Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: CLite
It's clear as LK has already pointed out that the list was designed with an agenda. This invalidates any discussion of the list. It's like if someone wanted to bash a particular group (say a political party) so they compile a list of indcators for "insanity", but phrase the questions to be ambigious but with some correlations to the targeted group.

I could compile a list of "retard" indicators and post how tin foil hat theorists match it. It would be exactly the same thing as the OP has done but targeted at another "group".

So you see no correlation between numbers 9 and 13 as I described here?:

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

On point 9 - The recent AIG/bailout/control of corporations is quite obvious to see. Those with connections kept their stature/wealth because of government. Otherwise they would have failed.

On point 13 - Goldman-Sachs is obvious here. Henry Paulson with Bush and now Tim Geithner with Obama. Both appointed by government and both involved in spending spree's for their constituents.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CLite
It's clear as LK has already pointed out that the list was designed with an agenda. This invalidates any discussion of the list. It's like if someone wanted to bash a particular group (say a political party) so they compile a list of indcators for "insanity", but phrase the questions to be ambigious but with some correlations to the targeted group.

I could compile a list of "retard" indicators and post how tin foil hat theorists match it. It would be exactly the same thing as the OP has done but targeted at another "group".

This is my last warning. If you have a concern then PFI is the place to post it. I will vacation the next poster who decides to continue along this line here. This is not the place to contest moderation, which you effectively are doing.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CLite
It's clear as LK has already pointed out that the list was designed with an agenda. This invalidates any discussion of the list. It's like if someone wanted to bash a particular group (say a political party) so they compile a list of indcators for "insanity", but phrase the questions to be ambigious but with some correlations to the targeted group.

I could compile a list of "retard" indicators and post how tin foil hat theorists match it. It would be exactly the same thing as the OP has done but targeted at another "group".

So you see no correlation between numbers 9 and 13 as I described here?:

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

On point 9 - The recent AIG/bailout/control of corporations is quite obvious to see. Those with connections kept their stature/wealth because of government. Otherwise they would have failed.

On point 13 - Goldman-Sachs is obvious here. Henry Paulson with Bush and now Tim Geithner with Obama. Both appointed by government and both involved in spending spree's for their constituents.

This isn't worth it...