On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:40:11 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:

And BTW, I'm not name calling when I label them as fascists,
I'm using the word in it's correct political context, not as a slur.
Fascism is a legitimate political philosophy, no matter how
distasteful it might be. I won't let "fascist" the slur prevent me
from using the word appropriately.

OK. You're a Nazi, but I mean it in the nicest possible
sense...G...seriously, while fascism might be argued to be a
"...legitimate political philosophy, no matter how distasteful..." so
could "violent, despotic dictatorship." And I'm pretty sure that any
government, even a violent, despotic dictatorship, would consider it a
slur to be called that. And moreover, when you look at fascism, it is a
more "middle-class" bank clerk/mid-level manager thing. Peter, you're
normally pretty accurate, but this time, IMO, you're pretty far off the
mark - good, bad, or indifferent, they just ain't fascists.

Fascism can be defined two ways: as a right-wing, authoritarian, and
nationalistic philisophy, and as an ideology that closely aligns the
interests of government with that of major corporations, to the
benefit of those corporations and the elites that control them. Sound
familiar?

Yeah, to one degree or another, sorta like Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Thatcher, King,
Trudeau, Gorbachev, Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Blair, Bush, Chirac,
and nearly every other person who has been the leader or in a
significant leadership role of a major country (and even Canada G),
including most of the communist countries, since, oh, about the big
bang...and when it's done in a limited fashion, it's a damned good thing
that they do so.

TC,
R
Hey, Bill Gates might be richer than even he ever dreamed, but there are
a ****load of others that nobody ever heard of at Microsoft that are a
heck of a lot better off then they ever expected, too...