On top of that he has given us an arbitrary limitation for our number of answers.
What is the source of this "checkmate" exactly?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

...a legend in his own mind?

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

UNIVERSAL Suffrage was first brought to Italy in September, 1919 by prime minister Francesco Saverio Nitti (of the “Radical Party”) in an attempt to negate the effect of proportional representation.

It was noted in the NY Times:
But the 1919-1921 NY Times was just the liberal media elite preparing for my argument against you some 89 years ago; while you have history to revise.

Francesco Nitti believed that Benito did not adhere to the socialist principles:
Nitti believed that socialists were not adequately tolerated in fascist Italy:
And Nitti was an opponent of fascism:
Benito revoked UNIVERSAL Suffrage in 1928:
UNIVERSAL Suffrage was ultimately RE-adopted in 1945 after Benito abolished it in 1928.
Now, you come on here time and time again and assert absolute, disprovable falsehoods; reinforcing repeatedly your lack of formal education in the fields of basic mathematics, history, and argumentation.

You state easily disprovable falsehoods; while at the same time insulting the person who doesn’t “know” your falsehood is “true” as “ignorant”. When people rightly point them out to you, you insult them as being stupid or miss-informed. You condescendingly “teach” them your incorrect “facts” as a sarcastic grade school teacher would to children. You continue to berate and insult them by implying they are children. And ultimately instruct everyone to take a lesson from your stupidity in a condescending manner.

MOD EDIT:**Personal attacks deleted.**

For the Record: THAT IS A CLASSIC STRAWMAN. Beautiful example... It avoids the issue entirely, developes an argument perfect for you, the atheists, who rests you're entire concept of leftism directly upon it's rejection of Christ.

Sadly... I love nothign more than crushing athiests like rhetorical bugs... So I'll answer with a poser which leaves you in unbreechable mate:

I'm defining 'scriptures' as the new testament... With that understanding, which SPECIFIC scripture promoted any of that you've noted above, for which you've projected such as being responsible... pick one instance from those which you've cited and cite a correlating scripture and one person in leadership relative to that historical instance which cited that scripture as the basis of an advanced evil.

MOD EDIT:**Personal attacks deleted.**

It was noted in the NY Times:
Oh so because the bulk of Italy’s electorate sat out the 1919 elections, resulting in Socialists being elected somehow means that the Fascisti didn’t advance suffrage in their own bid in 1919? Fascinating… You’ll just HAVE to show us your math on that someday…

‘Suffrage’ was the battle cry of all leftists… on their way TO power… The Fascisti advanced the same, in the same election, they simply failed to gain power as the Italian Socialist Party and Mussolini were still on the outs over his nationalist rationalizations in support of Italy entering the first world war. And since only two parties’ advanced seats in 1919; the Catholic Popular Party and the Italian Socialist Party, it was a particularly BAD scenario for the rancid atheist and former Socialist Party leader... History makes it clear, he didn’t make the cut. Just like everyone else…

Huh... But ya know... I went over that article and I didn't find anything in it that referred to Italian legislation being signed into law providing universal suffrage...

What I DID see was a point where the Socialists Party adopted the official position declaring the election… to be a mandate for Italy to declare itself a soviet… and recognize the USSR… thus apparently realizing the ‘passage of Universal Suffrage' by default… You’ve surely advanced nothing which reports the passing of any specific legislation declaring Italian women free to vote.

ROFL... NOW THIS ONE... I love this one... because you intentionally misrepresented this one. The article does NOT actually make the emphatic assertion which you've represented above. It's a far more ambiguous. “Possibly the law of September, 1919 will give women the opportunity to vote.” That’s a tricky little qualifier there... because a lot of Italians just weren't ready to become Comrades of the Socialist International by declaring Italy a soviet and I’ve nothing in your evidence and nothing that I have been able to find, supports you’re conclusion.

Particularly absent is the record of even one woman voting in Italy prior to the LEGISLATION DIRECTING SUCH in 1945 in the wake of il Duces’ inevitable death, especially interesting to me is this void in the record during the considerable period wherein the Socialist held considerable power in Italy’s government. I wonder how we might explain that; given your implied position that Nitti was the default measure of a qualified leftist… Nitti passed suffrage… NOT ONE WOMAN CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE VOTED WHILE NITTI THE QUALIFIED LEFTIST HELD POWER… HUH? What CAN we make of THAT?


But, as I've pointed out many times, Benito "Il Duce" got to be so dog-gone popular because of the abrupt rise of the Socialists in 1919 and the crippling effect they had on an already crippled Italian economy. He didn't want to set aside Italian national sovereignty; Mussolini realized at the outset of WW1 that the Socialist International was DOA... that there was never going to be an international workers paradise and as much as that realization hurt, having believed it to the depths of his soul his entire life… he inevitably realized that there was no force on earth that was going to change it. It can be said Il Duce was many things, but not the least of those was that he was a very pragmatic guy... So being a lifelong international socialist, who had come to realize that the international aspect of socialism would never happen; HE proposed a pragmatic socialism of the NATIONAL variety... geared to Italians... and this filled the hearts of the progressive moderate, independent, centrist Italians to the brim... because most of them HATED the traitor Communists. And frankly, who can blame 'em?

Also, it needs to be highlighted here, that Italy was dirt poor... BROKE and with all the leftists swarming about corruption was rampant. If you asked him of his reforms, wherein you claim he revoked suffrage, etc... he would tell you he had no choice, but to rule with an iron fist against those who would contest his power... He wanted to see Italians enjoy the promises of a nanny state which socialism had always promised, but he realized that this could never be possible under a system which rejected gain... So he took what he felt was the essence of socialism and translated it into what he saw as the best means to obtain that which no socialist system had ever accomplished... a working economic, political and intellectual culture.

OOhhhhhhh... you seemed SO excited... Sorry sis. But ya screwed yourself... and have no one to blame BUT YOURSELF!

Well of course he was... Because Nitti was an INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST and Mussolini’s fascists were coming to power, EXPRESSLY to TOSS THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST, NITTI INCLUDED, OUT ON THEIR INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUTTS... at BEST!

However it must be noted that purely as a matter of reason; Nitti contesting the fascists, in no way represents evidence of the fascists not being leftists... Trotsky was as leftists as any human being has been in the history of the species and he contested Joe Stalin; he contested everything about him, from the authenticity of his power, to the flavor of his socialism. That didn't make Trotsky less a leftists, nor Stalin less a leftist. What it made them was two pieces of leftist matter trying to occupy the same power space. Can't be done... Nitti and the International Socialist lost. That doesn't make Mussolini less a leftist because of it.


The corner...? LOL… THIS you post to avoid the accusation of left wing revisionism... The CORNER proposes that LENIN WAS A RIGHT WINGER. LENIN! You can't throw a dead cat onto Berkeley without hitting a nut that will declare Stalin a right-winger... but you have to hunt all DAY to find someone that will turn on old Grand-Dad Vlad... I'll stipulate that the Corner considers Mussolini a righty... as long as you stipulate to my feelings of leftists in general and those who lend them credence...

What Mussolini revoked was any idea that contested Mussolini, this included anything contesting Mussolini… voting Socialists, not being the least of them.

It should be noted that Mussolini didn't have any greater restriction on suffrage than did Stalin, Mao, The North Korean Il family... Pol Pot, Castro or any other Socialist. Again, the issue here is Mussolini's leftism... they're all BIG advocates of universal suffrage on the way TO power... but because they're advocating a farce, intellectually, ideologically and politically... there can be freedom where leftists are advancing leftism... Thus while they cry and cry about suffrage where they've found power, they only excelled in SUFFERING.

NO.... Actually, it was adopted for the first time as a matter of formal law in 1945. Not as an implied notion IF this or IF that...

So you're contesting my position that 'corporativism was a fabrication,' by posting a link to a site which declares corporativism to be a fabrication, in effect a copy of Guild Socialism... LOL... OHHHhhhhhhhhh you're the wiley one!

Your statement:

Definition of strawman: a strawman is an object, document, person, or argument that temporarily stands in for and is intended to be "knocked down" by something more substantial.


My statement:
Analysis: You make a number of statements indicating that adherence to the doctrine of a particular religion is equated with moral superiority over the morals or ethics espoused by a non-religious source.

My question: is this religious doctrine the same set of "scriptures" that validated a lengthy list of atrocities?

Your erroneous reply: classic strawman

Even funnier you state: " developes an argument perfect for you, the atheists, who rests you're entire concept of leftism directly upon it's rejection of Christ."

Athiesm is not a tenant of the left.

Many leftists are religious.

Once again, you seem to have problems defining ideologies.


Well then, you had better find yourself an athiest then hadn't you? And pray they don't mistake you for a cockroach.

YOU'RE defining scriptures as the new testament? Sorry bub. Doesn't work that way. That's like defining a house as a structure but leaving out the foundation it rests upon. Scriptures is the whole kit and kaboodle.

Merriam Webster: Sriptures 1 a (1)capitalized : the books of the Bible —often used in plural (2)often capitalized : a passage from the Bible b: a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative

From a religious source: The scriptures are, quite simply, the Bible which consists of 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. Each one is inspired, without error, and is completely accurate in all things it addresses. ...

I don't accept your fallacious definition. History is full of bloody examples of doctrine out of control. Do you really need me to point that obvious fact out to you?

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

What Ray and the comrades are trying to say without letting on that they're saying it... is that they can't actually offer even ONE "Right-wing trait which was exemplified by the fascists."

Now friends, they can't offer a single right wing trait exemplified by the fascists... that's mate kids.

It turns out that liberals are fascists after all. Again, this doesn't mean to even imply that liberals are all goose stepping, polished leather wearing, air slashing, genocidal Nazis... only that they're the emotionally lead, intellectual train-wrecks that cling to populism that lend power TO MASS MURDERING TYRANTS...

False. Leftism rides purely, wholly and solely upon the premise that "the class" is sacred above all else. The poor, the Children, The earth, The people...



All leftists are religious. They believe in LEFTISM with their heart and soul...

A lengthy list was offered on multiple occasions.

Perhaps you are blowing so hard trying to impress...(yourself?)... you simply skimmed over it.

Regardless, your failure to comprehend does not mean I'm going to repeat myself endlessly.

I suggest you reread the thread

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

This is sooo funny. I check in for giggles. I get a big laugh instead. You are still saying the same thing over, and over, and over, and over...

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address