RW> Next... Make sure you are using the correct terms.  How
 RW> do you define Fascism?  From what I have read (I edited
 RW> it a lot because I was only going to make my first
 RW> point) you seem to be equating Fascism and Communism or
 RW> Socialism.  They are three totally different types of
 RW> governing.
GP> Look how warped your thinking has become from trying to
GP> focus on the Conflict of Opposites presented to you by the
GP> kept media!  Don't you  see it?
No I don't.  All I see it the fact that you are trying
to equate two different forms of governments.
GP> I'll let Benito Mussolini himself define Fascism.  When
GP> asked "What is a Fascist," Mussolini replied, "I am a
GP> Marxist . . ."
Doesn't work.  There's nothing there to say what a
fascist is. 
GP> "Nazi" stands for "National SOCIALIST Workers Party of
GP> Germany." 
Problem.  There was nothing socialist about the Nazis.
They weren't even good fascist, they were nothing more
then dictators, i.e. a government ran by one person.
The members of the party and even the military did not
swear their loyalty to the party but to Adolf Hitler.
GP> "USSR" stands for "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics."
Another problem.  The USSR was a poor attempt at
Marxism.  The party was to decide what the people
needed and then had the people make it.  "From each
according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs."
GP> You see, you've been watching the Nazis fighting it out with
GP> the Communists, the Conflict of Opposites, right & left; . .
GP> . but guess what? . . . Fascists/Communists are not really
Sure they are.  Fascists believe that the government
should control the manufacturing base and the communist
believe that the people should.
GP> opposites at all, but Brothers in Socialism.  They aren't
GP> screwing each other at all, but its you who they are coming
GP> down the middle at with both guns of Socialism balzing,
GP> while you eyes & mind are entertained by the "Opposites."
That's like saying that watching two gangs killing each
other is making them stronger because they are both out
to steal my car.  As long as they are killing each
other they are growing weaker while allowing me to grow
stronger.
 RW> Not impossible but until there are changes in the
 RW> election laws it is impractical.  Doing so now, or any
 RW> time soon, will only split the pro gun vote and allow
 RW> even more anti gun people to be elected.  This is one
 RW> reason it hasn't been done.
GP> Well that's the silliest thing I've ever heard!  You're
GP> trying to tell me that if gun owners don't vote anti-gun,
GP> then its going to split the pro-gun vote!  Well, perhaps you
GP> are right.  If all gunowners vote anti-gun, then to get one
Of course I'm right .  How do you think Clinton got
elected with 43% of the vote?  Because the other 57%
was split between two, sort of, conservatives.
GP> fact, split the vote.  Only, it would not be the pro-gun
GP> vote as you claim . . . it would be splitting the anti-gun
GP> gun owners vote!
How so?  Do you think the republican party is going to
turn as anti gun as the demos?  Do you think that ALL
gun owners are one issue voters?
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------