Weep?  Why?  You make MY argument for me... Of course, like the writer of this article, you use smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the truth (a common GOP tactic, but I digress).  The ‘differences’ between fascism and communism are acute and concrete... But to establish ‘similarity’, you MUST add in a third comparison that is strikingly opposite, so much so that neither of the other two ideologies has any remote similarity... In this case, Democracy... And since BOTH of the first two systems are so flawed and undesirable when compared to a free, independent democratic system, you can postulate that they are ‘practically’ identical in nature.

Well I am glad you can admit this much.  This is excellent!  The one thing I would correct from your statement above and I don’t think you would disagree with me is that Democracy is not enough.  We need capitalism.  Capitalism infers a bill of rights and a constitution (like ours) where are rights are God given, natural rights that no government has the authority to take away.  I would argue that 200 years ago under the leadership of the first conservatives like Thomas Jefferson (who is called a classic liberal) (today’s liberals are much closer to fascists and socialist than a classic liberal which is what my point is)

Manipulative and self-serving, but WRONG.  Fascism IS akin to extreme, radical ‘conservatism’

This point of yours falls on deaf ears.  Both points could not be more wrong.  I believe you know what Fascism is, but you must not know what conservatism is.  Unfortunately people make up their definition and then create agreements for and against it depending on their point of view.  So let’s clear that up.  I am going to give you a list of people (well known conservatives) who all believe in the following which is my definition and I think the correct definition of conservatives.  They believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.  That we have certain inalienable rights given to us by God and that no man has the authority to take it away.   The right to life, liberty and property (now pursuit of happiness, but property was better)  A conservative believes like you do that we need a revolution every 50 years to get rid of the corruption of the constitution that occurs, for example the practical elimination of the 10^th amendment .  When you compare people like Thomas Jefferson to Hitler is very offensive and nonsensical.  Bill Buckley is a classic Liberal and the founder of modern day conservatives, when you compare him to Stalin or Hitler it is at best bizarre.  Ultra Liberals (not in the Jeffersonian sense but modern day ones like Obama and Clinton (Hilary))  are much closer to the fascist and the socialist.  Yes it is a good comparison because in order for their agenda to be passed we must continue to erode our God given rights and take away or make irrelevant the constitution and the bill of rights.  Picking companies to tax and companies to give tax breaks to is completely unconstitutional assuming we had a 10^th amendment.  The relationship between business and the government should be non-existent as much as possible.  The courts are here for a purpose and that is to enforce contracts and punish companies that harm others (like pollution for example), that is the proper role of government

Here is a list of Conservatives:

• Thomas Jefferson
• Bill Buckley
• Goldwater
• Reagan
• Rush
• Savage
• Hannity

Here are some people who don’t believe in the constitution all the time they pick and choose we call these people Moderates because they have some views that are constitutionally classic Liberal (read conservative) and other views that are anti our bill of rights and our constitution and more aligned with Fascism and Socialism

• Bush
• McCain
• Sam Nunn
• Rockefeller
• Ford
• Dole
• Liberman
• JFK (I don’t know enough about him he may be in the list above)
• MLK (he also might be on the list above)

We all know who the true anti-Americans the folks who would love to destroy our constitution and turn us into a social European style democracy:

• Obama
• Clinton
• Jackson and just about every liberal Democrat in office with a liberal rating above 70%

... Admittedly gone far awry of its intended application, but nevertheless an example of ‘centralized’ power in a militaristic government — and communism, as an ideology, is definitely radicalized liberalism and socialism carried to the outer limits.  

Interesting you seem to think Conservatives is somehow wants a centralized power and a military dictatorship.  Well Yes then I agree with you if that is how you define Conservatives but I don’t known any conservatives like this and surely you can’t think Buckley is one of them.

I NEVER said EITHER of these radical, extreme systems has ANY positive worth... I just said they reflect the WORST elements of the political spectrum.

I agree they are the worst elements.  What I objected to was your comparison to Buckley and the conservative movement.  Now I realize we have two very different definitions of conservative.    

I, unlike you, am not a slave to ANY ideological doctrine...

Correct I do have a doctrine and it is what I described above Jeffersonian Liberalism which if followed will lead to free markets.

I am not a puppet who bends only to the whim of a ‘free-market’ panacea.  Although you prefer to assume no personal responsibility for the misdeeds and corrupt dealings of the present Administration, you, and all the ‘right wingers’ who elected this inept cast of characters do bear the blame for the disaster we are currently enduring.

I hope now you are getting why and this is making more sense to you.  Free markets and Jeffersonian Liberalism actually will result in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY not government responsibility.  As for the current administration why do you think no conservative like McCain?  It is because he is way too Liberal just like Bush.  McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy were both supported by Bush and both are unconstitutional. 

When you say ’right wingers’  I don’t think you are talking about my people.  I compare those ‘right wingers’ to the crazies on the left Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Kennedy and Feingold as just a few examples. 

Hey, I’m an entrepreneur... I strongly favor LESS government when it comes to ANY intrusion into my personal liberties or ability to legally and morally create wealth for myself...

That is why I think we are actually in more agreement on the issues.  Where we disagree is on who to support to get our liberties back and turn this country over back to the people and away from Big Government and its unholy alliance with big business.  I want to go the Jefferson approach and I assume you do too.  However I see the conservative movement as I have defined it as the way to go and you Not so Much.  Not clear who you can support so you just identify the weaknesses in all the candidates and then buy into some of the propaganda and repeat it about the conservative movement.  Why don’t you just join the conservative movement and then you too can have an ideology to follow.  You don’t seem to have any views that I can find that are much different than Jefferson.  Well you do have a few oddities but they are relatively minor.   

But I also recognize that ‘human nature’ has a seedy side that left unchecked will wreck havoc on our society and especially the weakest citizens among us.

Correct and this is where the Bill of Rights and the Constitution needs to be applied this is what is it for.

I’ve served in the military, so I know first-hand how inefficient, misguided, unfocused and inappropriate a major government bureaucracy can behave when it lacks adequate oversight.  I’ve watched our infrastructure decay and rot while bureaucratic payrolls swell beyond plausible reason or need.

Exactly!  Now were talking and in agreement.

Sure, if I were ‘king’, I’d drastically shrink government, at ALL levels, from Washington to Redwood City, but I’d also ‘nationalize’ healthcare, energy, education and environmental standards.

This is where I see the “oddities”   You just admitted it doesn’t work and then you say you want to nationalize it and centralize it (you Nazi Commie bastard (just kidding))

For me, the ‘free market’ works for ANYTHING that isn’t ‘required’ to live a basic existence

Interesting theory.  However you might want to amend it to be more precise.  I think what you are trying to say is differentiate between PUBLIC GOODS and PRIVATE GOODS.   You should read up on both of them to see if that is what you are getting at.  The classic Liberals also talked about it.  A public good is something that is hard to package and sell the are things like AIR, Defense foreign and domestic, Fire protection, and maybe some other emergency services, clearly access to legal remedies)  You know what private goods are. 

Now the question is, is education, energy and healthcare a public good or a private good.  I see where you are coming from but I must disagree based on the outcomes more than on a theoretical basis. We have public education, energy and healthcare now (not completely but to a large extent) As those industries get more regulated by the government they get worse and worse.  I say lets deregulate all of them, get government out and I would bet my life the result will be better then your result of complete nationalization. 

Now here is a question I don’t have the answer to.  Would nationalization of those industries be worse than we have today?  Clearly YES with Education as it is almost completely nationalized already and is failing horrible.  If private schools were made illegal (unconstitutional by the way) then all students would then get a poor education rather than most.  With Energy and Healthcare some things would be made better while other things would be made worse, I cause it depends on your priorities to see if the outcome would be more desirable

Correct an unfortunately reality where the government solution is worse than the problem!  The solution in my mind is a private solution where people, churches and other private organizations help the less fortunate

—      I see America’s natural resources as ‘community property’ that should not be manipulated by an unevenly-balanced free-market

Every country has national resources.  The best way to help people take advantage of it is the free market where everyone who works hard has the opportunity to succeed.  A free market makes the pie bigger so everyone can be comfortable and people can become rich.  By centralizing the market and government control you shrink the opportunity and everyone becomes poor except for the government

(and there is no way to balance that market since the entire goal of each player in that game is to create an ‘advantage’ that will translate into ‘profits’).  I believe the American free-market should reward creativity, hard-work, intelligence and fair-play... Among ANY ‘competitors’ producing and selling clothes, computers, cars, TV’s, DVD’s, real estate, and anything else that any other individual or company can choose to produce or sell.  

We agree.  I think again you need to look at what Public goods are and why they are better distributed by the government.  I think you will find that some of the goods you list are private goods and should be distributed by the market.   

I DON’T think it is in the best or highest interest of America to have a handful of individuals and corporations profiteering from overpriced healthcare (the US pays more per capita than ANY of the top 30 Industrialized nations), overpriced energy and overpriced elementary education.  Our economy and our defensibility are weakened by this pseudo ‘free-market’ fiasco.  Corporations AND Unions bear equal blame.

I agree!  Again we agree on the problem just not on the solution.  I think Unions are great, they just should not exist in government jobs!  And the police need to protect scabs when the unions go on strike.

  But so do ideologically-manacled ‘conservatives’ that forgive abuses in the name of ‘free-market’ purity.  Like any man’s soul, the ‘free-market’ can be corrupted and sometimes needs ‘cleansing’.   This is one of those times.

Absolutely NOT.  That is what the courts are for.  You somehow have conservatives as the boogie man or something.  You have them wanting socialism (complete nationalization and centralization of all industries and a Military dictatorship at the same time (Fascism)

When the government steps in with a corporate handout or a corporate punishment (tax on one company and industry) they are abusing the free market this has nothing to do with conservatives or the free market.  This is what conservatives should be fighting against. 

This has been a good discussion.  I hope you will either change your definition on conservative to mine or just call me a Jeffersonian Liberal from now on.