Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#702 Feb 27 2018 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sorry. Not buying it as anything other than a weak attempt to avoid responsibility. Your "side" gives government that power, you are responsible for what it does with it.

No one gives a shit whether or not Gbaji "buys it" when literal Nazis are having a party at right-wing political rallies. Smiley: laugh

You're like the guy in the movie who sits screaming that his papers insist that eldritch magic is a myth and superstition while the hell-monsters carry him away. No one cares about what your cute little theories are or whether you're convinced when the monsters are having a party and waving flags.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#703 Feb 27 2018 at 10:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,333 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But no one says "Man, I like the idea of a flat tax (or nationalized health care).... I think I'll join the Nazis."


Ironically, that's a lot of why many people joined the party back then. Not those specific issues, of course, but what contributed to a significant amount of support for their party was their economic platform. Which, not surprisingly, consisted of a lot of the same public works programs that we typically associate with the political left and with socialism.

Quote:
Likewise, no one says "You know, the real evil was Hitler's views on the federal reserve banking system."


I have never said that what made Hitler evil was that he was a socialist. That's on you. I've said repeatedly, that socialism can be used for good or evil. The axis is based on how much power the government has. That's what makes it a form of socialism. What the government does with that power is not relevant to whether that government is socialist.

Quote:
I don't even need to make this argument: This is why the Alt-Right, the neo-Nazis, the KKK and other people who embody the actual evil aspects of Nazism align themselves with the Republicans.


Except, you know, the guys calling themselves Socialists. Not them, I guess.

Quote:
Trying to make it about government regulation of public parks is like saying that Bernie Sanders is a libertarian because he supports legal weed. That ain't what libertarianism is actually all about.


Great. We've learned that people can be racists regardless of their political ideology. We're finally getting somewhere! I've understood this all along.

My issue is that when you have a socialist government, then the government has been granted the power to do more things. Which can include evil things. When you have a small government, you have less concern that the government is going to turn your country into a distopian nightmare. You're trying to broadly associate the political ideology with a racial or cultural one. That's not what they are about though.

Not sure how many different ways I can say the same thing before it sinks in. I get it. What made Hitler evil was his views on racial purity and willingness to go all the way with them. What made the Holocaust happen was the Hitler's use of a socialist ideology to gain power, which, once he had it, he then turned to his "final solution". You think that people who supported the ***** back in the mid 30s thought they'd lead to gas chambers and death camps? They supported the ****'s because the existing government was weak, had lead them into horrible economic conditions, they couldn't get jobs, couldn't get food to eat, felt like there was no end in sight, and here was this guy promising to end all of that.

Again. What made his movement Socialism was that he used direct government power to make changes happen. In his case, he then used it to do other horrible things, but he also did in fact create tons of jobs, built lots of roads and bridges, and hospitals, and other public works projects. The absolutely rose to power on an economic platform, and the key point was using direct government programs to push the economy along. What they did with it afterwards isn't socialism, but it was absolutely enabled by socialism. Without first using the economic crisis to gain power, they'd never have been able to do what they did.

But let's just ignore history and fall into simple assumption that socialism always results in good things, right? Cause that's what you want, and I guess what we want is always what happens. Go ask the Germans if that is the case. Again. It's not about the intent of the tool, but the tool itself. Socialism is a tool. What you do with it? That's a different question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#704 Feb 27 2018 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except, you know, the guys calling themselves Socialists. Not them, I guess.

You mean the ones who attend Right Wing rallies and wanted Trump to be president?

Actions vs Words, kiddo. I realize that when a bunch of Nazis show up for the conservative movement, all you have left is "But... but... socialist!!!" but actions speak louder than even your frantic sniveling. What's pathetic is that you ignore the many, many real life examples of conservative policy positions and actions that cause the Nazi and similarly aligned elements to flock to your party and instead insist on clinging to "But... socialist!!" You think these guys don't know which party is best for getting them what they really want? Whistling past the graveyard doesn't change that.

Edited, Feb 27th 2018 10:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#705 Feb 28 2018 at 7:30 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,304 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Words have definitions for a ******* reason. And yeah, we can go all over the ******* history of it and how it emerged, but at the end of the day but, on a normal ******* day, fascism is on the right side of the spectrum, not left ( if we are taking the simplistic view ).


Wrong. Again, you want it to be that way, but Fascism is and has always been a leftist movement. And not just "leftist" in the sense of "liberal" in the sense of "we're changing the status quo!" (which, let's face it, is meaningless), but actually a freaking branch of Socialism.

Where do you think the word "Fascism" comes from? Seriously. Go look it up. It was derived from the Fascia (or Fascio, if you're Italian), which referred to a bundle of small rods tied tightly together to form one single large and strong rod. The core concept of Fascism is that if you can get all of the people working towards a common cause, you are stronger than if you allow people to all do their own thing. As a form of government, its primary focus is to create "big government" programs to solve problems, and at the same time to employ any idle hand in work.

Sound familiar? That's socialism. I get that over time, folks on the Left have created this ideal image of Socialism, where it's all about fighting for social causes and whatnot. But that's not what actually defines socialism. Socialism is about the government having a high degree of control over the industry of a nation. Period. What is fascism? A government with a high degree of control over the industry of the nation. Fascism is a single specific instance of the broader umbrella concept of "Socialism". Just as communism is. They are all systems of government in which the good of "the people" is assumed to outweigh the freedoms of the individual, and allow for a state which forces individuals into actions which benefit the whole even if they would otherwise choose not to.

What the heck do you think the basic assumption behind Obamacare is? Make everyone fund into the same system, even if it financially hurts many, because the greater good to the whole is assumed to be worth it. Every freaking thing that defines socialism is about this. When we talk about big government, this is what we're talking about.

Quote:
How did you get to that point? Are there some special classes?


Sadly, it apparently does require special classes, since so many are woefully ignorant on the history of these forms of government.

Riddle me this: How on earth can you possibly think that a philosophy of governing based on the assumption that individual freedoms is the most important thing, and that government should be as small as possible, with as little influence over our businesses and lives as possible, could ever be even remotely similar to Fascism? It makes zero sense. You have to have an authoritarian government to have Fascism. And Modern Conservatism (AKA: Classical Liberalism), is the exact opposite of that. Modern Socialism is the vehicle that can allow for Fascism.

Quote:
But yeah, words matter. So no. All fascist are not socialists.


Yes, they are. They may not realize it. They may be using the same incorrect labels that you have been taught. But from an objective evaluation of the political ideologies involved, then yes, all Fascists are also Socialists. Socialism is the ideology that the government is the best tool to control things, and not the people individually. That's the same basic ideology that forms Fascism.

Not all Socialists are Fascists, but all Fascists are Socialists. Again,the problem is that since WW2, the modern Left has gone to great lengths to re-define things so as to distance themselves from Fascism (and specifically Nazism). But that does not change the absolute fact that the underlying principles of those two forms of government were derived from the root of Socialism. Without Socialism you can't have Fascism.

What to know what else is associated with Socialism, and the whole "good of the whole"? Eugenics. For some of us, this is pretty obvious. For others? Not so much.


Quote:
**** me. Where the **** do you learn this idiocy? Like seriously. Is there a place I can go to ensure this **** stops?


The sad thing is when fact is labeled as idiocy. Seriously. Stop parroting labels and assumptions and engage your brain. We have two major "sides" in terms of modern western political ideology. One says that government should be as small as possible, with as little influence and power over the day to day actions of the citizens as possible. The other believes that government should actively involve itself in making the society better, and creates reams of regulations and government programs to pursue this goal, along the way empowering government.

Which one do you think could ever possibly develop freaking death camps? Hint: It's the second one. The one that empowers government to "make things better". You can't get Fascism without a Big Government starting point. You simply can't. And yes, while not all Socialist systems will go so far, it's a matter of degrees of power, and how far those in power think they should go to make the nation stronger, better, more pure, whatever. The same ideology that accepts the idea of using the government to force some people to pay more for something so that others can pay less, includes the idea of using the government to force some people into labor to provide for the rest, or any other forced action which can be justified on the grounds that the end result will be better for the whole.

And guess what? That ideology is behind just about every Democratic Party social program passed over the last 80 years or so. It's the same thing. What's scary is that you refuse to see this.



Edited, Feb 27th 2018 7:04pm by gbaji


Hmm. This is rather aggravating. Your answer clearly demands a deep dive and I do not think I will be able to sacrifice much time for it. Sadness.

I do find it amusing that you consider labels indoctrination of some sort; most people refer to it as basic education ( I mean yeah, if I was more cynical I could entertain the idea of the words being interchangeable ). I find it interesting that you need to upend established labels to fit your narrative. I also find it interesting that objective evaluation happens to fit your idea of fascism, but we will get to that later.

That said, I am ecstatic that you decided to bring the origins into the mix.

I suppose I could start quoting Emilio Gentile the author of The Origins of Fascist Ideology, but it seems pointless as you will immediately accuse him of undoubtedly being raging liberal historian.

I could point that Il Duce himself stated:

Quote:
We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism.... We intend to be an active minority, attract the proletariat away from the official Socialist party. But if the middle class thinks that we are going to be their lightning rods, they are mistaken.


Now it may be just my naive interpretation, but by your definition he would be declaring war against himself. He certainly was not opposed to nationalism. Guess who else is not opposed to blind jingoistic nationalism. The Republican party ( mild exaggeration here, but I hope you get the idea ).

Now, in the real world, political spectrum is simplified thusly mostly to avoid retarded conversations such as these. And before you will accuse me of simplifying it with only 2 poles, you just tried to squish fascism onto simple small government vs big government spectrum. And that is before we can talk about whether, the fasci portion, the ****** effect of bundling together is a function of just fascism or, surprise, ******* all ******* political movements out there.

From here we can move to the discussion of government. Most scholars agree that one thing that happens to belong to all government states is the monopoly on legitimate use of physical force. Use of violence, as you argued in previous threads yourself, is not a new phenomenon. Governments big and small have no problem deploying it whatsoever. And in times of war, boy howdy, they go all out. National security trumps petty daily squabbles and quaint notions of rights.

Is your argument that with less government, we would have less institutionally sanctioned violence?

And just in case you were going with "but Republican Party" is totally against all those ( it is only the Democratic Party and its policies !!1 ) :

Republican party does not have a problem to use big nanny state to tell me MJ is bad for me.
Republican party does not have a problem with big nanny state telling women what to do with their bodies.

Is your argument is that Republican Party is a big nanny state supporter and beneficiary as well?

Quote:
And guess what? That ideology is behind just about every Democratic Party social program passed over the last 80 years or so. It's the same thing. What's scary is that you refuse to see this.


Ignorance is strength.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#706 Feb 28 2018 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,394 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What's pathetic is that you ignore the many, many real life examples
That's because no one is afraid of real life examples, it's the hypothetical possibilities of policy change that stop kids from shooting up schools.

Or something. These threads are bleeding together.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#707 Feb 28 2018 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Socialism allowed Hitler to round people up!", a conservative cried as other conservatives demanded a mass round-up of all questionable immigrants and a conservative court ruled that they can be held in detainment centers indefinitely without bond hearings. Later, the same conservative argued that the government should possess the power and authority to take the actual lives of its citizens when they broke the rules. Because socialism.

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 4:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#708 Feb 28 2018 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,602 posts
Don't see why we want to hold illegal immigrants so long anyway, you'd think there'd be a little more emphasis on getting them out of the country sooner if we really didn't want them here.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#709 Feb 28 2018 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,333 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except, you know, the guys calling themselves Socialists. Not them, I guess.

You mean the ones who attend Right Wing rallies and wanted Trump to be president?

Actions vs Words, kiddo. I realize that when a bunch of Nazis show up for the conservative movement, all you have left is "But... but... socialist!!!" but actions speak louder than even your frantic sniveling. What's pathetic is that you ignore the many, many real life examples of conservative policy positions and actions that cause the Nazi and similarly aligned elements to flock to your party and instead insist on clinging to "But... socialist!!" You think these guys don't know which party is best for getting them what they really want? Whistling past the graveyard doesn't change that.


You do realize that the folks showing up at white nationalist rallies and whatnot are not actually the same folks who were running the government back in Germany in the 1940s, right?

Forgive me for talking about the actual political party while you were talking about... well... something completely unrelated.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#710 Feb 28 2018 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,304 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except, you know, the guys calling themselves Socialists. Not them, I guess.

You mean the ones who attend Right Wing rallies and wanted Trump to be president?

Actions vs Words, kiddo. I realize that when a bunch of Nazis show up for the conservative movement, all you have left is "But... but... socialist!!!" but actions speak louder than even your frantic sniveling. What's pathetic is that you ignore the many, many real life examples of conservative policy positions and actions that cause the Nazi and similarly aligned elements to flock to your party and instead insist on clinging to "But... socialist!!" You think these guys don't know which party is best for getting them what they really want? Whistling past the graveyard doesn't change that.


You do realize that the folks showing up at white nationalist rallies and whatnot are not actually the same folks who were running the government back in Germany in the 1940s, right?

Forgive me for talking about the actual political party while you were talking about... well... something completely unrelated.


I am genuinely surprised you did not try to invoke Godwin's law ( then again even you must feel it does not apply ). Still, heavens forfend we discuss Germans in 1940s when discussing fascism. Good grief, next thing you know, they will want to talk facts and figures. We can't have that, can we?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#711 Feb 28 2018 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,333 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Hmm. This is rather aggravating. Your answer clearly demands a deep dive and I do not think I will be able to sacrifice much time for it. Sadness.


If you're not willing to spend any time analyzing things, maybe you should not blanketly dismiss the other guy's position as "idiocy". You might just be looking into a mirror and aren't aware of it.

Quote:
I do find it amusing that you consider labels indoctrination of some sort; most people refer to it as basic education ( I mean yeah, if I was more cynical I could entertain the idea of the words being interchangeable ). I find it interesting that you need to upend established labels to fit your narrative. I also find it interesting that objective evaluation happens to fit your idea of fascism, but we will get to that later.


When you use a label, but are unwilling to dig into why that label is used, where it came from, what it meant historically, etc, then yeah... You're just spouting a word for the sake of spouting the word. And you're assuming that word has some kind of meaning and power, but not bothering to find out why.

You can apply any label to anything, right? Let me call my tax hike a "tax cut". No one will notice that their rates actually went up, right? Oh wait. Reality sets in at some point. Call a passenger car a "Truck" because right now Trucks are polling well, and we want people to buy them more. It's not uncommon for folks, especially in politics to find a good sounding label to apply to their policies or agenda, and bad sounding ones to their opponents. It's somewhat meaningless though, and a smart observer looks past the labels and examines what is actually happening. It's the reality of things that matter.

And the reality is that the overarching political mechanism of fascism is remarkably similar to that of socialism. Both are part of the same basic concept. That in a democracy, you can gain power by promising the voters to use the power of the government to take the direct kinds of actions that they want. It's differentiated from classical liberalism specifically because the later places limits on what government may do. And yes, one of the dangers of all socialist systems is that they can tend towards pandering to the mob.

Again, the only real difference is what the mob demands. If the mob is demanding better health care, you create government funded health care. If the mob is demanding better roads, you build roads. And if you get the mob whipped up in a frenzy about "undesirables", then guess what the government is going to tend to do?

Quote:
I could point that Il Duce himself stated:

Quote:
We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism.... We intend to be an active minority, attract the proletariat away from the official Socialist party. But if the middle class thinks that we are going to be their lightning rods, they are mistaken.


Now it may be just my naive interpretation, but by your definition he would be declaring war against himself. He certainly was not opposed to nationalism. Guess who else is not opposed to blind jingoistic nationalism. The Republican party ( mild exaggeration here, but I hope you get the idea ).


He's talking about a particular branch of socialism, not "Socialism" as a broad concept. Again. Labels. He's using them too. "The socialists" were a specific set of people in Europe at the time, with a specific political agenda. One of the things you have to realize about Europe during that time period is that almost all of the political structures were (and most still are) socialist. More correctly, they are all variations of "Social Liberalism", which specifically differentiates itself from "Classical Liberalism" in that it believes that the government should act directly for the good of the people, and not just to protect the rights of the people. Social Liberalism is where you get the concept of "positive rights".

That concept is present in all forms of socialism, regardless of a given political party's specific name, or label. He's basically saying "we're not them!", referring to a specific political movement present at the time. But this is more like the method actor differentiating himself from the character actor. They are both still acting, right?

At the time, there were two major factions of socialism, and quite a bit of conflict between them. One was more or less a multi-national socialist movement. Where it didn't matter which country you were in. They were kind of the open borders folks of the day, arguing that if "the people" rose up and pushed for change, it would happen everywhere, and national borders wouldn't matter. Somewhat naive, but there you have it. Kind of comes directly from Marx really. The opposing theory was some form of socialism bounded by a single nation. So the nation came first and set up its own socialist system. This theory manifested in two different ways. Fascism and Communism. Again, not to be confused at all with the broader political ideologies themselves. That's just what they called themselves. Both were about instituting systems within the confines of a single government entity, just some of the specifics varied.

You should really look up the history of development of socialism in Europe. It's a pretty fascinating period. It's a lot more complex than just "there were socialists and fascists and communists". Honestly, they were all "socialist movements", just the latter two picked different names in order to differentiate themselves from the more common use. Um... All of them are still basically variations on the same basic ideology though.

Quote:
Now, in the real world, political spectrum is simplified thusly mostly to avoid retarded conversations such as these. And before you will accuse me of simplifying it with only 2 poles, you just tried to squish fascism onto simple small government vs big government spectrum. And that is before we can talk about whether, the fasci portion, the ****** effect of bundling together is a function of just fascism or, surprise, ******* all ******* political movements out there.


I'm sure those guys are well meaning and all, but they are just plain wrong. Here's the problem. "Left" and "Right" are relative terms. The site gets it correct, that they are terms regarding change versus status quo. The terms originated from the French Parliament during the revolution, to signify the relative positions of the members regarding how far they were willing to go towards keeping the status quo (which in their case meant Monarchy), versus change (Democracy/Republic/Liberalism/etc).

The problem is that the terms don't stay consistent past any given point of time. What is viewed as "leftist" is based on what is "new", while "right wing" is what is "current". But sometimes, they harken back to their origin, meaning "authoritarian" versus "libertarian". But... well... not always. They are poor terms to use, because a "left wing" movement is not always about freedom and liberty, and a "right wing" movement is not always about increased government power. In fact, in the 20th century, since most countries had already adopted liberalism to some degree, this had become the "political right". Hence the term "Classical Liberalism". The "new thing" was this concept that arose in the mid 19th century called "Social Liberalism". This was certainly a "Leftist" movement, but was in fact a movement away from the very liberalist "status quo" and towards a more authoritarian state. Of course, even back then they played on the idea that they were "leftist" or "liberals" to claim to be on the liberlist side of things, and not the authoritarian side.

But the reality is that moving from a system with small weak governments to strong central governments engaged in direct manipulation of the industry and economic condition of the citizens is by any measure an increase in authoritarianism. And that includes all forms of socialist movements. And yes, that includes both fascism and communism as well. All rest on the basic premise that it's not enough to have a government that simply provides the people with the freedom to pursue their own outcomes, but that the government must step in and ensure some degree of positive outcome for the people, else some of them will fail and be left in poverty.

All of these ideologies share that concept. Every. Single. One.

Quote:
Is your argument that with less government, we would have less institutionally sanctioned violence?


With less government, we would have more individual freedom. That is my argument. And I wouldn't just restrict it to "violence". I'd say that with less individual freedom, there's greater chance of a government coming to power that will infringe our freedoms in ways we really don't want, including ways that harm us. That's not going to always happen, but it certainly enables it. Also, let's recall that we're also limiting this conversation to modern democracies, since that's where the two primary ideologies I'm talking about sit. Clearly, a dictatorship might also be violent to its citizens (or it could be benevolent, who knows?), but it would not fall within the parameters of either socialism or liberalism at all. Terms like "left and right", and "liberal and conservative" simply don't apply to that form of government. You don't have "leftist movements" within a monarchy. You can only have them within some form of democracy/republic. Just making sure we're clear here.

Quote:
And just in case you were going with "but Republican Party" is totally against all those ( it is only the Democratic Party and its policies !!1 ) :

Republican party does not have a problem to use big nanny state to tell me MJ is bad for me.
Republican party does not have a problem with big nanny state telling women what to do with their bodies.


Those are terrible examples of "big government", since both fall into legitimate areas of law enforcement. We can debate the particulars of each, but in both cases we're talking about laws that correctly act in a negative manner "tell people what they may not do". That isn't related to the issue of socialism at all. The "nanny state" is about the government stepping in and "helping" you, in many cases, whether you want that help or not, or whether the "help" actually helps you in the long run.

Quote:
Is your argument is that Republican Party is a big nanny state supporter and beneficiary as well?


No. It's not. The GOP is broadly opposed to federal programs that have as their primary purpose "helping people". We believe that this is often more harmful than helpful, and the cost is often hidden or ignored. We believe that the people are best when they are allowed to provide for themselves and that the very presence of government "help" acts as a crutch and often results in less optimal base outcomes for many people. The government's primary role is to provide an environment in which people can thrive, and otherwise leave them alone. At the federal level, this means national defense, foreign affairs, some standard setting, managing interactions between states, etc. But that's about it.


It's almost like you honestly don't understand what I mean by "big government".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#712 Feb 28 2018 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,333 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except, you know, the guys calling themselves Socialists. Not them, I guess.

You mean the ones who attend Right Wing rallies and wanted Trump to be president?

Actions vs Words, kiddo. I realize that when a bunch of Nazis show up for the conservative movement, all you have left is "But... but... socialist!!!" but actions speak louder than even your frantic sniveling. What's pathetic is that you ignore the many, many real life examples of conservative policy positions and actions that cause the Nazi and similarly aligned elements to flock to your party and instead insist on clinging to "But... socialist!!" You think these guys don't know which party is best for getting them what they really want? Whistling past the graveyard doesn't change that.


You do realize that the folks showing up at white nationalist rallies and whatnot are not actually the same folks who were running the government back in Germany in the 1940s, right?

Forgive me for talking about the actual political party while you were talking about... well... something completely unrelated.


I am genuinely surprised you did not try to invoke Godwin's law ( then again even you must feel it does not apply ). Still, heavens forfend we discuss Germans in 1940s when discussing fascism. Good grief, next thing you know, they will want to talk facts and figures. We can't have that, can we?


Huh? Joph wasn't talking about Germans in the 1940. That was my exact point. I was saying that the folks in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany, who called themselves Fascists were following a branch of socialism. Joph responded by talking about modern day protesters at rallies, waving flags and applying random unrelated labels to themselves as though that meant a darn thing.

It doesn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#713 Feb 28 2018 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You do realize that the folks showing up at white nationalist rallies and whatnot are not actually the same folks who were running the government back in Germany in the 1940s, right?

So the conservative wing just attracts nationalists who want to get rid of all the Jews and non-white races and believe in the purity of white culture and use Hitler as their model and wave the swastika... but not Nazis?

Whatever you need to tell yourself, man Smiley: laugh

I mean, shit, there's no Nazi Party government officials from 1940 attending left-wing socialist rallies either so I guess, if that's the desperate metric we're trying to excuse ourselves with, then its a moot point.


Edited, Feb 28th 2018 10:27pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#714 Feb 28 2018 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,304 posts
Quote:
angrymnk wrote:
Hmm. This is rather aggravating. Your answer clearly demands a deep dive and I do not think I will be able to sacrifice much time for it. Sadness.


If you're not willing to spend any time analyzing things, maybe you should not blanketly dismiss the other guy's position as "idiocy". You might just be looking into a mirror and aren't aware of it.


You might be misrepresenting my statement a tad bit. I bemoan my physical inability to spend as much time on it as I probably should. I am being dead serious here. Openly saying fascism is left-wing is a little much for my delicate sensibilities. I consider it idiocy, because it a little like saying that water is dry, because it is made of oxygen and oxygen is in air and air is dry. It is not a great argument. It is a distraction. No. Wait. It is an attempt to re-shuffle already established labels for the purpose of benefiting your argument. It is lazy approach. No. It is a lazy approach and bad argument.

So yeah. Sadness.

Quote:
When you use a label, but are unwilling to dig into why that label is used, where it came from, what it meant historically, etc, then yeah... You're just spouting a word for the sake of spouting the word. And you're assuming that word has some kind of meaning and power, but not bothering to find out why.


Fear not for I feel your disdain for labels of all sorts, the power they wield and your apparent affinity towards bad argumentation. Allow me to draw again from the wisdom of Mussolini to ease those fears. He had similar issues with labels:

Quote:
These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a **** about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words


Allow me to present my bad argument thusly, Mussolini equals Gbaji ergo Gbaji is a variable fascist terrorized by labels.

Anyway. Who is unwilling? I am perfectly fine discussing origins of the words fascism. Hey, you did it before me. Mad props. I am just unwilling to, you know, immediately accept you changing an already established label so that it can fit into your argumentation better. If you wanna to be Gallileo and upset the establishment of generally agreed upon political science basics,it would help to have a little more than "I DECLARE THESE LABELS TO BE INCORRECT!". Show me that you are Gallileo material first.

Quote:
You can apply any label to anything, right? Let me call my tax hike a "tax cut". No one will notice that their rates actually went up, right? Oh wait. Reality sets in at some point.


Interesting. This is exactly the issue I have with you. Fascism has a rather specific label that you would want to remove so that you could apply your own. But certainly YOU can apply any label to anything right? After all, you are Gbaji!

Quote:
Again, the only real difference is what the mob demands


Ah well, mobs can't demand **** under fascism. Mobs demand and they end up on the wrong side of the fence. That you think state cares about the mob's wants is just odd. It is almost like you cannot differentiate between functioning democracy and fascism. It is illuminating.

Quote:
We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism.... We intend to be an active minority, attract the proletariat away from the official Socialist party. But if the middle class thinks that we are going to be their lightning rods, they are mistaken


Quote:
Quote:
Now it may be just my naive interpretation, but by your definition he would be declaring war against himself. He certainly was not opposed to nationalism. Guess who else is not opposed to blind jingoistic nationalism. The Republican party ( mild exaggeration here, but I hope you get the idea ).

He's talking about a particular branch of socialism, not "Socialism" as a broad concept.


Ah, of course. What was I thinking? I mean he clearly just wanted to say that he was just a different kind of communist and not that he did not like socialism as evidenced in another quote:

Quote:
The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists.


In reality, I kinda agree with you. The guy was a true Trump of his era saying pretty much whatever sold to get to power.

Quote:
You should really look up the history of development of socialism in Europe. It's a pretty fascinating period. It's a lot more complex than just "there were socialists and fascists and communists". Honestly, they were all "socialist movements", just the latter two picked different names in order to differentiate themselves from the more common use. Um... All of them are still basically variations on the same basic ideology though.


A good name can do a lot. Just ask marketing.

Quote:
I'm sure those guys are well meaning and all, but they are just plain wrong. Here's the problem. "Left" and "Right" are relative terms.


Ah well, this is best we can do in US. Most people understand left and right in US. I happen to agree that it is a silly way to represent a complex political being such as yourself, but I did not come up with this crap. You guys did. So forgive me while I am attempting to communicate in your own political language.

Wanna pick a different spectra? Tuff noodles. You will spend unholy amount of pages just trying to convince others that:
1) It actually defines something well
2) It is useful for the argument
3) Actually works
4) And is not a waste of time

Good luck with that.

Quote:
All of these ideologies share that concept. Every. Single. One.


Ah. Yes. And bad argumentation continues. All of these ideologies also share humans. Every. Single. One. Coincidence?

Quote:
Just making sure we're clear here.


Sure, I mean its not like we were going to discuss tribal councils, necrocracy or alien consensus based hive-mind. We can keep it to democracy-like products. I am not completely without heart.

I wrote:
And just in case you were going with "but Republican Party" is totally against all those ( it is only the Democratic Party and its policies !!1 ) :

Republican party does not have a problem to use big nanny state to tell me MJ is bad for me.
Republican party does not have a problem with big nanny state telling women what to do with their bodies.[/quote]

You wrote:
Those are terrible examples of "big government", since both fall into legitimate areas of law enforcement. We can debate the particulars of each, but in both cases we're talking about laws that correctly act in a negative manner "tell people what they may not do". That isn't related to the issue of socialism at all. The "nanny state" is about the government stepping in and "helping" you, in many cases, whether you want that help or not, or whether the "help" actually helps you in the long run.[/quote]

Terrible example. Just horrible. Legitimate areas of law enforcement being the ones you want to have enforced... right? I see what you did there.

Oh wait, you are trying to tell me that Republicans are not stepping in and helping me to get off MJ and help me to ensure that the baby lives long enough for me to take care for it myself? That is might nice of you nanny state. Thank you so very much. I did not want that help, but thank you!

That wasn't so bad. You could try the labels things again. Maybe it will stick next time.



******* quotes; i cant deal with this sthi tonite

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 11:16pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 11:21pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 11:22pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 11:23pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 11:25pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#715 Feb 28 2018 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire: Discuss
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#716 Feb 28 2018 at 10:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,304 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire: Discuss


Yellow.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#717 Mar 01 2018 at 12:49 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,539 posts
gbaji wrote:
You do realize that the folks showing up at white nationalist rallies and whatnot are not actually the same folks who were running the government back in Germany in the 1940s, right?
You do realize a lot of them are calling themselves national socialists...right?....right?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#718 Mar 01 2018 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,394 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire: Discuss
Now I'm getting a little verklempt.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#719 Mar 01 2018 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji: We're the Party of Lincoln! Remember Lincoln? From the 1860s? That's us!! We're totally that guy! He was a Republican and we call ourselves Republicans and we're just like that Lincoln guy!

Also Gbaji: Pfffttt... guys who want to eliminate the Jews and quote Hitler and fly the swastika and advocate white purity and nationalism and call themselves National Socialists aren't really Nazis! Why, they weren't even literally, physically, running the German government in 1939!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#720 Mar 01 2018 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,539 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire: Discuss
Now I'm getting a little verklempt.
That Jophiel...he's like butta'.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#721 Mar 01 2018 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,440 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji: We're the Party of Lincoln! Remember Lincoln? From the 1860s? That's us!! We're totally that guy! He was a Republican and we call ourselves Republicans and we're just like that Lincoln guy!

Also Gbaji: Pfffttt... guys who want to eliminate the Jews and quote Hitler and fly the swastika and advocate white purity and nationalism and call themselves National Socialists aren't really Nazis! Why, they weren't even literally, physically, running the German government in 1939!
Exact same thing popped into my head as i was reading this thread.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#722 Mar 01 2018 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,333 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You do realize that the folks showing up at white nationalist rallies and whatnot are not actually the same folks who were running the government back in Germany in the 1940s, right?

So the conservative wing just attracts nationalists who want to get rid of all the Jews and non-white races and believe in the purity of white culture and use Hitler as their model and wave the swastika... but not Nazis?


The question was whether "The *****", as in "the folks running Germany during the 30s and 40s under that Adolph guy", were socialists. Actually, more broadly, whether the fascist parties of that time period were following branches of socialism. My argument is that they were. I am objectively correct in this assessment.

What other small movements and groups may exist today, and what labels they may apply to themselves, has absolutely zero to do with this at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#723 Mar 01 2018 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Actually, more broadly, whether the fascist parties of that time period were following branches of socialism. My argument is that they were. I am objectively correct in this assessment.

Sure. And people who say that chickens are dinosaurs are objectively correct but it's not actually meaningful when asking whether an island park full of rampaging dinosaurs is a good idea.
Quote:
What other small movements and groups may exist today, and what labels they may apply to themselves, has absolutely zero to do with this at all.

That actually IS the important part and the aspect that you're terrified to address. Because the question isn't really "Is blah, blah socialist?" but rather "Are these tendencies towards acts of terrible evil something we can just pin on those other guys or is there something in our own organization that is innately attracting these sorts of people?"

Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Confederates, etc all flock to the modern conservative wing due to its embrace of the worst aspects of cultural conservatism and willingness to use it as a fear tactic. They do not flock to the liberal wing because Nazis really care about "Death to the Jews, White power forever" a million times more than they care about public health care. Ignoring that or pretending that it doesn't count doesn't make it go away, it just makes you a willingly ignorant patsy to their ideology.

Edited, Mar 1st 2018 7:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#724 Mar 01 2018 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,333 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Openly saying fascism is left-wing is a little much for my delicate sensibilities. I consider it idiocy, because it a little like saying that water is dry, because it is made of oxygen and oxygen is in air and air is dry. It is not a great argument. It is a distraction. No. Wait. It is an attempt to re-shuffle already established labels for the purpose of benefiting your argument. It is lazy approach. No. It is a lazy approach and bad argument.


I didn't say fascism was "left-wing". In fact, I very specifically made the point of avoiding using relative-positional terms like "left" and "right", since their meaning changes significantly in different times and places. I said that fascism was a branch of socialism. Period. That statement is true. The Fascist movement grew out of the socialist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As I stated earlier, the early socialists were focused on the idea of "international socialism", or "pan-national socialism". Essentially, the idea that the rights of "the people" to take fair part in industrial wealth creation was not bounded by national boundaries. But this idea largely failed, since trying to implement an ideology that more or less required a strong governing hand to work, without utilizing actual governments, is great as an intellectual exercise, but not very practical. In the early 20th century many of these movements morphed into the idea of implementing "socialism in one state" (or some variation of that). And, as I already pointed out, this formed two sub-categories of socialism: Communism and Fascism. Both are about empowering the state to bring about the changes that "the people" want.

You're trying to list off differences between what you see as "socialism" and "fascism", find there are a number of them, and thus declare them completely separate. Then, you apply that within the modern "left vs right" model of politics, and assume that since fascism is not socialism, it thus cannot be "left", so it must therefore be "right", and must therefore be "conservative" in some way (relative to "liberal" of course). Um.. That's fallacious thinking though. There are vastly more differences between modern conservative ideology and fascism than there are between socialism and fascism. The first, and biggest one, is that whole "small versus big government" thing. You cannot have fascism under a conservative government. It's not just that there are differences in objective or rhetoric or whatever, but that the underpinnings of what actually defines modern conservative ideology prevents fascism from existing in the first place.

You can't have fascism without a strong central government. Classical liberalism promotes a small relatively weak government, while social liberalism promotes a strong central government. That the socialists intend for that strong central government to be used to do good things for the people is irrelevant. The mere acceptance of a strong central government as the means to "get things done", is the same launching point that fascism uses to establish itself. This is exactly how the primary two fascist governments we know of in history got their start. They didn't come about within an environment where small government was the ideology of the day, but one where big powerful centralized government was the assumed mode, with only the argument being over what exactly that strong central government should be doing.


Quote:
Anyway. Who is unwilling? I am perfectly fine discussing origins of the words fascism. Hey, you did it before me. Mad props. I am just unwilling to, you know, immediately accept you changing an already established label so that it can fit into your argumentation better.


Silly me. I'm going to put reality above an assumed association based labeling system every single time. The reality is that fascism (and communism for those keeping track) are both subsets of socialism. They both arose out of the socialist movements in the early 20th century. You have to basically ignore a century of history to fail to see this.


Quote:
Interesting. This is exactly the issue I have with you. Fascism has a rather specific label that you would want to remove so that you could apply your own. But certainly YOU can apply any label to anything right? After all, you are Gbaji!


I'm not applying labels at all though. I'm examining the actual feature of the various political ideologies themselves. I don't care what we call them. I'm looking at what they do, how they act, what they are based on, etc, and then drawing conclusions from that. Again, it's pretty obvious that any of a set of modern western political ideologies that all include "use a strong central government to get things done" are going to be on one "side" while "keep government small, and grant maximum freedom to the people to do what they want" will be diametrically opposed on the other "side".

You're basically arguing distinctions between different forms of government that are all on the same "side" of that axis. You're free to argue that those distinctions are significant (and I'll even agree with you in most cases), but the big axis is still the same. Socialism, communism, and fascism are all on the "authoritarian" side of the spectrum. What's baffling to me is how many people will try to put socialism anywhere else. As if, being benevolent rather than malevolent has any effect on how authoritarian a system is.

Hint: It doesn't.


Quote:
Ah well, mobs can't demand **** under fascism. Mobs demand and they end up on the wrong side of the fence. That you think state cares about the mob's wants is just odd. It is almost like you cannot differentiate between functioning democracy and fascism. It is illuminating.


You... don't actually understand how those guys got and kept their power. Shocking. You don't actually think people were forced to go to those massive rallies, do you? You don't think they were forced to join Hitler Youth groups, do you? Hitler and Mussolini were both wildly popular. Their policies were wildly popular. They were the freaking Beatles of their day. The "mob" demanded they lead. The mob demanded their programs. The mob demanded they "clean up the riff raff". They demanded every freaking thing.

We can discuss the mass psychology involved in this, but to suggest that they were fighting *against* the mob is to totally fail to understand how these kinds of horrific regimes come into power. They were the mob. What's scary is that failing to understand how certain political ideologies can use the mob to take power, and continue to do horrible things, all while having nearly 100% support of "the people" puts us in danger of seeing the same kind of things repeat.


Quote:
Ah, of course. What was I thinking? I mean he clearly just wanted to say that he was just a different kind of communist and not that he did not like socialism as evidenced in another quote:

Quote:
The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists.


Again. He's speaking of a specific set of political organizations which he was trying to differentiate himself from. But this is like the "People's liberation front" arguing about how different they are than the "Popular liberation front".

You're obsessing over the small differences between these groups, while ignoring the massive similarities.


Quote:
Oh wait, you are trying to tell me that Republicans are not stepping in and helping me to get off MJ and help me to ensure that the baby lives long enough for me to take care for it myself? That is might nice of you nanny state. Thank you so very much. I did not want that help, but thank you!


Huh? The GOP isn't about "helping people get off MJ", at all. If anything, our starting position would be "do what you want, but you're responsible for the outcome". Now, in a already existing condition where MJ is illegal (um, created by the Democrats btw, just in case you are wondering), we do believe that if a law exists, it should be enforced. What we also oppose is "rule by fiat", meaning you pass a ton of laws and then selectively enforce them. This becomes a tyranny of the executive, where, by choosing which laws to enforce and not enforce, we basically have a dictatorship ruling over us. We kinda don't like that. Steps on the whole "small government" thing.

You want marijuana legal, then legalize it. While individual members of the GOP (and the Dems) have their own personal position on the issue, the GOP as a whole doesn't really care one way or the other. If it's legal, then it's legal. If it's not, then it's not. What we care about is the idea that the rest of us should not be on the hook for your bad choices. So no, "stepping in and helping you do *anything*" is not part of our ideology.

It's the Dems who couch their politics in terms of "helping people". We don't. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the primary difference between these two ideological approaches is over the idea of whether the government should be empowered to actively involved in "making people's lives better". We don't believe that's the government's purpose. Precisely because we believe that a government, once empowered to make people's lives better, will not stop at the first level of things, or the second, but will continue to find new and better ways to improve things, and at each step leaving us will less and less individual freedom.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#725 Mar 01 2018 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,333 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Actually, more broadly, whether the fascist parties of that time period were following branches of socialism. My argument is that they were. I am objectively correct in this assessment.

Sure. And people who say that chickens are dinosaurs are objectively correct but it's not actually meaningful when asking whether an island park full of rampaging dinosaurs is a good idea.


Except that wasn't the context of the discussion. It was Bijou saying this:

Quote:
Given that in the past you couldn't discern Communists from friggin' *****...


He was directly referencing an argument I've made several times on this forum that "The *****" (as in "the political party in power in Germany in the 30s and 40s), were a spin off of socialist ideology.

WTF?

Quote:
Quote:
What other small movements and groups may exist today, and what labels they may apply to themselves, has absolutely zero to do with this at all.

That actually IS the important part...


No, it's not. Not when the person I responded to referenced a very specific position I made in the past, that was specifically about a political party in Germany in the 30s and 40s, then the context is strictly about that party at that time. And yes, other modern movements who may choose to label themselves in various ways really does have absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making about **** Germany. It's not like they had a time machine, and traveled forward in time, examined what modern neo-***** are doing and saying, then went back in time and formed their party based on what they saw.

You're being ridiculous. It's my freaking argument Joph. I think I'm entitled to define what that argument is and isn't about.


Quote:
Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Confederates, etc all flock to the modern conservative wing due to its embrace of the worst aspects of cultural conservatism and willingness to use it as a fear tactic. They do not flock to the liberal wing because Nazis really care about "Death to the Jews, White power forever" a million times more than they care about public health care. Ignoring that or pretending that it doesn't count doesn't make it go away, it just makes you a willingly ignorant patsy to their ideology.


Which, again, has nothing at all to do with the claim Bijou made, nor my statement to which he was referring.


You're also conflating terms with "modern conservative wing". That's not the GOP, though, is it? Remember when I pointed out how terms like "left", "right", "liberal", and "conservative" are all relative positional terms? This is one of those cases. They are "conservative" only in the sense of an attempt to return to "the way things were" (ie: segregation, racism, bigotry, whatever). They are not "conservative" in the sense of the GOP, where it's defined as a return to "classical liberalism" versus the more modern "social liberalism". Again, two things both labeled "conservative" aren't necessarily similar in any way at all, in the same way that two things both labeled "liberal" need not be.

They don't care about big versus small government. They care about their own small little racist ideas. Ideas which don't attract a whole lot of followers and have more or less zero political power in this country. What they call themselves is irrelevant. What they do believe has no specific ideological association in terms of our major political parties, and you're an abject fool to think otherwise.

My argument regarding socialism is that it's a more likely vehicle for such horrible ideas to actually be implemented as policy by a government. And no, I'm not even speaking specifically about the US government. Any government, given sufficient power, could adopt such things. If it has the power to do so. As I've pointed out repeatedly, you simply cannot get that kind of abuses under a system in which classical liberalism is in play. It's only the more modern social liberalism that can do so. That's not to say that all will, but it creates the possibility for it to happen.

My larger point is that it's monumentally stupid to deny this. I does, in fact, increase the likelihood of exactly that sort of thing happening, because we aren't diligent in watching for it. If you just assume that "your side" can't possibly do something bad, then you're basically just ensuring it will happen. I have no illusions that power can and will be used in bad ways. That's why I support an ideology that includes small government as one of its core tenants. I assume that anyone in government, regardless of "side", can do "bad things". I'm not blind to this at all. In fact, I assume it will happen, so let's not give them the power to do real damage.

Denying that it can even happen? That's foolish IMO.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#726 Mar 02 2018 at 12:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're also conflating terms with "modern conservative wing". That's not the GOP, though, is it?
I previously wrote:
But no one says "Man, I like the idea of a flat tax (or nationalized health care).... I think I'll join the Nazis." Likewise, no one says "You know, the real evil was Hitler's views on the federal reserve banking system." Nope, for that it's the headliner issues: racial purity, cultural purity, etc. And when a bunch of "white purity & culture" people are picking between one party whose leader says we need more immigrants from Norway and fewer from "shithole" African & Latin American nations and another party that advocates for universal health care, stopping the darkies from entering the US wins every time. The party that aligns with their English-Only policy wins every time. The party that wants to build a giant wall wins every time. The party that wants to deport however million Hispanics wins every time. The party that launches conspiracy theories and protests about "Ground Zero Mosques" aligns perfectly with a group that says only religions that don't offend white people should be legal. A president who says that the media has too much freedom sounds great to people who want the law to require all newspaper columnists to be English-speaking US citizens. The party that goes balls out to defend monuments to men who died to preserve and enshrine the subjugation of African-Americans wins every time. The guys who believe that homosexuals are degenerates is probably going to pick the party that cheers when its civil servants refuse to follow the law and issue marriage licenses. This is ignoring all of the Trump campaign's race baiting and plausible deniability antics during the campaign.

Yeah. It's the modern GOP.
Quote:
Denying that it can even happen? That's foolish IMO.

Well, no one ever accused you of not being a fool.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2018 12:25am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT