Wake Up, America

Shit, Damo are you "capping" people's asses for stuff they post here?

You know, you might have said so before I got into that discussion with you on the abortion thread.
LOL. I always hate it when I am caught "capping asses"...
 
But anyway, what do you suggest, damo? Should I "go along to get along"? Is that the wisdom you offer?
 
But anyway, what do you suggest, damo? Should I "go along to get along"? Is that the wisdom you offer?
No, but you should work to not sound insane at the time you are attempting to "spread the truth".

If every other word is "nazi" or "fascist" then you include groups that are clearly not part of the game, you just make yourself look foolish. If any part of what you say is incorrect because of your excitement, the person who wishes not to believe will work that as you simply lying about it all.

How you present a case is as important as the case you present. Ask any lawyer. How the jury, in this case those you work to convince, hears you and responds to you will tell far more of success or failure than the fact that, oh let's say 80% (an example) of what you say is absolutely true...

If your words make you appear crazy, people will think of you as crazy and listen less and mock more.

Give information rather than emotive opinion.

"These nazis are polluting your water!" The pollution part might be 100% true, but as soon as you start in with "nazi" you have taken about 70% of possible people who might have listened to you right out of the equation.

If you seem to be running around in a panic, people will think you are paranoid. Emotive argument makes you seem that way. It sets your groups up for far more failure than success. I understand that being part of the "few who realize the truth" makes you feel good, and I think that it the likely intrinsic goal of most of the people running around like Chicken Little, it doesn't actually give people much chances to take you seriously.

So, what I tell you is to work to present yourself as less emotive and "Panic-stricken" by using less emotive terminology. Present facts without the "See these 'satanists' are 'blah, blah, blah...' (That's what people hear right after the word 'satanists'). Even if they are in fact Satanists, it doesn't help you to convince people when all they do is laugh at whatever follows and hear only "blah, blah, blah"...
 
LOL. I always hate it when I am caught "capping asses"...

LOL... this reminds me of the comment an old friend of mine made on a message board he administered several years ago. Someone popped off something about his "half-assed board" and he replied... "It's difficult to run a half-assed board with complete asses running around!" ;)
 
No, but you should work to not sound insane at the time you are attempting to "spread the truth".

LOL... I love this one too! Thanks for the chuckles Damo!

The problem is, there is no known cure for insanity. AssHat is destined to always sound insane, because he is! He can't help that, it's beyond his control, as he has demonstrated here. He first started trying to convince people he was 'conservative', then 'moderate', then 'independent'... but the more it was challenged, the more he took it over the edge. Now he just sounds like a stark-raving lunatic liberal. Which is my guess as to what he has been all along. All the classic indications are there, over-exaggerating everything to try and make a point, forming arguments against things he has no alternative solution to, insisting on promoting these crazy conspiracy theories, hatred for the Jews, all the way down to his stupid screen name, which seems to be the norm for pinheads. Although, his fits him very well!

I shouldn't bash on poor AssHat though, he can't help his mental condition, I should be a more compassionate conservative and try to understand his affliction can't be remedied.

**slaps himself** Bad Neocon, Dixie, you should be ashamed!
 
No, but you should work to not sound insane at the time you are attempting to "spread the truth".

If every other word is "nazi" or "fascist" then you include groups that are clearly not part of the game, you just make yourself look foolish. If any part of what you say is incorrect because of your excitement, the person who wishes not to believe will work that as you simply lying about it all.

How you present a case is as important as the case you present. Ask any lawyer. How the jury, in this case those you work to convince, hears you and responds to you will tell far more of success or failure than the fact that, oh let's say 80% (an example) of what you say is absolutely true...

If your words make you appear crazy, people will think of you as crazy and listen less and mock more.

Give information rather than emotive opinion.

"These nazis are polluting your water!" The pollution part might be 100% true, but as soon as you start in with "nazi" you have taken about 70% of possible people who might have listened to you right out of the equation.

If you seem to be running around in a panic, people will think you are paranoid. Emotive argument makes you seem that way. It sets your groups up for far more failure than success. I understand that being part of the "few who realize the truth" makes you feel good, and I think that it the likely intrinsic goal of most of the people running around like Chicken Little, it doesn't actually give people much chances to take you seriously.

So, what I tell you is to work to present yourself as less emotive and "Panic-stricken" by using less emotive terminology. Present facts without the "See these 'satanists' are 'blah, blah, blah...' (That's what people hear right after the word 'satanists'). Even if they are in fact Satanists, it doesn't help you to convince people when all they do is laugh at whatever follows and hear only "blah, blah, blah"...


But they actually are Nazis, Fascists and satanists. You just hate the truth. Your pseudo intellectual analysis is highly flawed.
 
But they actually are Nazis, Fascists and satanists. You just hate the truth. Your pseudo intellectual analysis is highly flawed.
Once again. Even if they are, using such terminology makes you seem emotive and paranoid. As I said, you can keep right on doing it, and it has been shown to work SO WELL in the past by being totally ineffective. Or you can actually realize it and learn from the past, change some of the presentation, actually reach some of the audience...

Either way I am happy. You are entertaining as Chicken Little, and would be informative if you chose the second path.
 
For AssHat's Education....

Nazis---Nazism or Naziism, officially called National Socialism, refers primarily to the totalitarian ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party under Adolf Hitler. It also refers to the policies adopted by the government of Germany 1933 to 1945, a period in German history known as Nazi Germany or the "Third Reich".

On January 5, 1919, the party was founded as the German Workers' Party (DAP) by Anton Drexler. Hitler joined the party in September 1919, and became propaganda boss, renaming the party April 1, 1920, and becoming party leader July 29, 1921.

Nazism was not a precise, theoretically grounded ideology, or a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and groups, which were sometimes incoherent or mutually opposed. It consisted of a loose collection of ideas and positions: anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, nationalist collectivism, eugenics, anti-Semitism, anti-communism, anti-capitalism and others. As Nazism became dominant in Germany, especially after 1933, in practise Nazism was defined as whatever was decreed by the Nazi Party and in particular by the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.

Fascists-- Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and historical terms, above all other loyalties, and to create a mobilized national community. Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, totalitarianism, collectivism, anti-liberalism, regulation of the economy for the benefit of the state, anti-communism, and anti-Marxian socialism. There are numerous debates between scholars regarding the nature of fascism, and the kinds of political movements and governments that may be called fascist. Most scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements. However, some scholars say it is an "extremism of the center." Fascist movements have regarded themselves as representing a "third way" between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.

There is debate at both popular and academic levels regarding which historical and contemporary movements and governments may be called fascist. For example, the extent to which German Nazism may be considered a form of fascism is disputed.

Fascism has been defunct in the Western world as a major political ideology since the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II. There is considerable stigma attached to the name and to the concept, and it is not uncommon for politicians and activists both of the left and of the right to label their opponents pejoratively as "fascists". A small number of openly fascist political groups, however, continue to exist, such as the Italian Fiamma Tricolore.

Satanists--Satanism is a word which has been used over the years to describe a number of different belief systems in a number of contexts. People claiming to be Satanists—or outsiders claiming to describe Satanism—ascribe a wide variety of beliefs to Satanism. These range from the literal worship of a malevolent spiritual being (Theistic Satanism); to a kind of subversive ritual performance stressing the mockery of Christian symbols (most notably the Black Mass); to the claimed rediscovery of an ancient but misunderstood religion (e.g. Setianism, which conflates Satan with the Egyptian god Set); to the exaltation of hedonistic recreation, and the celebration of selfishness and pleasure.

============================

Any objective and reasonably SANE person, understands that Republican Conservatives are not Nazis, Fascists, or Satanists. This is emotive over-reactionary rhetoric spewed by someone devoid of reason and the inability to construct an honest argument. When you decide to come back and join reality, perhaps we can have a reasonable dialogue, as it stands, talking to you or reading what you have to say, is pointless.
 
Once again. Even if they are, using such terminology makes you seem emotive and paranoid. As I said, you can keep right on doing it, and it has been shown to work SO WELL in the past by being totally ineffective. Or you can actually realize it and learn from the past, change some of the presentation, actually reach some of the audience...

Either way I am happy. You are entertaining as Chicken Little, and would be informative if you chose the second path.

I disagree. Calling something by an accurate and descriptive term is not emotional, it's effective usage of language.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Calling something by an accurate and descriptive term is not emotional, it's effective usage of language.
The reaction people have to words and their impact is vital. If you wish to convince people, even if they really are "nazis", which they aren't. They are not "nationalist", the people you are trying to "out" are quite the opposite.

Using such words as that makes you seem emotive, even in accuracy. If indeed you are accurate, but as I stated you are not.

It is clear that they are not "nationalist" and therefore could not be nazis. As for Fascist, that one is debatable at least, but in its usage it brings forward an emotive response in those reading or hearing it, it makes you sound emotive and even, in some cases, hysterical. (Hence the "Chicken Little" moniker.)

Now, if you want people to listen you give them only facts without such words that provoke emotive response. Let them reach that conclusion.

If you wish people to actually listen rather than to seem, in your own head, more knowledgeable and the "only one" who can see the "light", then you will need to change your tactic. Hence my assertion that changes to the tactics of the past seem to be in order when considering the actual results of the same.

If your goal is to make yourself feel superior because only you have the right of things, then by all means continue with what you have been doing. The results are clear on that one as well. People who believe as you do can run around with the idea that they are "wiser" so long as they make sure others won't listen to them.
 
The reaction people have to words and their impact is vital. If you wish to convince people, even if they really are "nazis", which they aren't. They are not "nationalist", the people you are trying to "out" are quite the opposite.

Using such words as that makes you seem emotive, even in accuracy. If indeed you are accurate, but as I stated you are not.

It is clear that they are not "nationalist" and therefore could not be nazis. As for Fascist, that one is debatable at least, but in its usage it brings forward an emotive response in those reading or hearing it, it makes you sound emotive and even, in some cases, hysterical. (Hence the "Chicken Little" moniker.)

Now, if you want people to listen you give them only facts without such words that provoke emotive response. Let them reach that conclusion.

If you wish people to actually listen rather than to seem, in your own head, more knowledgeable and the "only one" who can see the "light", then you will need to change your tactic. Hence my assertion that changes to the tactics of the past seem to be in order when considering the actual results of the same.

If your goal is to make yourself feel superior because only you have the right of things, then by all means continue with what you have been doing. The results are clear on that one as well. People who believe as you do can run around with the idea that they are "wiser" so long as they make sure others won't listen to them.

They are like the nazis in their belief in fascism and elitism, but you're right, they're internationalists, not nationalists. They're internationalist fascists, with historical ties to the actual nazi movement. I stand corrected. They are fascist. That is accurate. They believe in a global government which is a union of corporate and state power. Internationalist Fascists. If accurate desciption seems "emotive" to you, it's only because the reality of the situation is actually alarming.
 
Last edited:
They are like the nazis in their belief in fascism and elitism, but you're right, they're internationalists, not nationalists. They're internationalist fascists, with historical ties to the actual nazi movement. I stand corrected. They are fascist. That is accurate. They believe in a global government which is a union of corporate and state power. Internationalist Fascists. If accurate desciption seems "emotive" to you, it's only because the reality of the situation is actually alarming.
Whether it is alarming or not, terminology can ruin the attempt to get across any information. If you seem even a little crazy, then they will not listen and hence you guys have had no success for centuries of "outing" the "fascists".
 
Damo, you are trying to reason with a lunatic. There is no way to get AssHat to see what you are saying, he is too far gone. You'll notice, he is a one-man crusade here, no one else is buying into a word he's saying, not even the other nutbags who frequent this site. I put him in the same category as Brent, when he was trolling as "josef" on the other board, just a bunch of over-the-top hot air and emotive rhetoric based on some whacked out loony view of the world.

Isn't it amazing how he is accusing others of being Fascist while trying to authoritatively ram his beliefs and thoughts down our throats as empirical fact?
 
Damo, you are trying to reason with a lunatic. There is no way to get AssHat to see what you are saying, he is too far gone. You'll notice, he is a one-man crusade here, no one else is buying into a word he's saying, not even the other nutbags who frequent this site. I put him in the same category as Brent, when he was trolling as "josef" on the other board, just a bunch of over-the-top hot air and emotive rhetoric based on some whacked out loony view of the world.

Isn't it amazing how he is accusing others of being Fascist while trying to authoritatively ram his beliefs and thoughts down our throats as empirical fact?

They are internationalist fascists. Damo was desperately splitting hairs about calling them Nazis, because nazis were nationalistic. He is right. THe new nazis are internatinalist, but they are similar to old nazis in their feeling of world entitlement, amorality, and fascist tendency. Nationalism itself isn't always bad, contrary to the dogmatic villification of the word carried out by the new internationalist nazis.


Yes. I'm authoritatively ramming my beliefs by telling the truth about these scumbags.
 
Last edited:
Whether it is alarming or not, terminology can ruin the attempt to get across any information. If you seem even a little crazy, then they will not listen and hence you guys have had no success for centuries of "outing" the "fascists".

No it can't. I will continue to use the right term.
 
They are internationalist fascists.

Hey idiot... there is no such thing! I posted what a "Fascist" is, you can read it above. It has nothing to do with what you are charging or claiming falsely. In fact, it is a complete contradiction of terms to say 'international' fascist, they are inherently 'nationalist' which is the OPPOSITE of 'internationalist'.
 
They are internationalist fascists.

Hey idiot... there is no such thing! I posted what a "Fascist" is, you can read it above. It has nothing to do with what you are charging or claiming falsely. In fact, it is a complete contradiction of terms to say 'international' fascist, they are inherently 'nationalist' which is the OPPOSITE of 'internationalist'.

Nationalism is often a part of fascism, but it can sometimes take on an internationalist flavor, as we see with the present crop of internationalist fascists, who are telling us whatever is good for the corporate bottom line is automatically good for all people of the world.

They are internationalist fascists, and even if you say that's the wrong term, that doesn't negate their existence or their agenda.
 
Back
Top