'calling people who disagree with your opinion's fascist says much more about your character and your inability to put together a coherent and sensible set of points to present to us to convince us how valid you argument might be, than it says about the vast multitude who you label fascists who disagree with what you seem to be trying to say'.
im sorry but try as i might i cant work out what it is you are trying to say.
and then you said, 'It does seem significant that from the examples you have chosen to illustrate your point, that of Italian fascists, hitler and trade unions, that all three certainly represent very similar types of organizations competing for the same power from much the same target group of people with much the same methods and for much the same goals. If it quacks like a duck.....'
once again, im at a loss as to what it was you are trying to say about what i was trying to say.
you went on to say, 'Not very convincing to me as an argument that we should allow unions to gain power again hidden behind the curtain of a labor party stooge as frontman'.
this i understand.
as far as putting a coherent argument together, i would have thought hockeys disclosure that unions are irrelevant, after years of telling anyone who'd listen that the lib goal is to destroy unions once and for all, and the fact that italian fascists and the nazi party abolished trade unions so they could remove barriers to their grand plans, was a fairly easy path to follow. these fascist states controlled wages and conditions, and if you didnt like em, bad luck ol son.
of course there is more to fascism than that. a distain for human rights, attempted control of the media, the identification of scapegoats, and a strong nationalistic bent- who can forget andrews wearing his little aussie flag on his chest when being interviewed about locking up Dr Haneef.
im not accusing every lib voter of being fascist. just a few, and you know who you are.
