• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

are many conservatives christian fascists in disguise

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
88keys said:
I suspect that many people are fascists and don't even know it.

It's easy to recruit followers that way, especially considering that most people have no clue as to what it really is.
Click to expand...

the amount of people who follow whatever is around them is surprising
 
werepossum said:
More to the point, Putin is the one who arms and protects our enemies. Russia made itself our enemy long ago.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, who gave Osama Bin Laden arms in the 1980s? Russia was fighting the worlds greatest terrorist and who was aiding the terrorist? Wasn't that America?

Who gave Saddam weapons of mass destruction? Wasn't that America?

America arms damn near the ENTIRE fucking globe, friend and foe alike!!!!! Where the hell have you been?


PS. Putin is not America's enemy. Quit stoking the furnace of hatred and mistrust.
 
Last edited:
bshole said:
Wait a second, who gave Osama Bin Laden arms in the 1980s? Russia was fighting the worlds greatest terrorist and who was aiding the terrorist? Wasn't that America?

Who gave Saddam weapons of mass destruction? Wasn't that America?

America arms damn near the ENTIRE fucking globe, friend and foe alike!!!!! Where the hell have you been?


PS. Putin is not America's enemy. Quit stoking the furnace of hatred and mistrust.
Click to expand...
But at that point, Usama Bin Laden was not one of the world's greatest terrorists, he was a guy fighting (or more accurately, funding the ones fighting) the Soviets who had invaded their nation, set up a repressive puppet regime, and effectively annexed them in preparation for doing the same to Pakistan in search of the warm water port that would allow them to be a global superpower. Are you going to argue that helping people defend themselves is bad?

EDIT: I passed a guy begging at an intersection today and gave him twenty bucks. It's possible that one day one of these guys will rob me, kill me, steal my truck, whatever. That will not mean that helping people down on their luck is wrong, merely that I happened to do so to someone who is evil or crazy. There's a risk in doing anything, even things worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
bshole said:
Wait a second, who gave Osama Bin Laden arms in the 1980s? Russia was fighting the worlds greatest terrorist and who was aiding the terrorist? Wasn't that America?

Who gave Saddam weapons of mass destruction? Wasn't that America?

America arms damn near the ENTIRE fucking globe, friend and foe alike!!!!! Where the hell have you been?


PS. Putin is not America's enemy. Quit stoking the furnace of hatred and mistrust.
Click to expand...

That's definitely in dispute.

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

"The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

"It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan."
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA–al-Qaeda_controversy

Fern
 
norseamd said:
https://news.vice.com/article/i-know-you-are-a-fascist-but-what-am-i
Click to expand...

Good morning. 🙂

The Party of European Left released this statement:
BmuILNoCEAEiNuR.jpg


The Party of the European Left is an EU parliamentary party consisting of old-school socialist and commie nutters. They tend to be anti-capitalist, anti-American and anti-Nato. Kind of like the far-right. :hmm:
 
Fern said:
Make no mistake Putin is our enemy.

But that doesn't mean he can't have some qualities of leadership that are admirable. Namely, he has a very clear vision for how wants to empower and grow Russia, he's shown some very shrewd tactical ability, he measures risk/reward well (at least so far) and he takes action, sometimes boldly, to execute his game plan.

He's also very authoritarian. He's amoral, if not downright immoral, and he has no respect for the law etc.

I haven't heard any conservative say that they feel russian intervention in crimea is reasonable and that putin has a right to do what he is doing.

What I have heard is alarm.

Fern
Click to expand...

It's easy to be bold, tactical, and action-oriented when you run an outright dictatorship with the ability to silence people who disagree with you.
 
norseamd said:
many conservatives have complained about the difference between obama and putin. many have said they wished we had a leader that was as tough and headstrong as putin. many conservatives have expressed their admiration of putin and the media has picked up on this.

however now many conservatives have siad that russian intervention in crimea is reasonable and that putin has a right to do what he is doing. are many conservatives actually in full support of putin and wish that putin and his fundamentalist politics would rule the us?
Click to expand...

GODDAMMIT. Every time our evil plot is on its way to fruition the progressives heroically stride onto the scene and blow the whole scheme! Curses!
 
A Christian cannot be a fascist.

Then again, the word Christian is so so polluted and corrupted that it has lost all its meaning.

Same goes for the word Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Jew and so on. No one is any of those things anymore. They only wear the garb but their heart is totally devoid of any true religious meaning.
 
raildogg said:
A Christian cannot be a fascist.

Then again, the word Christian is so so polluted and corrupted that it has lost all its meaning.

Same goes for the word Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Jew and so on. No one is any of those things anymore. They only wear the garb but their heart is totally devoid of any true religious meaning.
Click to expand...

Dunno about that first part. The Catholic Church was basically a fascist theocracy for over 1000 years, way prior to the term "Fascist" being invented. Race based southern slavery leaned heavily on Christian theology constructed around the mark of Cain. Nazis leaned heavily on Christian belief, as did the Klan. Their modern counterparts are Christian Reconstructionists & Dominionists, biblical literalists, very fond of selected Old Testament ways.

In a broad sense, the term "fascist" applies to spectrum of authoritarian traits & belief. The authority of scripture, whether Christian or Islamic. Of Royalty. Of Wealth. Of Capitalism. Of tradition. Of gender. Of Race. Of the State independent of the Will of the People. Of Kim Jong Il. Of whatever can be used to justify running other people's lives, of Power itself.

The proper term isn't "fascist", anyway, but rather this-

https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+authoritarianism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

It takes many guises. Sinclair Lewis referred to them frequently-

From It Can't Happen Here: "But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word 'Fascism' and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty."

From Gideon Planish: "I just wish people wouldn't quote Lincoln or the Bible, or hang out the flag or the cross, to cover up something that belongs more to the bank-book and the three golden balls."
Click to expand...

http://english.illinoisstate.edu/sinclairlewis/

RWA's instinctively crave order, certainty, & strong even pugnacious leadership on the basis of its perceived strength alone. It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to appear strong & vengeful. It has to have enemies. It has to have a Crusader spirit. Witness much of world leadership in the 20th Century. I doubt that's changed since the Greek City States.
 
Putin is a lying murdering bastard. He also is using Russian terrorists to destabilize the countries before he moves his troops in. Russia has become a terrorist nation.
 
You two are silly.

Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgement. The proposition, God is omnipotent, contains two conceptions, which have a certain object or content; the word is, is no additional predicate—it merely indicates the relation of the predicate to the subject. Now, if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say: God is, or, There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates—I posit the object in relation to my conception. The content of both is the same; and there is no addition made to the conception, which expresses merely the possibility of the object, by my cogitating the object—in the expression, it is—as absolutely given or existing. Thus the real contains no more than the possible. A hundred real dollars contain no more than a hundred possible dollars. For, as the latter indicate the conception, and the former the object, on the supposition that the content of the former was greater than that of the latter, my conception would not be an expression of the whole object, and would consequently be an inadequate conception of it. But in reckoning my wealth there may be said to be more in a hundred real dollars than in a hundred possible dollars—that is, in the mere conception of them. For the real object—the dollars—is not analytically contained in my conception, but forms a synthetical addition to my conception (which is merely a determination of my mental state), although this objective reality—this existence—apart from my conceptions, does not in the least degree increase the aforesaid hundred dollars.
Click to expand...

kant
 
Yeah you guys say it's a joke now, but for over a thousand years you were using that argument, and quite seriously. It's still the best argument for his existence. lol:

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Of course it's ridiculous, but what do you expect from christians.
 
Last edited:
As an agnostic I find it humorous watching young atheist make fools of themselves by attacking people who think differently from themselves. Older atheist are quite secure in their beliefs and find no need to do such.
 
justoh said:
Yeah you guys say it's a joke now, but for over a thousand years you were using that argument, and quite seriously. It was the best you had! lol:

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Of course it's ridiculous, but what do you expect from christians.
Click to expand...
Its a figment of our imaginations yes what a shocker an atheist would think that way. Why go through all the trouble with an answer to a question nobody asked.
 
OverVolt said:
Its a figment of our imaginations yes what a shocker an atheist would think that way. Why go through all the trouble with an answer to a question nobody asked.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't understand how it's related to what londo and ironicsavagefan posted. Oh, you're a christian, so it's no wonder!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top