the problem I have with illegal (and legal) drugs is NOT primarily what it does to the user. While I think that a society of addicts is ultimately doomed, my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.
Were there even a single scrap of truth to that then you would wholheartedly support complete legalization of all drugs immediately. No other path is consistent with your stated concern.
We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?
You seem to be suffering from a sad delusion that making it legal would change that at all. That has no rational basis and is completely contradicted by reality. Drug laws do nothing to cut demand for drugs. We learned exactly what insane laws like those do back in prohibition. They increase useage and massively increase violent crime. Every time. No exceptions. No matter what color the sky on your planet.
Would bystander deaths double? Triple?
Not even the smallest possibility. They would go way down. As soon as you quit making it a crime it becomes an issue which can be discussed reasonably and dealt with in a reasonable manner. What it is now is the primary cause of violent crime due entirely to the fact that it is illegal.
People like to explain that the "war on drugs" is failing and how eventually the government will have no choice but to legalize these substances.
It's not failing. It's a great success. You clearly have no idea what the goals of it are though. It has led to massive profits for the prison industrial complex ans to various interests which would lose big if pot *and* hemp were legal. It's not really tough to figure it out. All you have to do is look at the effects and have some basic understanding of history and human nature.
Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?
Tobacco is *legal*. Economies of scale by big growers make it unfeasible for somebody to profit off of it on a small scale. That particular thing might not be true of pot given the quantities involved, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the legal versus illegal dichotomy which is at issue. And if it were legal and people did grow their own and the government didn't get to collect taxes from what they sold off then so what? Take the savings from eliminating the DEA, eliminating *at least* 1/3 of the prison space requirements and massive reduction in police forces when it is no longer profitable in a black market economy and you'll benefit even more.
Pretending for a moment that anyone would pay these "drug taxes", I wonder what percentage of these new taxes would go to pay for the welfare of addicts? 300% at the very least I would assume, but very likely more. Society already has to pay for addicts, how many would we be paying for if these substances become easily and legally available?
300% Wow, you're smoking the good shit.
If society already is paying, then your police state plan obviously isn't working, Sparky. Take 10% of the *savings* from eliminating the drug laws which are the sole source of the crime and you'll have all the treatment programs you need. That leaves 90% of the drug war budget that can go back into our pockets (OK, I'll pass it on after that last sentence)
Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place.
Nonsense. Logic has no place in pro drug law arguments because were the actual points to be argued nobody would buy into them. All they have is idiotic bullshit like you've been spewing.
I don't suggest to have answers, but I don't care what you use to justify your reasoning, in any case, the only quest
For instance, what about those guys that gave fascism its name: Italia in the 1920-1930, but sadly that ideology has spread to other parts of the world, or people have independently invented their own form.
Absolutely. Russia, China and the US are all basically fascist currently with some variations and they (or rather elements within them) are pushing for worldwide fascist revolution meaning essentially neofeudalism.
It is hard to tell whether the US has derived their fascism from the Italian/German version (influences in the 1930 that have not been eradicated) or that this is a more recent invention that just emulates it.
My take is that it was derived, although it's not certain. Remember, that prior to Pearl Harbor a lot of the American industrial elite absofuckingloutely *loved* the idea of fascism. Henry Ford is obviously the prime example of that, but let's not forget our current President's grandfather who went out of his way to betray his country to help bankroll Hitler.
And then once we finished the great war against fascism, there was a new threat on the horizon. Granted, the threat posed by the USSR had some actual meat to it unlike the almost entirely overblown threat of terrorism, but it was likewise an excuse more than anything. So at that point, the US shifted gears into anti-communism mode. Now, Hitler's version of fascism was almost purely a reaction to communism, so we have the same "enemy" and policies deigned with the same goal of being "other" than that.
The fact that they were the "godless" communists is what formed the unholy alliance between the right wing in America and rural Christians. I mean, hasn't it ever surprised you how "religiously" they vote against their own best interests and against the fundamental basis of their faith? Christianity is a completely left wing philosophy, yet in America we have the "Christian Right", which is about as oxymoronic as you can get.
So as this anti communist attitude morphed into anti-left in any way shape or form and then became ingrained into our culture and given that fascism is merely that attitude put into policy, America was locked into that track. Add in the military industrial complex's growing control leading to most of the wars we've been in and America became a fascist state.
I mean just look at Bush's original administration. Wolfowitz, in particular, did his PhD with Strauss at Chicago, and his main "thing" was essentially Nazi philosophy and especially the idea of the "Big Lie".
Oh, and don't forget the boat load of Nazi scientists recruited by the US and more importantly the Gestapo SS types brought over to help build the CIA.
That's my take on it, and that's why I consider fascism in America to be a direct descendant of that in Nazi Germany.
Given the time between them, it hardly matters.
In a lot of ways it's true, but at least from an academic perspective, it's an interesting question to think about.
Throwing facist around is overplayed, but fits this video. The ad being used was Apple's 1984 ad. Using that story against someone is making a facist comparision.
No, it does not fit this video and it is not a fascist comparison. 1984, the book, was about *left* wing socialist totalitarianism gone out of control. Fascism is a *right* wing ideology which is basically corporate power controlling the power of the state to rip off the people and merging in religion to keep the sheep in line. See the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and the like. It's an entirely elitist ideology ( as the right wing is by definition ) where the "superior" types use the power of the state to keep down the undesirables. See the whole gay hatred amendment bullshit for all the proof you need of that. From the point of view of the people with the bootprints on their faces it might be a largely meaningless semantic distinction, but there are very real differences between left and right wing extremism.
Now, that being said, Hillary, along with most of the Democratic party are pretty far to the right economically. See the DMCA, Continuous copyright extension etc for proof of that A lot of the Democrats are pretty far to the left socially, see hate/thought crime laws and the like for that.
But 1984 is in no way related to anything fascist. It's the opposite extreme. If it were fascist, the proles wouldn't have been left to themselves, they would have been rounded up and exterminated as the undesirable subhumans they would have been considered.
So, yes, fascist is thrown around a lot in the wrong places, like this and people, largely, have no clue what it means otherwise they wouldn't whine when people call Bush one since he absolutely is in every particular.
Sometimes I think the worst thing Hitler did was the holocaust not just because of the whole mass murder thing, but because that overshadows all the other problems with fascism. When you call Bush a fascist people spout off idiotic bullshit about how that's stupid because he isn't killing Jews. They don't realize that a fascist government doesn't have to kill anybody to be fascist and awful.
Republican Liberty Caucus is pretty clearly a libertarian wing of the U.S. right.
No, it isn't. It isn't in any way possible for anything to be that. Perhaps they are a *Liberal* wing of the *Republican Party*. You're again using the fallacy that Republican == right which is not accurate. Right is *opposed* to Liberalism by definition. Left is as well for different reasons. There can't be a Liberal/Libertarian wing of the left either because the meaning of those terms excludes the possibility.
Paleoconservatives and libertarians are not the same thing, although both can be classified as Liberals, as paleoconservatives tend to maintain more social conservatism and traditionalism in their ideology.
Social conservatism is purely right. It is anti liberty and anti individual. That alone makes it either left or right. The fact that it is an entirely elitist attitude seeking to have big daddy government beat down other people merely because they hate whatever grroup it is that they're trying to put down makes it a right wing as opposed to a left wing ideology. Economic "conservatism" as commonly espoused is purely Liberal, although a lot of people who claim to be that really are fascists/corporatists hence right wing as well. There are probably actually some people who vote Republican who do support real economic liberalism but they are fools* because the Republican party is the party of even bigger more oppressive government than the Democrats ever dreamed of. That's been absolutely true for damn near 30 years now. *So again, that's not an ad hominem, it's a statement of fact based on the facts. i.e. a Conclusion, not an argument.
My explanation of how geek/punk ethics fit into parts of the U.S. left and right as they publicly conceive of themselves is not inaccurate.
Maybe it's an accurate description of what they say, but that doesn't make it true or even rational. I could support hate crime/thought crime legislation and racial quotas for college admission and claim that I'm being either liberal or right wing, but that doesn't change the fact that those things are entirely left wing by definition.
Moreover, asserting that because geek/punk ethics are Liberal that they therefore do not fit at all into the left/right schema of U.S. politics is silly. They do not fit wholly into one or the other, but they certainly share elements with both, which was the point I was making
But the point I'm making is that you are wrong. That's not to say that many (most) people are not in more than one of the *3* camps if you span all of their beliefs and attitudes, but all of the examples that you listed are entirely within the Liberal camp. Pick any person claiming to support those attitudes, and you can probably find *other* attitudes they have which do fit into the left or the right, but both right and left are completely big government ideologies. Small government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty are all entirely Liberal ideals. They do not fit into the left or the right one iota. They can't possibly, due to the definitions of the terms.
The 3 sides, Liberal, left and right are all different, but the left and right have one major thing in common: their hatred of Liberalism. Why they hate it is totally different and their policies in opposition to it are very different as well. They despise each other, but at almost any opportunity, they'll gang up against Liberals since they both want big government to control the people and Liberals don't. That is the fundamental difference between Liberals and both the left and right. Liberals stand for individual liberty, and both the left and the right stand *against* individual liberty. Your overly simplified, incorrect use of terminology hides that fundamental distinction, and sweeps the entire idea of individual rights versus oppressive statism under the rug which is my fundamental disagreement with you in this thread.
As soon as you start using ad hominems your post becomes a flam
My characterization of the right is based on the paleoconservative/libertarian/South Park republican wing of the right in America.
Libertarian is not right wing. It is Liberal. When that term got subverted into uselessness by the left, they coined a new term. Confusingly enough, paloeconservatives are Liberals as well. That's what they were trying to "conserve" when the neoliberals started moving the goalposts.
I don't think it warrants a hysterical reply accusing me of "ignorance" and "contempt", while you conflate the multiple, easily differentiable elements among the U.S. right.
There was nothing hysterical in my response. I just get sick of hearing this ignorance trotted out repeatedly. None of the things you stated that I quoted are "right". They are Liberal as in what the left and right are left or right *of*.
When you continue to spout ignorant crap, calling you ignorant isn't a flame (you might actually want to look up "flamebait" as well. You were accusing me of flaming you, not of posting flamebait) it's a simple statement of a fact which you yourself demonstrated.
You just lump Liberalism and right in as right which makes intelligent discussion totally problematic. It's exactly as if you claim that Linux and OpenBSD are the same thing since they're all GPL based. It's wrong and it undefines a term in order to restrict or eliminate it from public discourse. I'm not claiming that that is your intent, but it is what you're doing.
When the hell was the right wing about small governments? The right Wing has majorly changed in the last 5-6 years.. O.o
Never. The right and the left are both in favor of big government since they're defined by how they like to use that big government against the people. The left to enforce their ideas of equality and the right to enforce their ideas of inequality or elitism. The right hasn't changed since the term came into being when the nobility and the Church sat on the right hand side of the aisle in the French assembly and the representatives of the commoners sat on the left.
What's changed is, in America, the left subverted the term Liberal and the right attacked it outright in order to destroy the idea. That's why hardly anybody in this country can even discuss politics without sounding ignorant since they don't even have the vocabulary for it. They think Republican == right and Democrat == left even when they both support policies on either side. What neither of them support is Liberalism, i.e. the philosophy of individual liberty. In fact, there is nothing they fear and despise more.
Geek libertarianism and Punk DIY-anarchism fit parts of the left and parts of the right. Matching the left, they care about solidarity, anti-corporatism, and socio-cultural liberty. Matching the right, they care about negative freedoms (small, limited government as opposed to the nanny state) and "rugged individualism."
No, that does not indicate anything on the left or the right. It indicates Liberal beliefs. Liberal as in what the word actually means, not the bastardization used in America.
As soon as you say DIY, you completely reject the left and the right since they are both about using big government against other people to make the others do shit for them.
And your entirely inaccurate characterisation of the right is mind blowing. Small limited government?!? What exactly are you smoking. The right believes in big oppressive totalitarian government to keep all the "undesirables" out of the way of the elite. "rugged individualism"?!? Seriously, Dude. You described Liberalism there. As in the philosophy that led to the foundation of America.
The left and the right both despise Liberalism because that's what it is. When you try and claim that for the right when the right is rabidly, violently opposed to exactly those things you demonstrate both your ignorance and your own contempt for it.
The "consumer" has never had a voice, since they are just things whose job it is to consume whatever shit is getting pumped out.
Back when people were customers or, heaven forbid, *citizens* they did.
Hell, you even refer to yourself as a consumer. That's how far downhill we've come just in my lifetime. When I was a kid, I don't remember any business having the audacity and contempt to refer to the people whose custom their business depends on by such a derogatory term.
isn't this the same kind of nitpicking BS everyone is so upset about?
No, it isn't anything even resembling any such thing. I'm amazed you managed to delude yourself so badly as to think such a completely ridiculous thing.
Personally I hope the judge calls foul on both sides.
There is no legal or rational basis for such an assinine action, but given the state of the union it's still not ruled out due in large part to people like you who refuse to spend a second thinking about it before whining about some made up crap.
She did it specifically to provoke a reaction.
Whether that's true or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that the law is crap and pointing that out is absolutely a good thing.
I'd rather see our court system used for something more productive that a tit for tat exchange over copyright.
While I'd rather see it used to restrict criminals like the NFL from violating my rights. I guess that's a major difference between us. I support liberty. You think we should all bend over and grab our ankles whenever anybody wants to fuck us. I'm much happier being me.
I think it's time for both sides on this one to grow up and I hope a judge tells them so before he tosses the whole thing.
Whereas I hope that the judge does his fucking job and busts the only guilty party for violating the only ameliorating part of a badly broken by design law.
Perhaps you shouldn't post when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. It makes you look like a fool and a lapdog.
In the rich democracies, businesses generally don't bother with overt criminality, because they'd just have to give up the money anyway.
Wow. What color is the air on your planet? Businesses quite often go straight for overt criminality because they know that they can make a billion and pay a million dollar fine. Heck, just look at Microsoft for the canonical example of that.
It's cute to be cynical
No, cynicism about that and realism coincide completely. There isn't anything "cute" about it.
But the fact that she will probably win this case points to a deep, significant difference between "the west" and the rest.
You misspelled "might". It's only even "might" because what the NFL is trying to pull is *so* blatantly illegal. And it's only that because the DMCA is so new. This kind of shit is the purpose of that and similar recent laws such as the traitor act (Orwellianly named "Patriot") which, surprise surprise is being abused exactly as predicted by every sane person. A real no brainer since that was its purpose.
Perhaps you should pull your head out of whatever orifice you've stuffed it in and look around. Maybe if you did you'd notice that the differences you're feebly attempting to illustrate are getting smaller and smaller all the time. The fact that this is even happening at all proves that point.
I found the adaptor I was using uses a Marvel chipset.. Hmm, I guess I give that adaptor to my Wife so she can upgrade from b to g while I look for something compatible.
I have a PCMCIA wireless card with a Marvel chipset and it works fine with NDISWrapper
My experience is that if it works with that, it's pretty easy to set up. HTH
Well, like I said, I don't really understand much about any of that so reading the description and translating it into what you're talking about isn't trivial given that.
As far as encrypted, isn't that the point of the cable box? So AFAIK (which as we now both know isn't too far at all) encrypted signals don't even enter into the equation assuming you have a cable box and an IR blaster to handle it. Is that incorrect?
It can capture non-encrypted, digital HD video, and SD analog content. It cannot capture analog HD video.
What is analog HD video anyhow? Seems like an oxymoron, again demonstrating my lack of knowledge in this arena. Assuming you have digital cable with an IR Blaster for the cable box, then doesn't that card let you record *everything* you'd ever try to record in that situation?
I'm not ignoring your points, or playing dumb I really don't see where the problem arises.
I know you're wrong because I tried to do exactly this before I went and bought a Series 3 Tivo. The only way to have a DVR for encrypted HD is to get a Tivo or a POS cableco DVR. Your setup (unless you have some magical HD capture card that nobody makes) can only record encrypted HD content that has been downconverted to SD, and even if you did have HD capture, it would be re-encoded.
OK, here's where I don't understand all the issues apparently. Say you have an HD cable box, a MythTV with an HD capture card, and an IR blaster going to the cable box. What are you missing out on in this situation? You're getting HD shows, the cable box decrypts them and then you record them. Where is the problem here?
Nobody has ever convinced me that Fascism was anything more than Dictatorship mixed with Nationalistic Socialism
Then you're a moron since you keep repeating complete nonsense. Fascism is the merger of State and corporate power. So said Mussolini, and he'd know far better than either of us since he invented the freaking word, Sparky. So if you can't be convinced of the meaning of a word by the one who decided what it means, then you are a moron.
Most Democrats signed the war resolution, including Hillary Clinton. We have voice recordings of Hillary Clinton, trying to convince Code Pink that she did her own 10 years of research, and that during Bill's presidency they had known about the WMDs and that Saddam had to go. John Kerry said during the 2004 elections that "knowing now what he didn't know then, he would have invaded Iraq". So I suppose all these people are traitors too?
Traitors or fools. What's your point? Of course, Bush was the one who went wild making up evidence, doctoring intelligence and lying straight to the faces of the American people in order to get us involved in a war based entirely on "ensuring future US economic world domination in the coming century" to quote their fucking game plan.
You are describing dictatorship vs. liberal socialism, not Fascism vs. Socialism. Fascism is just another word for Nationalistic Socialistic Dictatorship.
No, I'm actually describing fascism since unlike you, I actually know what the word means. Hell, you don't even need a dictator for fascism. Just look at America.
What I was getting at is that ALL oil companies got rich, not just American oil companies.
So? Bush is loyal to the oil companies, not to America. That was my point which you seem to be trying to make for me.
Why did Clinton give Haliburton "no bid contracts" during the 90s and nobody mentions this?
Where did you get the idiotic idea that I was defending Clinton. Hell, you're the only one who brought him up.
Why is George Soros investing in Haliburton right now and nobody mentions this?
Nonsense. Any form of government that is combined with a dictator is going to seem like the other end of the spectrum. There was little difference between Stalinism and Fascism.
There are plenty of very important differences. Maybe from the perspective of those being shat on it doesn't matter much, but it is important to understand the differences if you're going to attempt to discuss the subject.
Left and Right are defined by their opposition to Liberalism (basically "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.").
The left agrees with the basic idea, but they go further. They believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote (or often "enforce") that equality. Taken to extemes...or even much to that side leads to shitty societies, da comrade?
The right deeply disagrees with the fundamental basis of Liberalism, that all people should be equal under the law. They have a firm belief that some people are just superior "elites" and that the full power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote (or often "enforce") that inequality. Even in small quantities, that side is fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
For example, it's easy to show both right and left wing mass murders, so you could simplistically say that there was little difference, or you could look at how the differences are illustrated even as they yield similar results.
In either case, you'll typically have some killing based on consolidation of power and similar things, but that's true of any government so not relevant.
Your typical left wing mass murder is based on ideological grounds. "Thought Crime", "The Rich", "dissenters", and others who don't want to be part of the collective. Your typical right wing mass murder is based on the right wing notion of the "elite". Those that aren't the right color, religion, race, shoe size, whatever their particular idea of superiority is, are inferior, perhaps "subhuman" and worthy of extermination. That's also why racists and religious extremists are considered right wing.
One important distinction which is immediately evident is that when the lefties go nuts, if you're whatever "sort" it is that they don't like, you have a much better chance of faking it than with the righties. Granted, you might have to sell out everything you believe in, but that's still easier than changing your skin color.
It doesn't matter if they were right. You don't bad mouth a family member outside the family.
Shrub ain't a family member. He's quite probably the worst traitor this country has ever seen. Anyone who wasn't aware of that already at the time of the Dixie Chicks thing wasn't paying any attention. It's not like they weren't doing *exactly* what they said they'd do back in 2000 in the event of an attack.
You mean rich "public" oil companies. You could have bought stock in these companies.
Wow, let me see if I understand your point. It's ok for the government to rob me at gunpoint and give that money *as a fucking free gift* to already massively profitable oil companies and your pathetic attempt at a defense of that action is that I could have bought stock and recouped some of my losses?!?! Damn, Dude.
Where were you when they were losing money?
Right here, still getting robbed by the government in order to give them free gifts.
What, exactly, the fuck are you talking about.
The only reason why these things exist is because money corrupts the political system. It has nothing to do with Capitalism, Fascism, or Socialism.
No shit money corrupts the system. That doesn't change the fact that Fascism largely *is* government, corporations, and religion conspiring against the people. Socialism is government controlling business, lifestyle, thought etc. It's possible to actually look a little closer and see how it does have something to do with all of those.
On the very right of socialism is "national socialism"/fascism (Hitler was a socialist). This is why people refer to the right wing as fascist.
Crap.
Fascism is to the far right. To get there from Socialism, you have to cross the rest of the left end of the spectrum before reaching the creamy center of Liberalism. This is where individual liberty lives. This includes things like free markets, capitalism, small government, gay rights and oteher defenses of freedom. To reach fascism you then need to continue on and on to the right until the government controls the markets in favor of the privileged few. This is seen in things like corporate welfare for the richest oil companies etc.
So, no, fascism is nowhere near socialism on any workable scale.
Hitler did start out with socialistic ideals, but he altered those goals once he was in power and working with those elites.
Seriously, when you spout idiotic crap like this you do present yourself as a fool. I mean, if you even knew where the term "right" came from you wouldn't be so stupid as to spout that nonsense. The King, Nobles and Church sat on the *right* side in assembly. If you think for one second that liberty, freedom or anything of the sort is in any conceivable way compatible with right wing politics, then you're a damn fool.
This is why people turned against the Dixie Chicks, not for the reason they want you to believe.
People turned against the Dixie Chicks because the Dixie Chicks were right. Ignorant fools hate people who aren't as stupid and easily fooled by transparent scams as they clearly are and so get very angry when people actually do stand up for what's right, publicly showing them to be the cowardly fools that they are.
That is what is backed up by the facts in that situation. Everyone with any sense knew back then that the war was all a scam It was so blatantly obvious that only a fool could have fallen for Shrub's scam. If you haven't taken the time to look back at what you knew then and what you could have known then if you had given a shit, then you will continue to look like a fool. Now, even most of the idiots are slowly waking up and realizing what they caused to happen. Most are still too cowardly to actually step up and do anything about it except whine about how they were fooled, since looking at the situation honestly would require them to admit that they could have avoided being scammed with just a little bit of effort. Personal responsibility demands that they do step up and deal with their mistakes, but we all know that personal responsibility is like kryptonite to right wingers.
Remember, the left-right spectrum is an economic spectrum, ranging from pure communism at the far left to pure capitalism at the far right, and everything in between.
That's one of the most ignorant, uninformed and flat out stupid statements I have ever heard.
Right and left are *both* equally opposed to civil liberties or any other form of individual liberty as they are both big state ideologies. "Capitalism" isn't right wing. Right wingers despise capitalism (or free markets more properly) every bit as much as the lefties do, just for different reasons.
That's why "Corporatism" or "Fascism" are the systems of choice for right wingers. They love to use the inflated power of the state to rob the people in order to further enrich the rich and powerful.
So, free market capitalism, individual liberty, freedom and those other hallmarks of *Liberalism* are neither left nor right. They are what the left and the right are in agreement in their opposition to.
So, no, Capitalism is not in any shape or form on the right end of any sane scale since the right fights tooth and nail against exactly that. Your scale leaves no way to even deal with right wing ideologies since you have declared the fucking middle ground as the extreme right. That's extremely stupid. Stop making yourself look like an idiot by spouting ignorant bullshit.
I mean. seriously, think it through, Sparky. Don't just repeat idiotic nonsense you heard somewhere. Your scale doesn't even allow for freedom. It completely removes the entire philosophy dedicated to that from consideration just as the left and right have together fought to accomplish ever since Liberalism first started .
Funny...I guess I missed it where anyone in the Bush admin (by the way, I'm not a fan) said the Iraq war due to 9/11.
Yep, you're totally divorced from reality, since that was what everything they said was skewed to mislead people into believing. Or do you think it was just an accident that at one point over 50% of the American people thought Saddam was actively involved in 9/11. There certainly weren't any facts to back that up, so it had to come from somewhere. They were the only ones making that connection.
But, I do recall the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion being WMD suspicions (based on faulty data that most countries were operating on).
It's worse than that. It was intentionally falsified data. Most countries thought it was bullshit at the time that Colin Powell was lying through his teeth to the UN with his vial of anthrax. Even then all reasonable people knew the whole thing was a scam, and they knew Powell was lying through his teeth.
Slashdot Mirror
the problem I have with illegal (and legal) drugs is NOT primarily what it does to the user. While I think that a society of addicts is ultimately doomed, my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.
Were there even a single scrap of truth to that then you would wholheartedly support complete legalization of all drugs immediately. No other path is consistent with your stated concern.
We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?
You seem to be suffering from a sad delusion that making it legal would change that at all. That has no rational basis and is completely contradicted by reality. Drug laws do nothing to cut demand for drugs. We learned exactly what insane laws like those do back in prohibition. They increase useage and massively increase violent crime. Every time. No exceptions. No matter what color the sky on your planet.
Would bystander deaths double? Triple?
Not even the smallest possibility. They would go way down. As soon as you quit making it a crime it becomes an issue which can be discussed reasonably and dealt with in a reasonable manner. What it is now is the primary cause of violent crime due entirely to the fact that it is illegal.
People like to explain that the "war on drugs" is failing and how eventually the government will have no choice but to legalize these substances.
It's not failing. It's a great success. You clearly have no idea what the goals of it are though. It has led to massive profits for the prison industrial complex ans to various interests which would lose big if pot *and* hemp were legal. It's not really tough to figure it out. All you have to do is look at the effects and have some basic understanding of history and human nature.
Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?
Tobacco is *legal*. Economies of scale by big growers make it unfeasible for somebody to profit off of it on a small scale.
That particular thing might not be true of pot given the quantities involved, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the legal versus illegal dichotomy which is at issue.
And if it were legal and people did grow their own and the government didn't get to collect taxes from what they sold off then so what? Take the savings from eliminating the DEA, eliminating *at least* 1/3 of the prison space requirements and massive reduction in police forces when it is no longer profitable in a black market economy and you'll benefit even more.
Pretending for a moment that anyone would pay these "drug taxes", I wonder what percentage of these new taxes would go to pay for the welfare of addicts? 300% at the very least I would assume, but very likely more. Society already has to pay for addicts, how many would we be paying for if these substances become easily and legally available?
300% Wow, you're smoking the good shit.
If society already is paying, then your police state plan obviously isn't working, Sparky.
Take 10% of the *savings* from eliminating the drug laws which are the sole source of the crime and you'll have all the treatment programs you need. That leaves 90% of the drug war budget that can go back into our pockets (OK, I'll pass it on after that last sentence)
Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place.
Nonsense. Logic has no place in pro drug law arguments because were the actual points to be argued nobody would buy into them. All they have is idiotic bullshit like you've been spewing.
I don't suggest to have answers, but I don't care what you use to justify your reasoning, in any case, the only quest
For instance, what about those guys that gave fascism its name: Italia in the 1920-1930, but sadly that ideology has spread to other parts of the world, or people have independently invented their own form.
Absolutely. Russia, China and the US are all basically fascist currently with some variations and they (or rather elements within them) are pushing for worldwide fascist revolution meaning essentially neofeudalism.
It is hard to tell whether the US has derived their fascism from the Italian/German version (influences in the 1930 that have not been eradicated) or that this is a more recent invention that just emulates it.
My take is that it was derived, although it's not certain.
Remember, that prior to Pearl Harbor a lot of the American industrial elite absofuckingloutely *loved* the idea of fascism. Henry Ford is obviously the prime example of that, but let's not forget our current President's grandfather who went out of his way to betray his country to help bankroll Hitler.
And then once we finished the great war against fascism, there was a new threat on the horizon. Granted, the threat posed by the USSR had some actual meat to it unlike the almost entirely overblown threat of terrorism, but it was likewise an excuse more than anything.
So at that point, the US shifted gears into anti-communism mode. Now, Hitler's version of fascism was almost purely a reaction to communism, so we have the same "enemy" and policies deigned with the same goal of being "other" than that.
The fact that they were the "godless" communists is what formed the unholy alliance between the right wing in America and rural Christians. I mean, hasn't it ever surprised you how "religiously" they vote against their own best interests and against the fundamental basis of their faith?
Christianity is a completely left wing philosophy, yet in America we have the "Christian Right", which is about as oxymoronic as you can get.
So as this anti communist attitude morphed into anti-left in any way shape or form and then became ingrained into our culture and given that fascism is merely that attitude put into policy, America was locked into that track.
Add in the military industrial complex's growing control leading to most of the wars we've been in and America became a fascist state.
I mean just look at Bush's original administration. Wolfowitz, in particular, did his PhD with Strauss at Chicago, and his main "thing" was essentially Nazi philosophy and especially the idea of the "Big Lie".
Oh, and don't forget the boat load of Nazi scientists recruited by the US and more importantly the Gestapo SS types brought over to help build the CIA.
That's my take on it, and that's why I consider fascism in America to be a direct descendant of that in Nazi Germany.
Given the time between them, it hardly matters.
In a lot of ways it's true, but at least from an academic perspective, it's an interesting question to think about.
Throwing facist around is overplayed, but fits this video. The ad being used was Apple's 1984 ad. Using that story against someone is making a facist comparision.
No, it does not fit this video and it is not a fascist comparison.
1984, the book, was about *left* wing socialist totalitarianism gone out of control.
Fascism is a *right* wing ideology which is basically corporate power controlling the power of the state to rip off the people and merging in religion to keep the sheep in line. See the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and the like. It's an entirely elitist ideology ( as the right wing is by definition ) where the "superior" types use the power of the state to keep down the undesirables. See the whole gay hatred amendment bullshit for all the proof you need of that.
From the point of view of the people with the bootprints on their faces it might be a largely meaningless semantic distinction, but there are very real differences between left and right wing extremism.
Now, that being said, Hillary, along with most of the Democratic party are pretty far to the right economically. See the DMCA, Continuous copyright extension etc for proof of that A lot of the Democrats are pretty far to the left socially, see hate/thought crime laws and the like for that.
But 1984 is in no way related to anything fascist. It's the opposite extreme.
If it were fascist, the proles wouldn't have been left to themselves, they would have been rounded up and exterminated as the undesirable subhumans they would have been considered.
So, yes, fascist is thrown around a lot in the wrong places, like this and people, largely, have no clue what it means otherwise they wouldn't whine when people call Bush one since he absolutely is in every particular.
Sometimes I think the worst thing Hitler did was the holocaust not just because of the whole mass murder thing, but because that overshadows all the other problems with fascism. When you call Bush a fascist people spout off idiotic bullshit about how that's stupid because he isn't killing Jews. They don't realize that a fascist government doesn't have to kill anybody to be fascist and awful.
So, anyone going to explain why editing the "Palpatine zaps Luke Skywalker" so that the Emporer has Hillary's face, won't be considered original?
Because nobody would notice the change
Republican Liberty Caucus is pretty clearly a libertarian wing of the U.S. right.
No, it isn't. It isn't in any way possible for anything to be that. Perhaps they are a *Liberal* wing of the *Republican Party*. You're again using the fallacy that Republican == right which is not accurate.
Right is *opposed* to Liberalism by definition. Left is as well for different reasons.
There can't be a Liberal/Libertarian wing of the left either because the meaning of those terms excludes the possibility.
Paleoconservatives and libertarians are not the same thing, although both can be classified as Liberals, as paleoconservatives tend to maintain more social conservatism and traditionalism in their ideology.
Social conservatism is purely right. It is anti liberty and anti individual. That alone makes it either left or right. The fact that it is an entirely elitist attitude seeking to have big daddy government beat down other people merely because they hate whatever grroup it is that they're trying to put down makes it a right wing as opposed to a left wing ideology.
Economic "conservatism" as commonly espoused is purely Liberal, although a lot of people who claim to be that really are fascists/corporatists hence right wing as well.
There are probably actually some people who vote Republican who do support real economic liberalism but they are fools* because the Republican party is the party of even bigger more oppressive government than the Democrats ever dreamed of. That's been absolutely true for damn near 30 years now. *So again, that's not an ad hominem, it's a statement of fact based on the facts. i.e. a Conclusion, not an argument.
My explanation of how geek/punk ethics fit into parts of the U.S. left and right as they publicly conceive of themselves is not inaccurate.
Maybe it's an accurate description of what they say, but that doesn't make it true or even rational. I could support hate crime/thought crime legislation and racial quotas for college admission and claim that I'm being either liberal or right wing, but that doesn't change the fact that those things are entirely left wing by definition.
Moreover, asserting that because geek/punk ethics are Liberal that they therefore do not fit at all into the left/right schema of U.S. politics is silly. They do not fit wholly into one or the other, but they certainly share elements with both, which was the point I was making
But the point I'm making is that you are wrong. That's not to say that many (most) people are not in more than one of the *3* camps if you span all of their beliefs and attitudes, but all of the examples that you listed are entirely within the Liberal camp. Pick any person claiming to support those attitudes, and you can probably find *other* attitudes they have which do fit into the left or the right, but both right and left are completely big government ideologies. Small government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty are all entirely Liberal ideals. They do not fit into the left or the right one iota. They can't possibly, due to the definitions of the terms.
The 3 sides, Liberal, left and right are all different, but the left and right have one major thing in common: their hatred of Liberalism. Why they hate it is totally different and their policies in opposition to it are very different as well. They despise each other, but at almost any opportunity, they'll gang up against Liberals since they both want big government to control the people and Liberals don't. That is the fundamental difference between Liberals and both the left and right. Liberals stand for individual liberty, and both the left and the right stand *against* individual liberty.
Your overly simplified, incorrect use of terminology hides that fundamental distinction, and sweeps the entire idea of individual rights versus oppressive statism under the rug which is my fundamental disagreement with you in this thread.
As soon as you start using ad hominems your post becomes a flam
My characterization of the right is based on the paleoconservative/libertarian/South Park republican wing of the right in America.
Libertarian is not right wing. It is Liberal. When that term got subverted into uselessness by the left, they coined a new term.
Confusingly enough, paloeconservatives are Liberals as well. That's what they were trying to "conserve" when the neoliberals started moving the goalposts.
I don't think it warrants a hysterical reply accusing me of "ignorance" and "contempt", while you conflate the multiple, easily differentiable elements among the U.S. right.
There was nothing hysterical in my response. I just get sick of hearing this ignorance trotted out repeatedly.
None of the things you stated that I quoted are "right". They are Liberal as in what the left and right are left or right *of*.
When you continue to spout ignorant crap, calling you ignorant isn't a flame (you might actually want to look up "flamebait" as well. You were accusing me of flaming you, not of posting flamebait) it's a simple statement of a fact which you yourself demonstrated.
You just lump Liberalism and right in as right which makes intelligent discussion totally problematic.
It's exactly as if you claim that Linux and OpenBSD are the same thing since they're all GPL based.
It's wrong and it undefines a term in order to restrict or eliminate it from public discourse. I'm not claiming that that is your intent, but it is what you're doing.
When the hell was the right wing about small governments? The right Wing has majorly changed in the last 5-6 years.. O.o
Never. The right and the left are both in favor of big government since they're defined by how they like to use that big government against the people.
The left to enforce their ideas of equality and the right to enforce their ideas of inequality or elitism.
The right hasn't changed since the term came into being when the nobility and the Church sat on the right hand side of the aisle in the French assembly and the representatives of the commoners sat on the left.
What's changed is, in America, the left subverted the term Liberal and the right attacked it outright in order to destroy the idea. That's why hardly anybody in this country can even discuss politics without sounding ignorant since they don't even have the vocabulary for it. They think Republican == right and Democrat == left even when they both support policies on either side. What neither of them support is Liberalism, i.e. the philosophy of individual liberty. In fact, there is nothing they fear and despise more.
Geek libertarianism and Punk DIY-anarchism fit parts of the left and parts of the right. Matching the left, they care about solidarity, anti-corporatism, and socio-cultural liberty. Matching the right, they care about negative freedoms (small, limited government as opposed to the nanny state) and "rugged individualism."
No, that does not indicate anything on the left or the right. It indicates Liberal beliefs. Liberal as in what the word actually means, not the bastardization used in America.
As soon as you say DIY, you completely reject the left and the right since they are both about using big government against other people to make the others do shit for them.
And your entirely inaccurate characterisation of the right is mind blowing.
Small limited government?!? What exactly are you smoking. The right believes in big oppressive totalitarian government to keep all the "undesirables" out of the way of the elite. "rugged individualism"?!? Seriously, Dude. You described Liberalism there. As in the philosophy that led to the foundation of America.
The left and the right both despise Liberalism because that's what it is. When you try and claim that for the right when the right is rabidly, violently opposed to exactly those things you demonstrate both your ignorance and your own contempt for it.
Is it bad that I wondered how 75% of anything can ever be equal to 4?
16/3?
Somehow the consumer no longer has a voice.
The "consumer" has never had a voice, since they are just things whose job it is to consume whatever shit is getting pumped out.
Back when people were customers or, heaven forbid, *citizens* they did.
Hell, you even refer to yourself as a consumer. That's how far downhill we've come just in my lifetime. When I was a kid, I don't remember any business having the audacity and contempt to refer to the people whose custom their business depends on by such a derogatory term.
isn't this the same kind of nitpicking BS everyone is so upset about?
No, it isn't anything even resembling any such thing. I'm amazed you managed to delude yourself so badly as to think such a completely ridiculous thing.
Personally I hope the judge calls foul on both sides.
There is no legal or rational basis for such an assinine action, but given the state of the union it's still not ruled out due in large part to people like you who refuse to spend a second thinking about it before whining about some made up crap.
She did it specifically to provoke a reaction.
Whether that's true or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that the law is crap and pointing that out is absolutely a good thing.
I'd rather see our court system used for something more productive that a tit for tat exchange over copyright.
While I'd rather see it used to restrict criminals like the NFL from violating my rights. I guess that's a major difference between us. I support liberty. You think we should all bend over and grab our ankles whenever anybody wants to fuck us. I'm much happier being me.
I think it's time for both sides on this one to grow up and I hope a judge tells them so before he tosses the whole thing.
Whereas I hope that the judge does his fucking job and busts the only guilty party for violating the only ameliorating part of a badly broken by design law.
Perhaps you shouldn't post when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. It makes you look like a fool and a lapdog.
In the rich democracies, businesses generally don't bother with overt criminality, because they'd just have to give up the money anyway.
Wow. What color is the air on your planet?
Businesses quite often go straight for overt criminality because they know that they can make a billion and pay a million dollar fine.
Heck, just look at Microsoft for the canonical example of that.
It's cute to be cynical
No, cynicism about that and realism coincide completely. There isn't anything "cute" about it.
But the fact that she will probably win this case points to a deep, significant difference between "the west" and the rest.
You misspelled "might".
It's only even "might" because what the NFL is trying to pull is *so* blatantly illegal. And it's only that because the DMCA is so new. This kind of shit is the purpose of that and similar recent laws such as the traitor act (Orwellianly named "Patriot") which, surprise surprise is being abused exactly as predicted by every sane person. A real no brainer since that was its purpose.
Perhaps you should pull your head out of whatever orifice you've stuffed it in and look around.
Maybe if you did you'd notice that the differences you're feebly attempting to illustrate are getting smaller and smaller all the time.
The fact that this is even happening at all proves that point.
The fact that Jack isn't in jail yet is a testament to his 1337 pr4y3r $k!112. Of course just who he's praying to is a matter of some debate...
/.er are clearly a pirate of the eyepatch variety.
You, my fellow
I conclude this based on all the extra arrrrrrrs you threw into your post.
pr4y3r=p4y3r and praying=paying.
Ramen
I found the adaptor I was using uses a Marvel chipset.. Hmm, I guess I give that adaptor to my Wife so she can upgrade from b to g while I look for something compatible.
I have a PCMCIA wireless card with a Marvel chipset and it works fine with NDISWrapper
My experience is that if it works with that, it's pretty easy to set up.
HTH
OK, cool. I get it now. Thanks.
No offense but it's clear you don't know what your talking about.
;-)
:-(
Which I clearly stated several times. Not much room for offense there
Thanks for the great explanation. It seems the situation is even worse than I thought it was
Bastards.
Did you even bother to read that page?
Well, like I said, I don't really understand much about any of that so reading the description and translating it into what you're talking about isn't trivial given that.
As far as encrypted, isn't that the point of the cable box? So AFAIK (which as we now both know isn't too far at all) encrypted signals don't even enter into the equation assuming you have a cable box and an IR blaster to handle it. Is that incorrect?
It can capture non-encrypted, digital HD video, and SD analog content. It cannot capture analog HD video.
What is analog HD video anyhow? Seems like an oxymoron, again demonstrating my lack of knowledge in this arena.
Assuming you have digital cable with an IR Blaster for the cable box, then doesn't that card let you record *everything* you'd ever try to record in that situation?
I'm not ignoring your points, or playing dumb I really don't see where the problem arises.
little bowler-hatted daemons with clipboards enforcing the laws of thermodynamics
;-)
Huh, I was always wondering how those were enforced. Nice to know
You're missing the HD capture card.
Seriously, go try to find one that a normal human can afford.
Here you go, $129
That was easy enough and even native Linux drivers.
I know you're wrong because I tried to do exactly this before I went and bought a Series 3 Tivo. The only way to have a DVR for encrypted HD is to get a Tivo or a POS cableco DVR. Your setup (unless you have some magical HD capture card that nobody makes) can only record encrypted HD content that has been downconverted to SD, and even if you did have HD capture, it would be re-encoded.
OK, here's where I don't understand all the issues apparently.
Say you have an HD cable box, a MythTV with an HD capture card, and an IR blaster going to the cable box.
What are you missing out on in this situation?
You're getting HD shows, the cable box decrypts them and then you record them.
Where is the problem here?
Nobody has ever convinced me that Fascism was anything more than Dictatorship mixed with Nationalistic Socialism
Then you're a moron since you keep repeating complete nonsense.
Fascism is the merger of State and corporate power. So said Mussolini, and he'd know far better than either of us since he invented the freaking word, Sparky.
So if you can't be convinced of the meaning of a word by the one who decided what it means, then you are a moron.
Most Democrats signed the war resolution, including Hillary Clinton. We have voice recordings of Hillary Clinton, trying to convince Code Pink that she did her own 10 years of research, and that during Bill's presidency they had known about the WMDs and that Saddam had to go. John Kerry said during the 2004 elections that "knowing now what he didn't know then, he would have invaded Iraq". So I suppose all these people are traitors too?
Traitors or fools. What's your point? Of course, Bush was the one who went wild making up evidence, doctoring intelligence and lying straight to the faces of the American people in order to get us involved in a war based entirely on "ensuring future US economic world domination in the coming century" to quote their fucking game plan.
You are describing dictatorship vs. liberal socialism, not Fascism vs. Socialism. Fascism is just another word for Nationalistic Socialistic Dictatorship.
No, I'm actually describing fascism since unlike you, I actually know what the word means. Hell, you don't even need a dictator for fascism. Just look at America.
What I was getting at is that ALL oil companies got rich, not just American oil companies.
So? Bush is loyal to the oil companies, not to America. That was my point which you seem to be trying to make for me.
Why did Clinton give Haliburton "no bid contracts" during the 90s and nobody mentions this?
Where did you get the idiotic idea that I was defending Clinton. Hell, you're the only one who brought him up.
Why is George Soros investing in Haliburton right now and nobody mentions this?
Who gives a flying fuck?
Nonsense. Any form of government that is combined with a dictator is going to seem like the other end of the spectrum. There was little difference between Stalinism and Fascism.
There are plenty of very important differences. Maybe from the perspective of those being shat on it doesn't matter much, but it is important to understand the differences if you're going to attempt to discuss the subject.
Left and Right are defined by their opposition to Liberalism (basically "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.").
The left agrees with the basic idea, but they go further. They believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote (or often "enforce") that equality. Taken to extemes...or even much to that side leads to shitty societies, da comrade?
The right deeply disagrees with the fundamental basis of Liberalism, that all people should be equal under the law. They have a firm belief that some people are just superior "elites" and that the full power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote (or often "enforce") that inequality. Even in small quantities, that side is fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
For example, it's easy to show both right and left wing mass murders, so you could simplistically say that there was little difference, or you could look at how the differences are illustrated even as they yield similar results.
In either case, you'll typically have some killing based on consolidation of power and similar things, but that's true of any government so not relevant.
Your typical left wing mass murder is based on ideological grounds. "Thought Crime", "The Rich", "dissenters", and others who don't want to be part of the collective.
Your typical right wing mass murder is based on the right wing notion of the "elite". Those that aren't the right color, religion, race, shoe size, whatever their particular idea of superiority is, are inferior, perhaps "subhuman" and worthy of extermination.
That's also why racists and religious extremists are considered right wing.
One important distinction which is immediately evident is that when the lefties go nuts, if you're whatever "sort" it is that they don't like, you have a much better chance of faking it than with the righties. Granted, you might have to sell out everything you believe in, but that's still easier than changing your skin color.
It doesn't matter if they were right. You don't bad mouth a family member outside the family.
Shrub ain't a family member. He's quite probably the worst traitor this country has ever seen. Anyone who wasn't aware of that already at the time of the Dixie Chicks thing wasn't paying any attention. It's not like they weren't doing *exactly* what they said they'd do back in 2000 in the event of an attack.
You mean rich "public" oil companies. You could have bought stock in these companies.
Wow, let me see if I understand your point. It's ok for the government to rob me at gunpoint and give that money *as a fucking free gift* to already massively profitable oil companies and your pathetic attempt at a defense of that action is that I could have bought stock and recouped some of my losses?!?!
Damn, Dude.
Where were you when they were losing money?
Right here, still getting robbed by the government in order to give them free gifts.
What, exactly, the fuck are you talking about.
The only reason why these things exist is because money corrupts the political system. It has nothing to do with Capitalism, Fascism, or Socialism.
No shit money corrupts the system.
That doesn't change the fact that Fascism largely *is* government, corporations, and religion conspiring against the people. Socialism is government controlling business, lifestyle, thought etc.
It's possible to actually look a little closer and see how it does have something to do with all of those.
On the very right of socialism is "national socialism"/fascism (Hitler was a socialist). This is why people refer to the right wing as fascist.
Crap.
Fascism is to the far right.
To get there from Socialism, you have to cross the rest of the left end of the spectrum before reaching the creamy center of Liberalism. This is where individual liberty lives. This includes things like free markets, capitalism, small government, gay rights and oteher defenses of freedom.
To reach fascism you then need to continue on and on to the right until the government controls the markets in favor of the privileged few. This is seen in things like corporate welfare for the richest oil companies etc.
So, no, fascism is nowhere near socialism on any workable scale.
Hitler did start out with socialistic ideals, but he altered those goals once he was in power and working with those elites.
Seriously, when you spout idiotic crap like this you do present yourself as a fool.
I mean, if you even knew where the term "right" came from you wouldn't be so stupid as to spout that nonsense.
The King, Nobles and Church sat on the *right* side in assembly.
If you think for one second that liberty, freedom or anything of the sort is in any conceivable way compatible with right wing politics, then you're a damn fool.
This is why people turned against the Dixie Chicks, not for the reason they want you to believe.
People turned against the Dixie Chicks because the Dixie Chicks were right.
Ignorant fools hate people who aren't as stupid and easily fooled by transparent scams as they clearly are and so get very angry when people actually do stand up for what's right, publicly showing them to be the cowardly fools that they are.
That is what is backed up by the facts in that situation. Everyone with any sense knew back then that the war was all a scam It was so blatantly obvious that only a fool could have fallen for Shrub's scam. If you haven't taken the time to look back at what you knew then and what you could have known then if you had given a shit, then you will continue to look like a fool. Now, even most of the idiots are slowly waking up and realizing what they caused to happen. Most are still too cowardly to actually step up and do anything about it except whine about how they were fooled, since looking at the situation honestly would require them to admit that they could have avoided being scammed with just a little bit of effort. Personal responsibility demands that they do step up and deal with their mistakes, but we all know that personal responsibility is like kryptonite to right wingers.
Remember, the left-right spectrum is an economic spectrum, ranging from pure communism at the far left to pure capitalism at the far right, and everything in between.
That's one of the most ignorant, uninformed and flat out stupid statements I have ever heard.
Right and left are *both* equally opposed to civil liberties or any other form of individual liberty as they are both big state ideologies.
"Capitalism" isn't right wing. Right wingers despise capitalism (or free markets more properly) every bit as much as the lefties do, just for different reasons.
That's why "Corporatism" or "Fascism" are the systems of choice for right wingers. They love to use the inflated power of the state to rob the people in order to further enrich the rich and powerful.
So, free market capitalism, individual liberty, freedom and those other hallmarks of *Liberalism* are neither left nor right.
They are what the left and the right are in agreement in their opposition to.
So, no, Capitalism is not in any shape or form on the right end of any sane scale since the right fights tooth and nail against exactly that. Your scale leaves no way to even deal with right wing ideologies since you have declared the fucking middle ground as the extreme right. That's extremely stupid. Stop making yourself look like an idiot by spouting ignorant bullshit.
I mean. seriously, think it through, Sparky. Don't just repeat idiotic nonsense you heard somewhere. Your scale doesn't even allow for freedom. It completely removes the entire philosophy dedicated to that from consideration just as the left and right have together fought to accomplish ever since Liberalism first started .
ration
Funny...I guess I missed it where anyone in the Bush admin (by the way, I'm not a fan) said the Iraq war due to 9/11.
Yep, you're totally divorced from reality, since that was what everything they said was skewed to mislead people into believing. Or do you think it was just an accident that at one point over 50% of the American people thought Saddam was actively involved in 9/11. There certainly weren't any facts to back that up, so it had to come from somewhere. They were the only ones making that connection.
But, I do recall the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion being WMD suspicions (based on faulty data that most countries were operating on).
It's worse than that. It was intentionally falsified data. Most countries thought it was bullshit at the time that Colin Powell was lying through his teeth to the UN with his vial of anthrax.
Even then all reasonable people knew the whole thing was a scam, and they knew Powell was lying through his teeth.