What a Fascist sounds like when he opens his mouth

[BitWhys]

Most everything else in there was you trying weasel out or redefine the arguement to somethign im not debating, this is the only statement that matters.

Its the one where you admit you were wrong.

I accept your apology.

Are you telling me you don't accept...

"Using government resources to compete against private business entities in the same sector is Fascism."

as a description of Fascism?

After all, there's nothing inconsistent about that and any other description of Fascism I've used. Contrary to what modern Fascists would want us to believe, not all Fascism comes with jackboots.

 

[Zzarchov]

No, im accepting that is your description of fascism, which even you admit fits the description of the Wheat board as is. What function or use, or if its a good or bad idea, thats irrelevant to me.

The change to the wheat board cannot make it fascist if it is already fascist by your description.

Unless you are denying that the wheatboard already competes with private business in the export of wheat, and does so with government funds. In such a practice, under your definition of fascism, it is already fascist.

In such a case, you cannot become "more fascist" as there are set criteria, in such a case something is either fascist or not. Seeing as the Wheat Board already was, by your definition.

This change to it, has not made it fascist. It was already, your just attacking anything a conservative does (something you already admited to as well).

Therefore, you have admited you were wrong, and I accept.

 

[BitWhys]

No, im accepting that is your description of fascism, which even you admit fits the description of the Wheat board as is...

Baloney. The Wheat Board does not compete for supply within the region that it serves.

 

[Zzarchov]

Baloney. The Wheat Board does not compete for supply within the region that it serves.

Im sorry, when did your definition of fascism include "compete for supply" I believe your definition is

Using government resources to compete against private business entities in the same sector is Fascism.

Nope, don't see the word "supply" in there anywhere. Ergo, by your definition, the Wheatboard was already fascist. Thus this change does not make it fascist (even though you hate conservative ideas merely for being from conservatives)

 

[BitWhys]

Im sorry, when did your definition of fascism include "compete for supply" I believe your definition is



Nope, don't see the word "supply" in there anywhere. Ergo, by your definition, the Wheatboard was already fascist. Thus this change does not make it fascist (even though you hate conservative ideas merely for being from conservatives)

I said compete in the same sector. Over and over again I said compete in the same sector. I really didn't expect you to be so finicky as to pretend you don't understand exactly which sector the new resellers would be competing with the Wheat Board in. I suppose I should have known better.

You mention exports over and over. Assuming you're not just using that simply to be argumentative consider this:

Since the Wheat Board has been granted a monopoly on supply in the western provinces by volume and overall market share they also have a technical monopoly nationwide on the grains they buy and sell. What this means is that in effect there is no competition and that in turn means resellers outside the Wheat Board's jursidiction are not competitors at all but price takers in a monopoly environment. In other words where there is overlap of product nationally everyone else piggybacks beneficial return from the Wheat Board cooperative lead role from the single desk.

If there really were detrimental competition between the regions you could count on farmers in said regions making a stink about unfair advantage but they don't. Not that the Conservatives would offer it as an argument. Its not like they want Fascism to become commonly mentioned the national debate. In fact they had the word stifled in Parliament not so long ago by having its use reaffirmed as unparliamentary language.

So any truth to the rumour the Wheat Board already is Fascist because its not the only export company in Canada is greatly overexaggerated. I'll tell you this much, though. Now that Strahl has let the cat out of the bag to whatever extent that it IS true is all the more reason to privatize completely it instead of making things worse.

 

[Zzarchov]

I see, your arguement is now "Im actually wrong, but now it doesn't matter what the definition is, its whatever I decide thats fascist that is, boo hoo, conservatives are bad"

You have so many holes in your logic It could star in porn.

 

[BitWhys]

No

My response is that I wasn't blindingly precise enough to fend off the pro-Conservative trolls that are bound to make as much noise as possible to try and drown out the truth.

I've said nothing that needs retraction. Presently the Wheat Board competes with no other entities in any way that merits describing its orientation as Fascist.

but since Strahl's already pooched it its time to privatize.

 

[Zzarchov]

In a way, that fits your view.

AKA: The current policy wasn't conservative, so its not fascist.

The new policy is, so NOW its fascist.


Nice. Quit trolling.

Thanks for chiming in, but you've already made yourself clear. Your just gonna call anything fascist that doesn't come from your personal buddy list.

 

[BitWhys]

so...

Are you telling me you don't accept...

"Using government resources to compete against private business entities in the same sector is Fascism."

as a description of Fascism?

Yes? No? More of you cowardice? step right up.

 

[Zzarchov]

No, I accept that as your definition of fascism. But the TRUE definition of Fascism is not competition in the private sector, its control of it.

Fascism is primarily different from socialism as form of collectivism in that it regards the need for union over struggle. People exist to support the state in fascism (different to Nazism where the state exists to support the race).

So yes, your definition is kinda lame.

Edit: To clairfy, thats even the definition you post.

Your actual definition that you let slip "Those people I vote for aren't fascist no matter what, and those I don't vote for are automatically fascist" is even more lame.

Edit:
And yes, the post directly above me is asking if I accept that as a definition of fascism. It mentions nothing else. So rather than continue in a post war, im just gonna wait until you become at all rational or sane.

 

[BitWhys]

...
So yes, your definition is kinda lame.
...

I never said it was a definition and that's not what I asked. If asked about Manitoba's auto insurance program or the Wheat Board as its currently configured I'd at least have the courage of my convictions to acknowledge their Socialist underpinnings.

Thanks for making the thread title so apropos. heh.

 

[BitWhys]

...
Edit:
And yes, the post directly above me is asking if I accept that as a definition of fascism. It mentions nothing else. So rather than continue in a post war, im just gonna wait until you become at all rational or sane.

Yeah. I might try to tiptoe away quitely too if I were you. So just to be clear you have no problem with government resources being leveraged in the competition with private business for the supply of barley for resale but you'd rather it not be described as Fascism.

Fine. Think that. Its no skin off my teeth.

 

[Zzarchov]

So you CAN read a post. Usually you just post 8 or 9 times without saying anything, then quote stuff out of context. If you are willing to be reasonable, then have a debate.

But if your just gonna fly into tangents about the insurance board, flat out denials

Originally Posted by BitWhys
Are you telling me you don't accept...

"Using government resources to compete against private business entities in the same sector is Fascism."

as a description of Fascism?


Folllowed by

Originally Posted by BitWhys
I never said it was a definition and that's not what I asked.


So at that point your just throwing a nonsensical temper tantrum.

I try not to feed the trolls.

Edit:

And in the future, Im just going to keep editing this post and putting responses on, since I think most people are tired of seeing this at the top of the page.

I suggest you do the same, as double posting is poor form to say the least, edit your last post.


Edit 1.)

The words description and definition are spelled differently for a reason.

They may be spelled different, but they are in fact synonyms in this case. From Thesaurus.com (notice how the definition of definition is description)
Main Entry: definitionPart of Speech: nounDefinition: descriptionSynonyms: analogue, annotation, answer, characterization, clarification, clue, comment, commentary, cue, delimitation, delineation, demarcation, denotation, determination, diagnosis, drift, elucidation, exemplification, explanation, explication, exposition, expounding, fixing, formalization, gloss, individuation, interpretation, key, outlining, rationale, rendering, rendition, representation, settling, signification, solution, synonym, terminology, translationAntonyms: blurriness

Once again I prove not only that your wrong, but your in a huff temper tantrum more concerned with "not being wrong" than being right.

Edit 2.)

heh. that's ok. I'm sure you'll get over it sooner or later. :lol:

"prove you are wrong". that's a synonym for "behave like a juvenile weasel", isn't it?

No, if I were a juvenile weasel I'd be throwing a temper tantrum, changing my story, rather than be a man and admit I got caught lying with a sheer political whine agenda.

Hint hint.

Edit 3.)

RE: Last edited by Zzarchov : Today at 03:54 PM.

oh

and btw

editing a post after someone has commented on it is even worse form so Bob's your uncle.

Well you have already resorted to name calling, bigoted blanket statements, outright lies, slander, and probably a few more crimes..

The last thing Im going to do is keep pestering people just because you want more attention. Deal with it. I also keep a running log of each edit, people can read on their own if they actually want to read this pile of insanity.

Edit 4.)

Awfully big words from somebody who thinks he's too good to be responded to.
I think its safe to assume nobody's forcing anybody to read the thread so maybe its time for you to get a grip.

Yet its the truth and you know it. Im not going to feed your hunger for attention for another 6 pages no matter how much you pout and pound your fists.

 

[BitWhys]

The words description and definition are spelled differently for a reason.

 

[BitWhys]

Last edited by Zzarchov : Today at 03:43 PM.

Once again I prove not only that your wrong, but your in a huff temper tantrum more concerned with "not being wrong" than being right.

heh. that's ok. I'm sure you'll get over it sooner or later. :lol:

"prove you are wrong". that's a synonym for "behave like a juvenile weasel", isn't it?

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Last edited by Zzarchov : Today at 03:54 PM.

oh

and btw

editing a post after someone has commented on it is even worse form so Bob's your uncle.

 

[BitWhys]

Well you have already resorted to name calling, bigoted blanket statements, outright lies, slander, and probably a few more crimes..

The last thing Im going to do is keep pestering people just because you want more attention. Deal with it. I also keep a running log of each edit, people can read on their own if they actually want to read this pile of insanity.

Awfully big words from somebody who thinks he's too good to be responded to.

I think its safe to assume nobody's forcing anybody to read the thread so maybe its time for you to get a grip.

 

[BitWhys]

heh

Wheat board will sell barley

WINNIPEG - The Canadian Wheat Board will continue to sell barley after it loses its monopoly on Aug. 1 because it is legally obliged to do so, the chairman of its board of directors said on Tuesday.
"We have to sell barley in the new crop year," Ken Ritter said in an interview.

The CWB had said it was considering bowing out of the barley market because it doesn't own grain handling facilities and would unlikely be able to offer farmers a premium to grain companies who control the space. But the farmer-controlled agency was moving to come up with ideas to minimize financial liability and damage to customer relationships in the wake of Conservative government regulations coming into effect on Aug. 1.

The regulations will give farmers the option of selling their barley to the CWB or directly to other buyers, ending the CWB's monopoly on sales of western-grown barley to maltsters and export markets.

Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said the CWB was legally bound to continue offering a pooled price for barley.

But without certainty of supplies, Ritter said it was unclear how the CWB would be able to run a pool, which gives farmers a blended price derived from sales made throughout the marketing year.

The CWB most likely will buy barley on a cash basis, said Ward Weisensel, chief operating officer.

That last line is the best news I've heard on this fiasco in months. No doubt it has Strahl fit to be tied.