and I don't bite your baited hooks. But its a typical response of the small-minded: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Sorry, neither.

No I don't, and I don't bite your baited hooks. But its a typical response of the small-minded: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Sorry, neither.