Other than the fact that fascism is in fact a far right ideology, by any standards save those of perhaps Sean Hannity and Limbaugh?

The definition is unmitigated crap, and reads no differently than the tards at Indymedia trying to claim that the Bush Doctrine was no different than Nazism.

Equally amusing, according to this, anarchists (the vast majority of whom consider themselves leftwing) are apparently on the far right.

Its faux-libertarian garbage, the sort of petty rhetorical shift one finds in the works of von Mises and the type. Unfortunately for them, it has no standing in political science or analysis.

Pretty much.

So you disagree with his opinion that the political spectrum should be viewed as total power to no power, and dismiss the point of the piece, which is an explanation of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, out of hand? Or do disagree with the differences stated?

Yes.

So does every reputable political science instructor and Websters, to boot.

It's a propaganda piece, and a rather clumsy one at that. Only this, and nothing more.

You disagree with his description of the difference between a republic and a democracy?

Dunno. I shut it off when he assaulted me with the first round of bullshit.

What's the point of continuing, once you've established that it's a badly done propaganda piece? Besides, the difference between a republic and a "pure" democracy is - or should be - known to school children. I do not need to have it explained by a man who just proved himself to be a liar, or a fool, or both.

Propadanda for what purpose? That doesn't even make sense.

Conspiracy theory much?

That's what I thought.
You'd think so, but that's not true I see, so everyone that doesn't meet your preconceived notions "is a liar, or a fool or both". But you don't know if he was right or not because you didn't watch it.
Thank you.

Propaganda for the libertarian pov, of course.

There is no rule saying that propaganda can only be put forth by the ruling party.

Sorry. There is, as E.E. Cummings said, some shit I will not eat.

Well, there's a solution for that.

Once I smell shit, there's no reason to taste it, you know?

So you're saying that, after seeing that video, I might change my entire ideology?

I saw it as a theory, another pov, and hardly akin to what I might see as evil prop.

But what do I know?

I did not click the link and watch the video. But I understand and agree with TGGR's point that there is a limit to what I am willing to put into my head, just as there's a limit to what I'll put into my body. What's more, all of you here are the same as me in this respect, albeit with different levels of what is taken in.

An easy point in the evaluation of the video producer's point of view is at the beginning. The American Form of Government, right there in the title. Some will read that and decide they've had enough, moving on, thankyouverymuch. They've made their decision about how much of that message they wish to take in--very little. Others will read the title, watch the video, and decide that they've gotten all they want of the message, and not bother seeking more. TGGR has done exactly the same thing, but the point at which he made his decision was part the way through the video--click.

We all do this. We all regulate what we take in. And there's certainly plenty of room for spirited discussion about the quality and the quantity of that content. I read and listen to the news a lot. Some people think I give too much attention to the news. Just ask SonofV as we ride together and negotiate what radio station to listen to.

The proverb "Don't judge a book by its cover" has merit. But it is possible to judge a book by a short summary.

I, myself, can't handle vague opinions from people who didn't bother to watch.

How very shortsighted. In fact, I'll go so far to say that those opinions from people who are forming them without any knowledge have gone completely irrelevant for me. Never a post I will take into account from those, again.

Not if you don't know what the content is.