Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
If Obama = Socialist, then republicans =......
Sabiancym
Member UncommonPosts: 3,150
We sure have a lot of fascists in congress. Let's look at the characteristics of fascism according to Dr. Laurence W. Britt.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
The calling card for the republican party. Support our troops said 80 times a speech, America is the greatest ever, red white and blue underwear, etc.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
Gitmo and Water Boarding. Enough Said
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
From Hannity claiming the recession is Obama's fault to O'reilly calling for a boycott of a liberal country. Another calling card.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
Another obvious one. Republicans are for massive defense spending and cock waving to the rest of the world.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
Ban's on gay marriage and abortion are major major talking points for republicans.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
This one isn't obvious and therefore I'm not going to try and stretch something to fit it. Don't want to go down the level of those claiming socialism.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
The color coded terror level, not supporting the war in Iraq automatically means you're unpatriotic.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
Another easy one. From bush telling the French leader that biblical creatures Gog and Magog are at work in the middle east and must be stopped, to claims of sin in homosexuality. It's all republican.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
Oil Oil Oil. How many republicans have personal stakes in big business oil and vote accordingly. Plenty.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
Republicans are almost always anti labor unions. Thus taking away laborers power and giving it to the corporation.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
Stem cell research banned, resistance to evolution, censoring of certain music and performances.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
Most republicans are pro death penalty and believe those who commit crime should be punished, not rehabilitated.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
Damn near every politician does this. I'm not about to apply it to just republicans.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Florida recount anyone?
Did I stretch a few of these to fit? Of course, but only as thin as some of the arguments for Obama being a socialist.
Do I believe republicans are outright fascists? Of course not, they have plenty of non fascist policies.
So should you believe Obama is a socialist even though he has plenty of non sociliast views? If you have any shred of intelligence, no.
Or go on holding up Karl Marx signs at tea parties thinking you are actually doing something. The smart members of your party will be out debating actual topics instead of propogating fear.
Comments
...slightly less socialist, and slightly more fascist.
That's just in answer to your title, and it's what I've been tryin' to teach you for over a year now
Time to set your hate aside and free your mind from this left/right; republican/democrat program.
fishermage.blogspot.com
It's hard to come off smug on the internet, but you manage to do it constantly.
Teach me? Through what exactly Fisher? You're extremist claims of government takeovers?
And don't tell me to stop with the left/right. You yourself use the word leftism all the time.
I probably shouldn't even respond to you, because it seems like everytime I do, I mysteriously get a mod warning.
You aren't teaching anyone. You're just another opinion. The moment you realize that and stop thinking of yourself as some sort of genius who must share his knowledge will the be moment people start taking you seriously.
The Official God FAQ
Hit a nerve eh? If its so obvious that he's not a socialist why are you getting so worked up?
Because we are on the internet arguing politics.
The Official God FAQ
I'll respond to certain bullets.
#4- I think his name was Billy Kristol. He went on the Daily Show to oppose the public option. During this he talked about members of the military being vastly superior and more deserving than an ordinary citizen. I support our military, but I do see the impression that members of the military are Superior/Elect Citizens. And I get that impression from more than the pundits, but at the Republican grassroot levels such as business owners who actually say that and only want to hire them. There was even a convention recently for that sole purpose.
#5- Yeah the sexism runs rampant, apart from anti-abortion arguments. Every single talking mouth from Boortz to O'Reilly get away with saying crap about women that are nothing short of savage and primitive. For example Boortz said women are selfish narcissistic liberals until they marry a man and have his children. That's when they have an epiphany and care about other people. ...Yeah
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Florida recount vote -- One of the vast right wing conspiracy's greatest triumphs!
It's hard to come off smug on the internet, but you manage to do it constantly.
Teach me? Through what exactly Fisher? You're extremist claims of government takeovers?
And don't tell me to stop with the left/right. You yourself use the word leftism all the time.
I probably shouldn't even respond to you, because it seems like everytime I do, I mysteriously get a mod warning.
You aren't teaching anyone. You're just another opinion. The moment you realize that and stop thinking of yourself as some sort of genius who must share his knowledge will the be moment people start taking you seriously.
I am trying to teach you that, since you are a guy who obviously believes in individual liberty, that the people you have allied with are your enemies, and some of your views (in economics in particular) are contradictory to that.
I certainly do use leftism, leftist, and when I use it, I mean "people who are against freedom in the economic sphere." As all thnking people must, I always try to define my terms, and I have done so for you many many times.
When I am against the right, and say "right wing" I usually mean "people who are against freedom in the social sphere." I am trying to show you that in fact you can't have one without the other.
I am no genius, just your average guy who reads a lot and who has watched things for longer than you. I've been involved in politics (mostly Democrats, even though I have never been one), and I'm sharing. I don't look down on anyone -- I am firm in my views because I have already heard your arguments. I thought them myself before I ever came to my opinion. When you challenge me with something new I promise to tell you.
If I'm the smug one, why are you the one calling ME names and making this all personal? Seems to me it's your own insecurity rather than anything wrong with me. I have never attacked you. Never called you names, an "asshole," a jackass, or any of the things you have found it necessary to call me. Nope, I just share my opinions, and for some reason, they seem to piss you off.
That is in direct contradiction to someone who REALLY values personal liberty.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Because we are on the internet arguing politics.
Just a word of advice -- If you protest too much you can lend legitimacy to the other side and hurt your cause.
But he is a socialist you know.
It's hard to come off smug on the internet, but you manage to do it constantly.
Teach me? Through what exactly Fisher? You're extremist claims of government takeovers?
And don't tell me to stop with the left/right. You yourself use the word leftism all the time.
I probably shouldn't even respond to you, because it seems like everytime I do, I mysteriously get a mod warning.
You aren't teaching anyone. You're just another opinion. The moment you realize that and stop thinking of yourself as some sort of genius who must share his knowledge will the be moment people start taking you seriously.
I am trying to teach you that, since you are a guy who obviously believes in individual liberty, that the people you have allied with are your enemies, and some of your views (in economics in particular) are contradictory to that.
I certainly do use leftism, leftist, and when I use it, I mean "people who are against freedom in the economic sphere." As all thnking people must, I always try to define my terms, and I have done so for you many many times.
When I am against the right, and say "right wing" I usually mean "people who are against freedom in the social sphere." I am trying to show you that in fact you can't have one without the other.
I am no genius, just your average guy who reads a lot and who has watched things for longer than you. I've been involved in politics (mostly Democrats, even though I have never been one), and I'm sharing. I don't look down on anyone -- I am firm in my views because I have already heard your arguments. I thought them myself before I ever came to my opinion. When you challenge me with something new I promise to tell you.
If I'm the smug one, why are you the one calling ME names and making this all personal? Seems to me it's your own insecurity rather than anything wrong with me. I have never attacked you. Never called you names, an "asshole," a jackass, or any of the things you have found it necessary to call me. Nope, I just share my opinions, and for some reason, they seem to piss you off.
That is in direct contradiction to someone who REALLY values personal liberty.
You are not teaching me. If anything you are only reassuring my beliefs.
And being smug has nothing to do with calling someone names. Smug is a self-satisfying attitude. The fact that you think you are teaching people is an obvious indicator of that.
The Official God FAQ
It's hard to come off smug on the internet, but you manage to do it constantly.
Teach me? Through what exactly Fisher? You're extremist claims of government takeovers?
And don't tell me to stop with the left/right. You yourself use the word leftism all the time.
I probably shouldn't even respond to you, because it seems like everytime I do, I mysteriously get a mod warning.
You aren't teaching anyone. You're just another opinion. The moment you realize that and stop thinking of yourself as some sort of genius who must share his knowledge will the be moment people start taking you seriously.
I am trying to teach you that, since you are a guy who obviously believes in individual liberty, that the people you have allied with are your enemies, and some of your views (in economics in particular) are contradictory to that.
I certainly do use leftism, leftist, and when I use it, I mean "people who are against freedom in the economic sphere." As all thnking people must, I always try to define my terms, and I have done so for you many many times.
When I am against the right, and say "right wing" I usually mean "people who are against freedom in the social sphere." I am trying to show you that in fact you can't have one without the other.
I am no genius, just your average guy who reads a lot and who has watched things for longer than you. I've been involved in politics (mostly Democrats, even though I have never been one), and I'm sharing. I don't look down on anyone -- I am firm in my views because I have already heard your arguments. I thought them myself before I ever came to my opinion. When you challenge me with something new I promise to tell you.
If I'm the smug one, why are you the one calling ME names and making this all personal? Seems to me it's your own insecurity rather than anything wrong with me. I have never attacked you. Never called you names, an "asshole," a jackass, or any of the things you have found it necessary to call me. Nope, I just share my opinions, and for some reason, they seem to piss you off.
That is in direct contradiction to someone who REALLY values personal liberty.
You are not teaching me. If anything you are only reassuring my beliefs.
And being smug has nothing to do with calling someone names. Smug is a self-satisfying attitude. The fact that you think you are teaching people is an obvious indicator of that.
Oh I certainly AM teaching you, even if you can't see it -- I can. You are teaching me as well, even if you don't see that. I know that being smug is not the same thing as calling people names, but your calling ME names is indicative that, instead of me being smug, YOU are being insecure, and it shows every time you need to make personal attacks instead of arguments.
Sorry I can see I wasn't very clear there. See, you taught me something again. Thank you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Between Democrats and Republicans I would break it down this way:
Democrats have Liberals and Progressives. Liberals are on one extreme end and Progressives are more towards the middle.
Progressive examples: Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Arlen Specter, Daniel Inouye.
Liberal examples: Diane Feinstein, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders (I).
----------------------------------------------
Republicans have Neocons and Conservatives. Neocons are on one extreme end and Conservatives are more towards the middle.
Conservative examples: Ron Paul, George Voinovich, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, Mike Pence.
Neocons: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman (I).
To me, liberals are more like socialists and neocons are more like facists.
NOTE: I put Sanders/Lieberman in there even though they are Independants because both of them are exactly where I put them with their political views.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I think we need to run both parties out of office. Only a handful of them have a grasp of reality. They keep using talking points that are not at the national level to debate as if it means something. Then they implement laws in the exact opposite sense of the constitution.
At the end of 2000, you could see the end to the national debt within the next decade. Now there is no end in my lifetime because Bush thought he only had 1 chance to implement his policy. You have the same thing happening with Obama. In my opinion both sides have no idea the power of an individual.
Exactly.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
Run them out of office with what? Another political party?
There will always be some form of political party, and there will always be people who think at least one side doesn't have a grasp on reality.
The Official God FAQ
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
This is how the left operates. Destroy the meanings of words in the hope that you will destroy the concept that the words originally represented. "Progressive" used to mean "progress toward the perfect planned economy; ie, pure socialism). When the marxists got caught, they hijacked the term "liberal" from the people who believed in free markets; now, we find someone who has flipped it one more step, so that now "progressives" are the more moderate and "liberal" are the ones even further away from the free market than "progressives."
This is why semantics are so important to me. It is one of the main tactics of the left and has been all along.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Libs are conservative. You might even say they are super hyper conservative.
Like Andrew Jackson lets burn all our worthless paper money and stamp gold coins to use for the economy conservative..... but he was the only president to ever pull the US out of the red......
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
The Official God FAQ
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
This is how the left operates. Destroy the meanings of words in the hope that you will destroy the concept that the words originally represented. "Progressive" used to mean "progress toward the perfect planned economy; ie, pure socialism). When the marxists got caught, they hijacked the term "liberal" from the people who believed in free markets; now, we find someone who has flipped it one more step, so that now "progressives" are the more moderate and "liberal" are the ones even further away from the free market than "progressives."
This is why semantics are so important to me. It is one of the main tactics of the left and has been all along.
Bring a liberal back from the early sixties and they would likely slap silly the ones identifying themselves as liberal today.
That about does it.
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That about does it.
Just more newspeak from the ministry of Truth.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Tolerant and broad-minded people counter arguments with their own arguments. Intolerant people counter by calling people a-holes, jackasses, and other childish, schoolyard names.
fishermage.blogspot.com
hehe, down with the establishment
Fight the power
And yea, today's liberal and nanny state are kind of an oxymoron
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
Ah yes, Fisher redefining words to fit his argument. I've seen this before.
The definition of liberal hasn't change. It's exactly what I posted. The only argument that can be made is whether or not certain politicians are liberal, and most won't admit they are because the right has demonized it.
The Official God FAQ