RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (18) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: Paley Goes to the Movies, Reviews of evolutionism-inspired films.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,13:59   

Quote (Shirley Knott @ July 12 2006,14:54)
Well, Arden, I think you've published the fully polished and fully formed version of Paley's gecontric theory.  I know it was tough work to extract that from his ravings, and I imagine the uninitiated might be puzzled at the lack of things like planets and stars, but... the cognoscenti get it, as Paley intended they should.

Thanks!

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Ooooh! I've always wanted to be part of the cognoscenti!

I think Paley's logic can show just as decisively that all liberals are German.

Have you noticed how GoP has slid from an attempt to prove Hitler was a communist to contenting himself with proving that Hitler was actually FDR? If you accept that communists are pinkos and FDR was a pinko, it all works.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,15:09   

Faid:
   
Quote
Or would you show me where he gave the workers control over industries? where he actually turned against the German Capital and claimed all their means of production?

Show me a Communist country in which "the workers" actually own the industries. As for government control, please re-read my last post. It seems you forgot this part:
   
Quote
Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

Which sounds just like the Leftists of today.


   
Quote
You can have an amazing amount of bureaucracy and live in a capitalistic country- with that bureaucracy in total cahoots with the capital. Oh and don't get me started about how renouncing machinery over human workforce is part of socialism... Maybe you should read a book from time to time.

Like one on the Khmer Rouge? Cambodians don't view Pol Pot as The Great Urbaniser, but then again, our media tried to cover up the genocide initially, so perhaps many people are still unaware of this progressive reformer. Stalin does not represent the entire spectrum of Communist thought.
   
Quote
More handwaving, Ghost? Did FDR arrest all the trade union leaders? fire women from highly-paid jobs, to make them work in the factories? Did he fire the jews to give their jobs to Anglo-Saxons? Also, was FDR a Communist? (wait, I guess you probably think he was...)

No, but the New Deal's public works projects and bureaucratic bloat sure resembled Germany's failed strategies. And the growth in the federal government continues to haunt America.
   
Quote
But you already know all that: The whole world knows it. That's why you get all your ideas from your wacky right-wing sites and can't find a serious source that supports them. That's why you already moved the goalposts, and got to Hitler being a "leftist" -which can mean anything you want it to, right?

I found serious sources -- you just didn't pay attention. Nobody's still rebutted my contention that fascism has its economic roots in syndicalism. Not even Lenny Flank, who knows the movement well. Tells you something, doesn't it?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,16:15   

Paley, do you know what a "blithering idiot" is?

You are blithering again.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,16:30   

Quote
serious sources


Yeah right. Ghost, you don't quote anything that's not on the FrontPage all-time favorite list.

So tell me, Paley: Who was Hitler like? Lenin? Stalin? Trotsky? Pol Pot? FDR? Chairman Mao before the 'cultural revolution? Chairman Mao after it? Or just your everyday "leftist"?

I did not forget that part, my ever-evading will-o-the-wisp... it's the part that shows your goalpost-moving. You cannot possibly make an ideological connection between Socialism and Nazism besides the vague reference of the name, and that's why you resort to picking stuff here and there to try and assemble a Frankestein of an argument: Stalin had accumulated all power, Pol Pot had rejected technology, FDR had bureaucracy in federal goverment... ergo, Hitler was a "leftie".

(oh and it seems you don't read me, Ghost... I explained what FDR and Hitler had in common. Did you miss it?)

Good job, Paley. It's hard to top this up- unless you ever get to present that Hollow Earth model.

Oh, and about syndicalism: Do you even know what it means, Ghost? Do you know in what spirit syndicalist ideas influenced the birth of Fascism? (Do you even know that the very first emergence of fascism was in opposition to Marxism?) Do you think that Hitler would consider himself a 'syndicalist'? What do you think the leaders of the trade unions would say, if they learned that they were being prosecuted by a syndicalist?  :D

Here's a hint, Ghost. Don't parrot words you can't understand, and read a book or two.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,18:26   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,15:51)
That's why Hitler slandered Christianity in private; if there's one thing a liberal can't abide, it's a doctrine that espouses personal responsibility. Hitler's heart lay with Odin, not Jesus.

Okay, here's where I give up this whole argument. When someone characterizes Hitler as a liberal, it's pretty clear that he's so utterly, thoroughly in the weeds when it comes to political philosophy that there isn't time between now and universal heat death to straighten him out.

Give me a break, Bill. Hitler, a liberal? That's astronomically more absurd than calling Rushdoony an evolutionist.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,19:45   

Quote (ericmurphy @ July 12 2006,23:26)
                   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,15:51)
That's why Hitler slandered Christianity in private; if there's one thing a liberal can't abide, it's a doctrine that espouses personal responsibility. Hitler's heart lay with Odin, not Jesus.

Okay, here's where I give up this whole argument. When someone characterizes Hitler as a liberal, it's pretty clear that he's so utterly, thoroughly in the weeds when it comes to political philosophy that there isn't time between now and universal heat death to straighten him out.

Give me a break, Bill. Hitler, a liberal? That's astronomically more absurd than calling Rushdoony an evolutionist.

Well, assuming GoP isn't just bullshitting us for cheap laughs in lieu of writing up his flat/hollow earth theory, you have to understand, we're not discussing this with a person who has reasoned this through in any recognizable way. GoP, obviously, is a conservative. BUT, he is not one of those thoughtful, intelligent conservatives we used to hear about, who can think things through in a subtle way, but a wingnut. An early 21st-century, American Reactionary. And wingnuts do not think through subtle political distinctions. Or even semi-subtle ones that 8th-graders can understand. They've thrown all that out. To people like Paley, there are 2 kinds of people -- good conservatives, people like himself -- and others, bad people. As long as you're not a fellow American Christian Conservative like Paley, or at least perceived to be such, whatever other category you might actually occupy does not matter. You're failing to be a good American conservative, and as such, further distinctions are nitpicking. You're just the enemy, and he's under no obligation to understand you. In this system, if you're a liberal, that's the same thing as a communist, which is the same thing as a Nazi. They're all the same, since they're not his model of a 'Conservative'. So this is why Paley can, with a straight face, call FDR a communist, or Hitler a liberal.

Additionally, in this worldview, there are numerous pigeonholes of where certain belief systems belong, and if you have that belief system, it automatically puts you in that 'Other' category. Evolution is a perfect example -- to wingnuts, evolution is something only liberals accept, so if you accept evolution, you're a liberal, and, by extension, a Communist. This is how Paley can compare Darwinism and Stalinism, claim they're 'just as bad', and expect people to take him seriously. In his way of thinking, this is actually logical.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,19:58   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,00:45)
To people like Paley, there are 2 kinds of people -- good conservatives, people like himself -- and others, bad people. As long as you're not a fellow American Christian Conservative like Paley, or at least perceived to be such, whatever other category you might actually occupy does not matter. You're failing to be a good American conservative, and as such, further distinctions are nitpicking. You're just the enemy, and he's under no obligation to understand you. In this system, if you're a liberal, that's the same thing as a communist, which is the same thing as a Nazi. They're all the same, since they're not his model of a 'Conservative'. So this is why Paley can, with a straight face, call FDR a communist, or Hitler a liberal.

Additionally, in this worldview, there are numerous pigeonholes of where certain belief systems belong, and if you have that belief system, it automatically puts you in that 'Other' category. Evolution is a perfect example -- to wingnuts, evolution is something only liberals accept, so if you accept evolution, you're a liberal, and, by extension, a Communist. This is how Paley can compare Darwinism and Stalinism, claim they're 'just as bad', and expect people to take him seriously. In his way of thinking, this is actually logical.

I gotta say, Bill, it's rapidly reaching the point where I can't take you seriously about anything anymore. I mean, I always kind of thought the geocentrism thing for you was sort of an intellectual exercise; you know, a challenge you'd set for yourself just to see if you could do it.

But when you start spouting absolute nonsense like lumping FDR, Stalin, and Hitler all in together with liberals, then I realize I'm talking to someone who can't make any kind of distinctions at all, let alone subtle ones. Okay, FDR certainly can lay claim to being a liberal. And Hitler and Stalin had more similarities than differences, but their similarities had nothing to do with socio-economic principles (neither of them can reasonably be said to have had socioeconomic principles). And to classify either one of them as a "liberal" is so laughably, comically, hilariously stupid that I honestly can't even come up with an analogy.

Stick with the geocentrism, Bill. You're less wrong about that than you are about your politics.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,22:02   

Ghosty,

A measely quote mine? The best you can do to slander me is a measely quote mine? Taking a quote out of context and deliberately distorting the manner and detail it was posted in is the pinnacle of your reply?

Shit, you're pathetic!

Stop wasting your time with this Hitler/Nazi nonsense, not only are you having your arse handed to you here by others more educated in political and social history than I, but you are obviously and deliberately avoiding the geocentrism thread because you are having your arse handed to you finely minced there.

Oh I know you don't think you are, but you are. You seem to think googling up phrases that appear to say what you want them to say proves a thing. We all know it doesn't, because every claim you have made that relies on these phrases is tissue thin. Even cursory analysis shows them to be total crap.

Call me a homophobe all you like Ghosty old fruit, it doesn't make it true, as anyone capable of reading what I have written for even the barest comprehension can tell.

Nice try though. I am always amused by your lack of intellectual honesty, rigour and abilities. Your religion must be a truly frightening thing to destroy your ability to reason so totally. You have my pity.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,22:42   

Quote (ericmurphy @ July 13 2006,00:58)
I always kind of thought the geocentrism thing for you was sort of an intellectual exercise; you know, a challenge you'd set for yourself just to see if you could do it.

That is what I was expecting. Shame we were wrong, it might have been fun. I was hoping that ghost had at least a rough explanation for some observations though.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,23:07   

Steve,

Rough, yes.

Explanation, no.

Observations, no.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,08:23   

Faid:
       
Quote
Oh, and about syndicalism: Do you even know what it means, Ghost? Do you know in what spirit syndicalist ideas influenced the birth of Fascism? (Do you even know that the very first emergence of fascism was in opposition to Marxism?) Do you think that Hitler would consider himself a 'syndicalist'? What do you think the leaders of the trade unions would say, if they learned that they were being prosecuted by a syndicalist?  

Here's a hint, Ghost. Don't parrot words you can't understand, and read a book or two.

I guess you're right; I've just been parroting words that I don't really understand, so I decided to do a Google search on the word "syndicalism". This Wikipedia entry was the first hit. Here's what the editors had to say:
       
Quote
Syndicalism refers to a set of ideas, movements, and tendencies which share the avowed aim of transforming capitalist society through action by the working class on the industrial front. This idea was founded by Georges Sorel. This emphasis on industrial organisation was a distinguishing feature of syndicalism when it began to be identified as a distinct current at the beginning of the twentieth century. Most socialist organisations of that period emphasised the importance of political action through party organisations as a means of bringing about socialism. Although all syndicalists emphasize industrial organisation, not all reject political action altogether. For example, De Leonists and other Industrial Unionists advocate parallel organisation both politically and industrially. For syndicalists, labor unions are the potential means both of overcoming capitalism and of running society in the interests of the majority. Industry and government in a syndicalist society would be run by labor union federations.

Uh-oh, Hitler closed down the trade unions, therefore he can't be a syndicalist I guess. But wait.......
       
Quote
Starting shortly before World War I, especially in latin countries of Europe and the Americas, several former theorists and militants of syndicalism moved to nationalism and authoritarianism giving birth to a nationalist-syndicalist tendency who strongly influenced fascism and corporatism. Georges Sorel and Robert Michels are the most prominent among them.

What does "strongly influenced fascism" mean, Faid? Since this book larnin' stuff is new ta me, could you define these big words? Thanks.

Anyway, shaken and confused, I decided to pursue this idea further. I typed in "National syndicalism" and clicked on the first link. Hmmmmm...."Wikipedia" must be Greek for "Wingnut", however, because this source seemed to reinforce the completely baseless contentions on the previous site. For example:
       
Quote
National Syndicalism is typically associated with the right-wing labor movement in Italy which would later become the basis for Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party.

Wsssheeew, they used the term "right-wing", so no wingnuts they. Problem is, they talk about a guy named "Mussolini". Who's he, Faid?
Well, let's read a little more:
       
Quote
National syndicalists imagined that the liberal democratic political system would be destroyed in a massive general strike, at which point the nation’s economy would be transformed into a corporatist model based on class collaboration (see the Nazi model of Volksgemeinschaft).

Some famous advocates of National Syndicalism are the Italian Alceste De Ambris, British Union of Fascists leader Sir Oswald Mosley, and Italian Fascist Party member Sergio Panunzio.
[<spit-take>whaaaat? I, for one, am outraged at these lies!]

Volksgemeinschaft
   
Quote
Volksgemeinschaft is a Nazi term for "people's community". It was an attempt by the German Nazi Party to establish a national community of unified mind, will and spirit. It could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life (Gleichschaltung). Theatre, literature, the press and children's activities were all controlled by the Nazis. The people's community was visioned by Nazis are purely German, classless national community that was dedicated to the state and war.

Oh &%^$. Did they just use the word "classless"?

Let's try once more:
   
Quote
Although the broadest definitions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

Fascism attracted political support from diverse sectors of the population, including big business, farmers and landowners, nationalists, and reactionaries, disaffected World War I veterans, intellectuals such as Gabriele D'Annunzio, Curzio Malaparte, Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger to name a few, conservatives and small businessmen, and the poor to whom they promised work and bread. In some countries, like Romania and Hungary (and to a lesser extent in other states), Fascism had a strong base of support among the working classes and extremely poor peasants. The broad appeal of support for Fascism makes it different from other totalitarian states.

Let's compare this passage to my first source:
   
Quote
Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of egalitarian, pre-managed economic and labor structure, together with socialism and communism. It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Both syndicalism and socialism are compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves.

Syndicalists often form alliances with other workers' movements, including socialism, communism, and anarchism.

Wow, this "reading" is harder than I thought. No matter how I try, I can't shake my earlier assertions. Let's try once more:
 
Quote
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. These corporatist assemblies are not the same as contemporary business corporations or incorporated groups.[You don't say! Paley]
[....]
Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asia studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.

In Italian Fascism, this non-elected form of state 'officializing' of every interest into the state was professed to better circumvent the marginalization of singular interests as would happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democractic voting process. Which would better instead recognize or 'incorporate' every divergent interest as it stands alone into the state "organically", thus being the inspiration behind their use of the term Totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus;

"…(The state) is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual…" & "…Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State…" but rather clearly connoting "…Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers…"

This prospect in Italian Fascist Corporativism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel's Anarcho-syndicalism.[Hey! that's Lenny's party! Paley] Wherein each interest was to form as its own entity with separate organizing parameters according to their own standards, only however within the corporative model of Italian Fascism each was supposed to be incorporated through the auspices & organizing ability of a statist construct. This was by their reasoning the only possible way to achieve such a function, i.e. when resolved in the capability of an indissolvable state.


I give up.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,09:03   

Can't say it's unbiased (read: it challenges liberal claims), but this is a good essay that shows how national syndicalism evolved into Italian fascism. Now it's clear where Hitler and Roosevelt got their economic ideas.

Arden: Check out this liberal. After discussing the evidence on both sides, he concludes:
Quote
It seems Hitler, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And when he didn't, his lackeys did. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God's name to gain support.

Also, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn't fight the Christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the Christian-based church.

In fact, Anton Gil notes in his book, An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945: "For his part, Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics."

In other words, while he was certainly evil, he also usually knew which wars he could win (at least until 1941) and only fought those. He knew he could beat the Polish, French, and British armies and he allegedly counseled the Japanese against attacking the U.S.; he also requested that they open up a front against Russia. He couldn't beat the church in open warfare--so he took control and then attacked them piecemeal while making statements to put them at ease. Think about it--how many other times did Hitler break his word or ignore a treaty? He said whatever would make things easiest, and then ignored it later.

Author Doug Krueger notes that "so many Germans were religious believers that Hitler, if not religious himself, at least had to pretend to be a believer in order to gain support." He adds, "If the [Christian] message won converts, it would seem that most Nazis were probably [Christians] too. After all, would appeal to divine mandate win more theists or atheists to the cause?" He also points out that "Even if Hitler was not a [Christian], he could still have been a theist. Or a deist" (www.infidels.org/library /modern/doug_krueger/copin.html).   Remember that being a non-Christian is not equal to being an atheist.

When all is said and done, Krueger says that anecdotal evidence from those close to him near the end of his life suggests that he was a at least a deist, if not a theist. Krueger concludes: "So here's what evidence we have. There is a certain worldview, Nazism. Its leader, Hitler, professes on many occasions to be religious, and he often states that he's doing the will of god. The majority of his followers are openly religious. There is no evidence anywhere that this leader ever professed to anyone that he is an atheist. He and his followers actively campaign against atheism, even to the point of physical force, and this leader allies himself with religious organizations and churches. This is the evidence. So where does atheism fit in?" As Krueger notes, there seems to be no real evidence that Hitler was an atheist. On the other hand, since one could never be sure when he was speaking his real thoughts and when he was simply riling up the masses, it's difficult to say for certain.


The issue's much more complicated than either you or Flank make it. By the way, Lenny, have you updated your essay yet? Or will you continue to pretend that it's the final word on the matter?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,09:13   

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Paley, you fell riiiiight for it dint'you?

Since you decided to google 'syndicalism" as well as "fascism" Did you also happen to check "Fascism and Ideology? did you happen to google "Corporativism" as well? But wait, you don't have to :

It's already in the quotes you posted.

I won't bother doing the work for you, ghosty. When you really understand what the difference between syndicalism (that is an anarchist movement in principle) and corporativism (which is exactly the opposite) is, you get back to me. Matter of fact, get back to me when you can explain in your own words what those movements are, instead of resorting to selective quoting like AFDave.
Oh and, when you understand that rejecting classes is NOT consistent with socialism, just because it mentions the word (that was a good one, I must say).

In the meantime, check these juicy bits from your OWN quote:
Quote
Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.


Gee, I guess reading IS hard for you, right Ghosty?

You see, the really fun part is that, if I had quoted these sources, you'd be all "ooh the wise evos can only quote wikipedia" and such. So I let you do the honours, and you didn't disappoint me.

Remember this feeling you have now, Ghost. It's what (via AFDave) it has become known as the "Portuguese Moment": You have realised you've bitten more than you can chew, and you resort to selective quoting, with editing little comments to make it sound like it supports your views (for a minute there I thought I was in the Creator God" thread)... and all you can manage to show is your complete ignorance of any form of social or economic movement and its history (that doesn't come from your right-wing wackos).


So! Read a book or two, and when, in a couple decades, you finally learn what all those big words you use really mean (like what Anarcho-syndicalism stood for, why Corporativism is it's exact political opposite when distribution of power is concerned, What the concept of classes -and Nationalism- is and also the position of Socialism and Fascism on them, and of course the very history of Fascism itself) get back to me and maybe we'll have an intelligent conversation.

...but I doubt it.

BTW, keep up the good work. I know that filling in for AFDave is hard, but you're doing great so far... and it's only for another 5 days, anyway.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,10:00   

Quote
Can't say it's unbiased (read: it challenges liberal claims), but this is a good essay that shows how national syndicalism evolved into Italian fascism. Now it's clear where Hitler and Roosevelt got their economic ideas.

Arden: Check out this liberal. After discussing the evidence on both sides, he concludes:


A LIBERAL? You mean, you'd trust the word of some Leftie Commie Nazi, Paley?

Here's some homework for you, Paley, since you don't do much 'science' anymore: find me ONE place where Hitler mentions Odin.

And don't waste my time with essays on the Third Reich or articles on Heinrich Himmler. Just ONE place where Hitler mentions Odin. Hitler was a notorious blowhard, and if Odin was the huge influence on his thinking you say it is, it should be easy to find plenty of places where he talks glowingly about it, certainly nearly as many as the dozens of times where he talks about how it was his cosmic destiny to defend Christendom from the Jews.

Still no theory why Hitler had all the German communists killed? Just a terrible misunderstanding?

Like I said, I think Planet of the Apes is really responsible for the degeneration of Western Christian Civilization. Google it yourself if you think you can disprove me!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,10:41   

Faid:
               
Quote
Since you decided to google 'syndicalism" as well as "fascism" Did you also happen to check "Fascism and Ideology? did you happen to google "Corporativism" as well? But wait, you don't have to :

It's already in the quotes you posted.

Yes, and that's why I followed it up with this:
               
Quote
Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of egalitarian, pre-managed economic and labor structure, together with socialism and communism. It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Both syndicalism and socialism are compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves.

Syndicalists often form alliances with other workers' movements, including socialism, communism, and anarchism.

Look at the post if you don't believe me. I don't want to spoon-feed you, but the point of contrasting the two passages was simply to show two things:

1) Syndicalism, despite superficial differences, shares the same core values with the other two branches of lefty ideology (socialism and communism).

2) Whatever distinctions the unholy trinity may have, all three philosophies end up in the same place when implemented.

Of course there are differences in the theoretical models; this means nothing, however, because all three are impossible to realise in the real world. That's why "communist" nations turn totalitarian. And who picks up the reins? The government, that's who. This is also why I mentioned the Mefo bills in an earlier post; I was trying to show that the "reversal" of bank nationalisation under Hitler's watch was only skin deep. And Hitler would have agreed:
             
Quote
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

(Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

In short, Faid, your academic distinctions don't amount to a hill o' beans -- Hitler was a socialist in everything but name (oh wait.....). And your hee-hawing and insults don't change what Hitler did and said.
           
Quote
You see, the really fun part is that, if I had quoted these sources, you'd be all "ooh the wise evos can only quote wikipedia" and such. So I let you do the honours, and you didn't disappoint me.

No, I wish you would try to support your ideas more. I find your strategy ("Wait until my opponent supplies the evidence, then requote, highlight, and spin") a little lame, to be honest. I don't share your horror of citing sources.
         
Quote
So! Read a book or two, and when, in a couple decades, you finally learn what all those big words you use really mean (like what Anarcho-syndicalism stood for, why Corporativism is it's exact political opposite when distribution of power is concerned, What the concept of classes -and Nationalism- is and also the position of Socialism and Fascism on them, and of course the very history of Fascism itself) get back to me and maybe we'll have an intelligent conversation.

Yah, yah, I'm sure that all the liberals can whip out their microscopes and spot all the differences, but those who deal with historical evidence say otherwise. Face it -- syndicalism (a lefty philosophy that Wikipedia groups with Communism and Socialism) influenced the development of fascism. Oh, wait, this anarchist disagrees:
         
Quote
As can be seen, far from "mostly" going over to fascism, the Italian Syndicalist Union (and so the vast majority of self-proclaimed syndicalists) was at the forefront of resisting fascism and experiencing fascist violence. Bob Black's reference to support his claim is discovered to be lacking in substance, referring as it does to a few pre-war Marxist-syndicalist intellectuals and "leaders" who could not convince the majority in their own organisation of their new found nationalism and left it. Far from showing that the "Italian syndicalists mostly went over to Fascism," it, in fact, shows the opposite -- the syndicalists who later became fascists could not convince the majority of the USI of their ideas. The USI, rather than embrace nationalism, remained true to its syndicalist principles and resisted fascism. Like the anarchists, the syndicalist organisation experienced repression and, ultimately, destruction, at the hands of the Fascist gangs. Hardly what would be expected if they "mostly went over to Fascism."

Rather than show a failure of revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalism, the events in Italy provide yet more evidence of the failure of Marxism as a revolutionary theory. Not only were the syndicalists who became fascists mostly Marxists, the Socialist and Communist Parties helped defeat both the revolution and the resistance to fascism. Unfortunately, rather than look at the actual history of the rise of Italian Fascism and its relation to syndicalism, Bob Black (and others) seem intent on slandering a whole movement based on the actions of a handful of so-called "leaders."

[Paley's helpful emphasis]


Come back when you have evidence.

Arden:
     
Quote
A LIBERAL? You mean, you'd trust the word of some Leftie Commie Nazi, Paley?

Sure, if they support their side with evidence. Besides, you don't trust anything conservatives (excuse me, "wingnuts") have to say, so what else can I do?

     
Quote
Here's some homework for you, Paley, since you don't do much 'science' anymore: find me ONE place where Hitler mentions Odin.

And if I do? You'll just spin it or ignore it. Like you're doing right now with the evidence that Hitler wasn't really a Christian. Face it, your hero's Talk Origins essay was exposed as feeble-minded propaganda, and now you're just trying to move the goalposts. But I might actually look into it tomorrow. Gotta run for now. Please tell me what you think about Hitler's Christianity in light of the evidence Mr. Adams adduces. Be as detailed as possible -- or don't. I'm betting you'll wimp out as usual.

 
Quote
Still no theory why Hitler had all the German communists killed? Just a terrible misunderstanding?

Maybe for the same reason that many Christians have persecuted the Jews, despite the close relationship between their two religions? Goodness, is this argument lame.

Really guys, try to deal with the evidence in the future.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,11:36   

Quote
Come back when you have evidence.


You mean, the thing you don't?

Paley, did you even read my answer? I don't need to "shy away" from links, not only because, as usual, your sources actually support my argumrnts, but because I have arguments. I can explain to you what syndicalism and corporatism is, and why they are different, even if one was derived from the other in a way. You, however, cannot, as you have clearly demonstated. You don't even know what you are talking about.
Seriously, what part do you think needs clearing up? the one where I tell you that Corporatism demands a Strong State in principle, while syndicalism has affiliations in principle to anarchism? Maybe the part that Socialism relies on class struggle, while Fascism rejects it? What? But you don't need my "academic distinctions", Ghost... It's right there in your own sources.
Oh and, did your sinus infection (which I seriously doubt exists) cause selective blindness? You DID notice those little bits from your OWN quotes, that demostrate the fundamental differences of Fascism and Socialism, and how they were in direct opposition? Or do you think these are "minor details", and the real issues are "fixing wages and prices"? Shows how much you know.
Are you a Satanist, Ghost? You must be, since both Christians and Satanists have priests who wear garments and perform rituals... :p
Or do you think that Totalitarianism=Socialism? That's even more ludicrous, since it would imply that all non-democratic states in the history of the world, from the military Juntas of Banana republics (or Greece, heh) to the dynasties of the Pharaohs, were socialistic. Nice job, Friedrich.
(And btw, what happened to the profits of the German capitalists under Hitler's "socialist" reign?)
Sorry you took my telling you that you know nothing about these issues as an insult, Ghost. It was not. I was stating a fact. And forgive my tone, but I always get annoyed when I see someone who obviously has not done any reading on his own parrot 'arguments' and try to back them up with googletrawling and quotemining.
And don't worry, I feel the same for Communists and their "wooden tongue", so you have nice company.

Edit: And accusimg ME of "spinning" arguments.... Hilarious. You take a quote that highlights the differenses of Fascism and Marxism, YOU highlight irrelevant parts (like the "classless" one, or the ones about syndicalist influence) but without any explanations, just some ironic comments to make it look like you actually have a point- and then, when I show you what the source really says, I'M doing the spinning? Get real.

Oh and I see you've already gone from "Hitler was a socialist" to  "Hitler was a 'leftie', therefore a socialist" to "Hitler was totalitarian, therefore socialist"... You're going downhill fast, Ghost.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,12:14   

Haha Paley, are you doing this on purpose?
From your quote, again:
 
Quote
As can be seen, far from "mostly" going over to fascism, the Italian Syndicalist Union (and so the vast majority of self-proclaimed syndicalists) was at the forefront of resisting fascism and experiencing fascist violence. Bob Black's reference to support his claim is discovered to be lacking in substance, referring as it does to a few pre-war Marxist-syndicalist intellectuals and "leaders" who could not convince the majority in their own organisation of their new found nationalism and left it. Far from showing that the "Italian syndicalists mostly went over to Fascism," it, in fact, shows the opposite -- the syndicalists who later became fascists could not convince the majority of the USI of their ideas. The USI, rather than embrace nationalism, remained true to its syndicalist principles and resisted fascism. Like the anarchists, the syndicalist organisation experienced repression and, ultimately, destruction, at the hands of the Fascist gangs. Hardly what would be expected if they "mostly went over to Fascism."

Now read that again. :D
I couldn't ever have demonstrated the difference in principle between syndicalism and fascism in a better way.

And as for Marxists 'helping' Fascism... The (Anarchist) writer refers to the Communist withdrawal of support for the Anarchist front, not a willful cooperation with the fascists. He considers that front as the only hope Italy had of fighting Fascism, and draws his conclusion... But you already know that, unless you have absolutely no reading compehension ability.

Edit: And in case you're interested in my personal opinion... I'm no anarchist, Ghost. I agree with what Black wrote (if you read it) that syndicalism was a failure... Besides essential functional problems (much like those of Anarchism) it had various elements under a big tent (remind you of some other movement?) and that was no good for survival. But It did NOT have a Fascist ideology, and no amount of quote-mining is going to change that. But feel free to try.

Edit (2): OK,I know you could care less, Ghost... I just wanted to make myself clear, and spare you form coming up with any cute nicknames like "Evo-Anarchist" for me. Hope we have that settled.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,13:01   

From the thread sub-title.

This Evolution inspired film is pretty good.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,13:23   

Quote
You'll just spin it or ignore it. Like you're doing right now with the evidence that Hitler wasn't really a Christian. Face it, your hero's Talk Origins essay was exposed as feeble-minded propaganda, and now you're just trying to move the goalposts.


'Moving goalposts'? You are shameless!

"Hitler was a communist" -> "Hitler was a socialist" -> "Hitler was just like FDR, who was a socialist". "See, I'm right!"

As for your essay you offered, you mean the one with the quote "As Krueger notes, there seems to be no real evidence that Hitler was an atheist"? I see no evidence there, just a lot of handwaving that Hitler's Christian statements can't have been real, because, well, they just can't have. He must have made it up to get elected. Just because.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

     
Quote
But I might actually look into it tomorrow. Gotta run for now. Please tell me what you think about Hitler's Christianity in light of the evidence Mr. Adams adduces. Be as detailed as possible -- or don't. I'm betting you'll wimp out as usual.


Like you've wimped out on your geocentric evidence?

Find a fraction as much 'Odinist' evidence as I've found Christian evidence and we MIGHT find a reason to take you seriously again. Might.

This part is cute:

   
Quote
   
Quote
Still no theory why Hitler had all the German communists killed? Just a terrible misunderstanding?


Maybe for the same reason that many Christians have persecuted the Jews, despite the close relationship between their two religions? Goodness, is this argument lame.

Really guys, try to deal with the evidence in the future.


Well, Paley, you seem quite wedded to the idea that Hitler was a Marxist, even though he exterminated all the Marxists once he came to power. When asked for a reason for this, all you have to offer (after ignoring the question 3 times) is some airy fairy shit about "Oh, well, sometimes people misunderstand the people closest to them!" And you call this 'dealing with evidence'? Shit, no WONDER you don't believe in evolution or the moon landing!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,13:36   

Hey Paley, you're still, uh, blithering.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,14:18   

Bill, whether Hitler was a fascist, communist, capitalist, Marxist, Maoist, Taoist, Kung Fu Tsu-ist, or pedophile has nothing to do with whether or not he was influenced by Darwin, or evolution in general, and certainly Hitler is not a movie influenced by Evolution.

In any event, Hitler was, at one point, a communist. Early in his career, just after WWI. There is documentary film footage of him marching in demonstrations with other communists as evidence of this. So what? He later became enamored of Mussolini, who was without doubt a fascist, and considered himself to be a fascist. Later on, it's difficult to discern any political philosophy in Hitler's policies at all; he had no more of a modern political philosophy than Ghengis Khan did. By the time the war started going badly for Germany, say, the end of 1941, at the latest, Hitler seems to have viewed himself as some sort of instrument of God's will (regardless of which God you think he was talking about, he never seems to have referred to him as anything other than "God," or "the Creator").

But if there is one thing Hitler never, ever was, in his entire life, personal or political, it's a "liberal" or a "progressive."

In Bill's universe, "liberal" is synonymous with "bad," and vice versa, so anything or anyone he considers to be "bad" is also "liberal," and anyone or any policy that could be called "liberal" is by definition "bad."

Therefore, wherever Bill says the word "liberal," I'm just going to do the necessary semantic translation and just insert the word "bad." It's what he means, after all. As far as I can discern, Bill has no other understanding of the term.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,19:10   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,11:12)
Eric, please read the link - it discusses the nationalisation of businesses and price controls under Hitler's watch.

Flank, how can I be a repressed homosexual and a frustrated heterosexual? Or am I bi? Get your story straight.  ;)


Improvious:
 
Quote
I guess you missed my earlier post: "I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined."

No I didn't: I just recognise blatant cherry-picking when I see it. Aryan Nations is affiliated with the Christian Identity sect, so of course it's going to attract the "Christians". Using AN as to represent the movement is as misleading as using, say, the National Alliance. That's why I used the umbrella Stormfront website as a proxy for the neonazi movement -- it's far more comprehensive. And I used more than a "post"; I used two separate polls on two different web sites. I also linked to the leading "scientific" thinkers in the movement. Read the links.

Sorry, I had no idea the Aryan Nation was such a marginal component of the white supremacist movement.  And I didn't know anything about their Christian affiliation until you mentioned it.  Even so, that affiliation would certainly seem to harm your hypothesis.

But ok, whatever.  We'll play it your way and do some quick metrics on the Stormfront forums.  Searching the past 3 months yields over 1000 hits for "Christian", 406 hits for "evolution", and 134 hits for "Darwin".  The search engine only returns a maximum of 1000 hits, so I don't know how many it actually found for "Christian" for the 3 month period.  But doing a search for only the past 1 month returns 662 hits for "Christian".

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,20:30   

This has got to be the most surreal argument Bill has ever made: that racist groups take their cues from evolutionary biology. Given the overwhelming Christian nature of these groups in America (how many are Jewish? Muslim? atheist? or even agnostic) this seems like an argument he cannot possibly win.

But given that he evidently thinks Hitler was a liberal, I can see why he might be trying.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,21:54   

And it's amazing how Paley uses this quote:
Quote
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

(Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

In which Hitler manages to renounce almost every principle of Marxism (not to mention Anarchism) in a few sentences, to actually prove Hitler was a socialist. And he thinks he demonstrates anything else but his own ignorance.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2006,10:16   

Faid, you obviously don't understand my argument in the slightest. This is my problem. Unfortunately, you also don't understand how ideas evolve over time. This is your problem. I must wait until Tuesday to give a serious rebuttal, but for now I'll store some links and let you anticipate my future arguments.

Poor Faid. He thinks that one should only pick sources that agree with one's point of view. I have a surprise for him, however.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2006,11:18   

More links for Tuesday.

Hitler a Pagan? Christian? Hmmmmmmmm.... Other side.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2006,12:23   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 15 2006,16:18)
More links for Tuesday.

Hitler a Pagan? Christian? Hmmmmmmmm.... Other side.

I'll tell you one thing, Bill—I can make a much, much stronger case for Hitler being a Christian than you can make a case for him being a liberal.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2006,14:42   

I think we can assume from his evasive silence that Paley has not found any writings or speeches from Hitler singing the praises of Odin.

And yet, I can find dozens such places where Hitler bloviated about Christianity.

Paley logic: NEVER MIND. IGNORE ALL THOSE TIMES HITLER INVOKED CHRISTIANITY. ALL IRRELEVANT. I DON'T NEED EVIDENCE. HITLER WAS STILL AN ODINIST. HE HAS TO BE, BECAUSE LIBERALS DISAGREE WITH ME. THEREFORE I'M RIGHT. WHAT'S MORE, HITLER WAS EVIL, AND LIBERALS ARE EVIL, THEREFORE HITLER WAS A LIBERAL.

Yawn.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2006,14:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 15 2006,15:16)
I must wait until Tuesday to give a serious rebuttal

Why is it that the goddamn fundies ALWAYS have time to POST their idiotic claims, but NEVER seem to have time to DEFEND any of them . . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2006,00:05   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 15 2006,19:57)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 15 2006,15:16)
I must wait until Tuesday to give a serious rebuttal

Why is it that the goddamn fundies ALWAYS have time to POST their idiotic claims, but NEVER seem to have time to DEFEND any of them . . . . . . ?

I think you know why.

The first is much easier than the second.

  
  536 replies since June 07 2006,14:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (18) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]