Some may say that fascism is on the left of center but when you take all of the 14 points they seem to fit the republican leaders to a T. I believe that they started to try to get women in to thwart the obvious fact that they are extreme fascists
Fascist issues and how it relates to Republicans
the use use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. sounds like the republicans and Fox news Glen beck? tea party rallies?
Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, republicans are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture,(Dick Cheney) summary executions(Rick Perry),
republicans have long been against social programs
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
sound familiar ? they want to be the only party
Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, Republicans give the military a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
yep the republicans will not cut the military either! and how about the domestic agenda?
. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Gay marriage? Abortion rights
Controlled Mass Media
sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.Fox? Remember when Bush didn't want to show caskets? Fox has gone so far right the other so called liberal media has been following suit, there isn't any good journalists left in America
7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. Iraq Iran Afghanistan need I reiterate all of the imperialistic wars under Republican administrations Republicans make excuses weapons of mass destruction ?
Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. we are a christian nation? many republicans just happen to find the christian faith and exploit it like glen beck and George Bush
Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business of this nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.Can anyone say tax cuts for Big corporate and corporate welfare ?
Labor is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed . Reagan did it Bush Did it Scott Walker, Rick Scott,Christie, Jan Brewer etc.
hatred of Intellectuals and the Arts
Republicans tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. I hear it all the time scaring people into thinking there is a Liberal conspiracy to indoctrinate kids and turn them into communists. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and republicans often refuse to fund the arts.
passion for Crime and Punishment
we have the largest prison population in the world
Cronyism and Corruption
Republicans almost always Influenced by friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. Roberts? the supreme ct is consistently byass
Bush 2000 and Bush 2004 both were bought and paid for by the republican party,Supreme ct and Fox news
I used the points of fascism and the republicans fit quite well into the program. the far right would have you liken fascism to communism when you can see they plainly are on two sides of the political system. I contend that the current Tea party republicans are fascists and the conservatives have followed suit, they are not the party Ronald Reagan knew they have moved so far from center they make the Democrats look like conservatives!
Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20).
Some may say that fascism is on the left of center but when you take all of the 14 points they seem to fit the republican leaders to a T. I believe that they started to try to get women in to thwart the obvious fact that they are extreme fascists
do you think modern republicans are fascist?
Benito Mussolini was the socialist leader of Italy when he instituted fascism in Italy. His program included progressive income tax, a minimum wage, forming secular state schools, and stripping the upper classes of their wealth by seizing land holdings.
The Nazis were socialists who emulated Mussolini’s fascism. They also wanted to drive Christianity from public life and were very much opposed to the capitalist system. Instead of controlling the means of production as the communists had they choose to control industry and the private sector through regulation. They, like the Italian fascists looked to modernize and secularize society. Both looked to an all-powerful state as the vehicle to bring about the “change” they sought.
Leftist's often welcomed the war economy as a means to shape and mobilize society. Conservatives, by in large are deeply suspicious of such big government, favor traditional Christian morality, and the free markets
Fascist economic programs bear a creepy resemblance to today’s liberal agenda. American Progressives of the early 20th century looked to Mussolini’s fascist policies as something to emulate. Many leading American liberal progressives such as George Bernard Shaw, H.G Wells, Woodrow Wilson and FDR looked very favorably to many fascist policies and grow impatient with the constitution constraints of American government.
FDR used the great depression as a pretext to organize society to bring about war socialism. The many agencies created under FDR enacted policy resembling fascist economies. It was only the ww2 atrocities that caused fascism to fall out of favor with the left.
The highest profile fascists in the 20th century were men of the left. Fascism is a collectivist, big government and anti-capitalist movement. Conservatives on the other hand tend to favor constitutionally limited government, free markets and christian values.
George Bernard Shaw was an irishman.
What else do you mischaracterize, misunderstand or confuse?
And wasn't it GWB that complained about the COTUS, saying it was just a piece of paper?
A badly misinformed post by this sychophant.
Hardly even misinformed, mostly total fantasy.
For those who falsely say "the Constitution is a grand document"...
... if you truly value the Constitution, then you'll demand a gold standard based money.
Your right he was an Irishmen whose writings had a large impact on the progressive movement.
Shaw was a Fabian, a Eugenicist, an apologist for that monster Josef Stalin and a Nazi appeaser. Not all that different than arrogant artists today.
But not an American, as ignorantly stated.
That is very interesting,I knew he was a charter member of the Fabian socialist society and its not suprising that he supported Stalin as many on the left had before the true nature of the soviet system came to light.
Here are the source links to anybody interested in the subject of liberal fascism:
http://townhall.com/columnists/richlowr … al_fascism
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso … is_fascist
These two articles are reviews of Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal fascism"
Ah, more balanced and unbiased reporting I see!
I'm standing behind what is written in the articles and I believe it to be true.
Good points. I believe they are just greedy and think the wealthy will take care of them as long as they give them everything they want.
Conservatives preach about restoring and protecting freedoms, and yet they continuously tromp on average joe freedoms. Essentially Republicans are using oppressive Neanderthal like tactics to suppress freedom, a women’s right to choose.
Instead of writing hateful, unpatriaotic slurs against the best country in the world, why not tell the folks out there what is so good about your beliefs. Do you even know what the tea party is about? It's pointless to even try to reason with such a closed mind so I won't waste words. Just live in your pathetic world and I'll continue watching the real truth on Fox.
One need not intertwine religion and government when one is the religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anwrojhx … re=related
Some of the comments here are quite interesting.
By your definition anyone who believes in a God, Morals, and loves their country, is a facist.
No--just those who feel the need to force it on everyone else as well.
Love of ones country?
To fly a Flag or wear a shirt that shows pride in your country?
To have morals?
To behave in a way that brings honor to you and your family and country?
Yes... it is awful.
Yes it is...particularly when the people doing it think its fine and dandy to bomb children with white phosphorous.
You epitomize the Leant Left in this nation, and are a perfect example of why our country is running fast to the Right.
Keep up the good work, Chris.
Indeed, Mason, FORCING anyone to do anything is immoral. You should know that by now -you're not an infant.
Also, speaking about flags - I believe you were on a different forum post demanding that government force people to NOT fly flags...
My reply was sarcasm as to what was force...
Going to parades? Wearing a t-shirt? C'mon Evan.
And to the "forcing" BS of raising a child with morals, and to be proud of their nation.
yeah you all are right, raising your child to love their country and Rights, and to want them to act in a way that brings honor to your family and country, is force... bull shit.
Where'd these "children" you speak of enter the argument?
You just pulled that out of left-field to make it seem like I hate family values.
That was epic, TM... but I caught you~~~~
Forcing people to do ANYTHING is wrong. (parental issues aside)
I agree lovemychris it is not very American to tell everyone what religion is correct I have my beliefs you have yours. and god and morals does not stop them from being very christian, their aim (republicans) seems to be on the poor disabled and under advantaged I always thought that the republicans would return us to a time that likened slavery, but this time it will not be a racial issue but the one of huge separations in the distribution of wealth. 98 % of the population will be owned by the corporations the others will be the owners.
Actually the democrats have reprised slavery by creating and perpetuating the welfare state. The poor are their slaves and are completely dependent on the social programs democrats refuse to make cuts to. Why teach people to make it on their own when they can keep them begging for handhouts and voting the way they tell them to?
Everyone in the United States was deemed property through the Act of 1871. You already belong to a corporation.
The CORPORATION of the UNITED STATES.
Guess which party passed this Act?
Can you give us a name of the legislation so I can look it up?
And yes--the Repubs are fascists. IMO
No minimum wage
No abortion rights for women
Voting rights being stymied
Rise of corporate police state
Unions that force people to strike when they don't want to = bad.
Minimum wages = bad
"Unions that force people to strike when they don't want to = bad."
Unions call strikes only after they are supported by a majority vote. And workers who don't want to strike have a right to come to work if the plant isn't shut down by their employer. Of course unions can be pretty nasty toward what they call scabs, and employers only encourage back to work campaigns out of desperation.
"Of course unions can be pretty nasty toward what they call scabs..."
Before I go out on the 100+ degree heat today for my"Young Republican" employer,the same one that ignores most safety rules until he needs to fix things. We seem to be the only crew on the entire site not provided with water (which is in our contract) and worked to the last second. Due to the lack of work we must keep our mouths shut. All in pursuit of a dollar. This is how we should live now.Thank organized labor for the way you work now because I can see it regressing right before my eyes
So what you're saying is that the "evil employer who ignores regulations" is the only person still able to hire anyone? In fact, you seem to suggest that if he had NOT been breaking the rules, he might not be able to hire you!
And you're also saying that working for this individual is much better than all of your other alternatives?
... and you're MAD at him?
True Republicans have money. To think one is Republican without money is an idiot. As someone was saying to me last week they must be smart they have money.
And I said that is all they are smart about.
knolyyourself the profiteers are positioning to take control of everything, and they are the true republican. they have no desire to participate in any kind of social spending without a profit motive. this means that the tax payers are paying those big ceo checks. the sheep are content to cut the programs while giving the corporations the ability to steal more of the taxpayers money!
Only the Ignorant and complacent will stand by to see what happens!
vote the fascists out before they gain more control....... please
And what about all the Leftists media and movie moguls and George Soros?
They are just fine, eh?
The American Left's favorite all time Jew Seller, and NAZI loving slaughterer.
Wow, you all keep very good company.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/ … emy_o.html
Do you all over there on the Left really think Soros gives a damn about any of you, or us... keep selling your nation out to those who would not only slaughter their own, the Jews, but you right along side of them, if it was worth a buck.
Talk about selling your souls to the Devil. Remember Chris... "Birds of a feather...".
Soros is small potatoes compared to Murdoch who is breaking the laws of the lands to profit from the idiots who watch his propaganda
the same can easily be said about Democrats. Democrats dole money out to private interests just as much as Republicans do.
yes they all do. it is to whom it is doled out to and the payoff that is in question
"The Last Enemy is a BBC TV series starring Benedict Cumberbatch and featuring Robert Carlyle and Max Beesley which first aired on 17 February 2008."
Watched some of this. Not one of the better British mini-series, but shows what is going to happen, because they can't help themselves they have to do it because they have the technology. Total Information Awareness.... of everybody by computer.
"the loudest Jewish voices in this case have belonged to those defending Soros from Beck's attacks.
"This is the height of ignorance or insensitivity, or both," said Abraham Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, who noted that as a child, he was protected by non-Jews who had not revealed his background to him.
"As a kid, at 6, I spit at Jews -- does that make me part of the Nazi machine?" Foxman said. "There's an arrogance here for Glenn Beck, a non-Jew, to set the standards of what makes a good Jew."
Elan Steinberg, the vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, called Beck's attack "improper."
"When you make a particularly monstrous accusation such as this, you have to have proof," he said. "I have seen no proof."
Simon Greer, the director of Jewish Funds for Justice, was one of several Jewish leaders who had confronted Beck after he said during the recent election season that terms like "social justice" lead to death camps.
Greer and other Jewish leaders met with senior Fox News Channel officials, and subsequently Beck sent Greer a note saying he understood "the sensitivity and sacred nature of this dark chapter in human history."
Greer said Wednesday that Beck and Fox had made a "mockery of their professed understanding."
"No one who truly understands 'the sensitivity and sacred nature' of the Holocaust would deliberately and grotesquely mischaracterize the experience of a 13-year-old Jew in Nazi-occupied Hungary whose father hid him with a non-Jewish family to keep him alive," Greer said. "Many other Jews survived the attempted extermination of the Jewish people by changing their identities and hiding with Righteous Gentiles. With today’s falsehoods, Beck has engaged in a form of Holocaust revisionism."
A number of commentators have described Beck's series this week as employing anti-Semitic tropes"
You and Beck are the birds of a feather mason.
REAL Jews don't have much respect for your understanding of history.
Which "real" Jews would those be?
The ones Soros sent to the camps and chambers as he stole their wealth?
You amaze me... and all these other leant Leftists, also.
Your heroes are Mao, Stalin, Che, Castro, Soros, Chevez, Pol Pot, Ho Che Minh, ..and I will skip ahead past dozens of other mass Communist Socialist Marxist bred butchers... (And don't think I do not know that Mussolini was an ardent Marxist throughout his younger life. He studied Marx and Engels intently in his youth and applied what he learned just like Hitler).
Two more of you all's you like to pawn off on the Right.
...and then you all have the guts to talk about Israel defending themselves against another anti-Semitic ideology that seeks to destroy them as a People, a Nation, and a Religion... just your sort of folks though.
http://www.hubertlerch.com/modules/Muss … alist.html
And that is not to mention your affinity for those other partners of the NAZIs... Islam.
"Which "real" Jews would those be?"
"No one who truly understands 'the sensitivity and sacred nature' of the Holocaust would deliberately and grotesquely mischaracterize the experience of a 13-year-old Jew in Nazi-occupied Hungary whose father hid him with a non-Jewish family to keep him alive,"
And the ONLY people I see being destroyed over there are the Palestinians....
Get your head out of your ideology, and into the here and now please. Thank you.
btw....I never read your propaganda. Heard it ALLLLL before.
Chris. I do not imagine you read anything in contradiction to your own blind ideology. Closed minded intolerance is a trade-mark character trait of the leant Left.
I have always found it amusing the way Leant Leftists cry racism and closed minded bigot at anyone who does not agree with them, and then they exemplify the very intolerance and racist bigotry they accuse others of in their own words and actions.
The fact is your leant Leftist heroes have forever slaughtered Jews and others in their quests to centrtalize and sieze power in this world... and you all are just continuing the tradition.
As I said last nite... the list is innumerable.
And I know there are a few Jews who excuse and even condone his actions... too bad the greater majority do not. And George Soros himself is the one who characterized that time working with the NAZIs as the, "the happiest time of his life", no one but Soros himself stated that.
That came right from his own mouth... so no one has mischaracterized his words... we, I, have simply stated what he said.
LMC, don't bother responding to paid posters. That's just what they want. If the admins are too complacent to rid HP of those who are obviously hired to post on the forums, then they will go away if u ignore them.
How does one go about getting paid to post on forums? That sounds like a pretty easy on line job for someone who can put a couple of sentences together.
Sorry, I thought everyone had seen this one already.
Not being Canadian I probably don't qualify. Besides isn't the booming Canadian economy a clear demonstration that conservative economic policies are superior to liberal ones. The US dollar used to be worth 1.10 Canadian Dollars. Now that is nearly reversed with a 14 cent swing in favor of Canada. 1 CanDollar is worth 1.04 USDollars. This is a direct consequence of the currency manipulation by the Federal Reserve underwriting Barry's budget deficits.
They're not Barry's deficits...They're George's!
Did you think they all dissappeared when he did?
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/ … ut/976141/
"Besides isn't the booming Canadian economy a clear demonstration that conservative economic policies are superior to liberal ones."
That's pretty funny, considering that Canadians pay more in taxes than USAians and the Right has been shrieking against "Canadian-style" health care, or really Canadian-style anything (except perhaps bacon) for rather a long time now. If the Canadian economy is proof of anything, it's that meaningful regulation of industry works and that taxes do not necessarily stifle economic growth.
But data doesn't mean much to ideologues.
Reading that was like splashing my face with cool water during a heat wave. Simple, straight forward, fair, rational, so rare!
What I think happens so often is the old bait and switch. Conservatives are not fascists but the republicans hornswoggling them could well be, same with liberals and their relationship with Democrats. Seems to me that one uses bullying tactics to get its way, they other crybaby tactics, but I could be wrong
Yes they are (except one).
Republicans are fascists (except one), and the Democrats are Communists.
Guess what that means when we get "bipartisanship"!!! Either NAZIs or Soviet Russia.
Here's a first class Republican fascist. Rick Santorum.
This was Dan Savage's revenge on Santorum for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, etc.
Now, see, I actually want to discuss this seriously.
If people are all for Gay-Rights (I'm one of them, don't get me wrong), and people believe that these individuals have rights because "gay" is genetic, then... why don't people feel the same way about bestiality and pedophilia?
I am NOT encouraging these acts, I am merely asking why one form of genetic make up can be said to have rights, but another can not.
Before you say it, yes yes yes - I agree: Children can't really give consent, and thus THAT is a good argument against pedophiles. But is it not still a genetic make-up?
I look forward to a good CONVERSATION about this, not a "Evan is a child molester" insult throw-down.
What is right and wrong is largely based on a religious and societal consensus which in western civiliaztions condemned bestiality, pedophilia, voyeurism, exposing onself in public, adultery and homosexuality. The consensus has changed wrt homosexuality. Adultery is no longer a crime in most states, and homosexuality is no longer characterized a mental illness by psychiatrists and is no longer illegal in the United States and other civilized countries. The same cannot be said of bestiality or pedophilia or even voyeurism and flashing. The societal consensus remains that they are immoral, and they are illegal. A man was recently convicted in Michigan for having sex with a horse. And penalties for pedophilia behavior are severe.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 … 97005.html
Indeed, societal norms influence heavily what is legal or not.
But law aside, what about morality? If a man loving a man is considered morally ok, then .... IF CONSENT WERE POSSIBLE ... what about the other situations?
It seems that true voluntary conduct can't be seen as immoral. Perhaps that's the argument for homosexual love and against pedophilia.
Actually, the legal issues aside, could beastiality explain where the teabaggers came from?
If ultra-conservative were half of the breeding program that gives them a human appearance, where in the animal kingdom did the other half come from?
"If people are all for Gay-Rights... why don't people feel the same way about bestiality and pedophilia?"
"IF CONSENT WERE POSSIBLE ... what about the other situations?"
You answered your own question, Evan. There's no way you can get informed, competent, adult consent to engage in pedophilia or bestiality.
And that's why anyone who compares consensual gay sex between adults to something like pedophilia is nothing more than a hater.
I hear most people argue that Gay's shouldn't be "hated" because "They never chose to be gay"... But the more I think about it, it's a faulty argument.
Pedophiles never chose to be pedophiles, and ... beastophiles?... never chose to be so.
It seems that the only valid argument for hetero and homosexuals is that "Its a completely voluntary act".
I dunno, I know this little side thread of off topic of the OP, but I think it was worth having.
"I hear most people argue that Gay's shouldn't be "hated" because "They never chose to be gay""
Well, that's in response to the people condemning gay people fro "choosing" this "immoral" lifestyle, where the obvious (but faulty) argument is "No, they didn't choose it, that's just how they're wired," or something like that.
It's a response to the way the condemnation was framed, and perhaps to the way straight allies are wired themselves: I don't get why someone would be gay, they think. [i]I just don't find dudes sexually attractive, plus, look at all the grief people get for being gay. It's not something a rational person would choose[i].
But the whole argument misses the point. The anti-gay folks' argument rests on how doing gay stuff is bad, and will rot our teeth, blight our crops, curdle our milk, and make foreigners crash airliners into our buildings*.
What people who support equality have to ask is this: Why exactly is it bad for two competent, informed, consenting adult guys to get married to each other? Why? What makes it bad and worthy of prohibition?
The haters will eventually have to admit that they just don't like it, which isn't a good enough reason.
Nobody chooses to be gay, but informed, competent, consenting adult gay people can choose to make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together. Why should we prohibit that?
Nobody chooses to be a pedophile or a beast-o-phile, and you can't get an informed competent adult consent from a child or an animal. So we prohibit pedophilia and bestiality.
Thanks for taking my post seriously! I was in an master's of education class about non-discrimination, and simply suggesting things like "maybe the real argument gays should be using is NOT that they were just born that way" would get you kicked out of class.
I spent about $700 to hear "the media does it" 3 days a week for 9 weeks.
Why wouldn't I take your post seriously?
Honestly, though, the "I was born this way" argument is almost a surrender, because it tacitly concedes the haters' argument that "gay stuff is bad, so we should prohibit it."
This is how the argument has been going:
Hater: Gay stuff is bad, so we should prohibit you from doing gay stuff.
Gay activist: But I can't help being gay!
Disinterested 3rd party: So it's bad, but you can't help it? Not much of a reason to support you against the haters.
It should be going like this:
Hater: Gay stuff is bad, so we should prohibit you from doing gay stuff.
Gay activist: Please explain why it's bad for informed, competent, consenting adults to mutually pleasure each other in their own home?
Hater: It's just icky!
Disinterested 3rd party: Really? That's all you got? 'It's just icky?' You're nuts. Let the gay folks have their fun.
And the ANP was much more visible in the streets of Scranton right after he got elected.
Yes--America is regressing, not moving forward.
It is twice as bad for my kids as it was for me....the last generation that had it good was my parents...
And we had problems then too. Big ones. Vietnam, Watergate, etc.
But--it won't last. And they won't have their way in the end. Not this time. Not AT this time in earth's history!
Just try and hang in there--keep positive. The eon of male dominance is ovah.
Mama is coming home!!!
A friend of mine used to always use this phrase: The Last Gasp. This is what we are seeing now, imo. You know when Dorothy threw the water on the Wicked Witch and she dissolved? Kind of like that!
Are Republicans fascists? No. Sorry, but they're not. They're drifting further and further to the right, that's true. And some of them--some of them only--are starting to seem pretty fascist. But is the GOP a fascist organization? Nope. For the most part they just want to do right by their country as they see it.
Though the continued attempts by right-leaning people to revise history and convince people that fascism was a left-wing movement are really really amusing.
And they claim to not like "revisionism."
The label " fascist " has its roots in the governing philosophies of Italy's National Fascist Party and Germany's National Socialist (Nazi) Party. There has been a false duality created between the Soviet Socialists of the USSR and the socialists united under the fascists in Italy and Germany. The totalitarian impulse, the philosophy of state control of decisions taking priority over individual freedoms, is the core uniting principle behind these movements. The ongoing home of such statism is in the "liberal" politics of the modern progressive movement.
Looking at the fascist tactics of Wilson's progressive administration in 1917 and 1918, whereby opponents of his policies were brutally suppressed, one can see the beginnings of the modern Progressive movement. Take the time to review the repressive Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Acts that Wilson promulgated. Study his backing of Carranza and his Vera Cruz expedition in Mexico. At any rate, the early Progressive movement in the US brought many ideas into the mainstream of American political thought that were later used as cornerstones of fascist ideology.
good responses I believe that the socialists in Nazi Germany and Italy at the time were repressed until the war was over and the regimes had fallen but I am not an expert on the rise of socialism in Europe I can only tell you my observations of the current political climate and how it follows a pattern of Fascism for the last 30 years.
This is very enlightening, i'm beginning to understand why many liberals can't seem to have a civil discussion without resorting to name calling and nastiness. This is thier attempt to try to silence dissent. This behavior exemplifies the intolerance of the fascist creed.
You want to see nasty?
Crank up Sarah Palin's speech accepting the VP nomination.
It's all fun when you are dishing it out, but you want PC courtesy when you trot out something stupid or false.
Whats the current fashion wear for the well dressed fascist?
I suppose thats you in the picture?
Blue Shirts in Ireland, Spain and, Brown in Germany, Black in Italy and Britain, Gold in Mexico, Silver in the US, Green in Brazil and Rumania. A rather far reaching philosophy for one dismissed by liberal Stalinist/Maoist apologists who dismiss Fascism/Nazism as purely nationalistic. A fact distorted by the liberal despite the international nature of the Spanish Civil War. The conflict between Fascist and Socialist/Communist merely demonstrates the ferocity with which liberals will fall upon each other.
all I know id that they(republicans) have been systematically working propaganda to make themselves look good while working the middle class to extinction. you need only to look at Germany in the 30s to see a correlation
we are terribly close to losing our form of government because of excessive greed and the alienation of most citizens
"The conflict between Fascist and Socialist/Communist merely demonstrates the ferocity with which liberals will fall upon each other."
Isn't it amazing when people try to rewrite history? Beck said it so it must be true...
Where did Franco fit in?
Fascism, by its nature, requires a Centralized Authority. Communism requires a Centralized Authority. Socialism requires a Centralized Authority. Liberalism espouses the centralization of authority in an ever growing state. The ultimate goal of the liberal state is establishing a utopia. The Fascists, Communists, Socialists and liberals all seek a utopian order. The methods all vary but the destination is the same.
For the conservative the essential locus of authority is the individual empowered by nature with perfect freedom. The conservative surrenders to a severely limited state that small portion of personal authority necessary to protect liberty and social order - not a scintilla more.
This is why, those who consider such things deeply, lump the "isms" into one overarching category of Statism. Though the methodology and structures may vary the ultimate means is an ever more powerful State. That is why Fascism/Nazism are not conservative political philosophies.
"For the conservative the essential locus of authority is the individual empowered by nature with perfect freedom. "
No, that's the Libertarian ideal, not the conservative one.
"The conservative surrenders to a severely limited state that small portion of personal authority necessary to protect liberty and social order - not a scintilla more." The problem with this minarchist idea is that it wants to limit the power of government (which ultimately answers to the people at large) so much that corporations can pretty much do whatever the heck they want at the expense of everyone else, and there's nothing the government will be able to do to protect the people. Kind of like Somalia.
"That is why Fascism/Nazism are not conservative political philosophies."
No, that's how you rationalize your revisionist claim that Fascism/Nazism aren't extreme right-wing isms.
But you go ahead and rationalize and revise. It's entertaining.
"Fascism/Nazism are an extreme right-wing" it is hardly a rationalization to examine the policies and actions of a governmental form and place loci on various continnuums. All authority centralized to complete anarchy being one and liberty to tyranny being the other. If one does so, and abandons all the silly notion that journalist and historian propagandists perpetuated, one finds Fascism/Nazism located on points nearer Communism and Socialism than conservatism.
History is written by the winners and the history of how Fascism/Nazism are characterized was written by many who were enamored of Stalin. Wasn't Stalin our ally during the war? Wasn't the great Soviet state, praised in the pages of the New York Times, no less, the workers paradise? It is the American Statist, whose sympathies lie with the Communist/Socialist who lumps their political adversary here in with the Fascists.
Wait, you just seem to have used different words to describe the same continuum.
You really want communism and fascism to be exactly the same, but no matter how you slice it, they aren't. You're just wrong. Plus, you're engaging in a game of "I know you are but what am I," which is pretty funny.
Get some glasses, mate.
I wonder why Edfish and lame Stream have the same avatar?
you have managed to bash liberals but you still haven't told me why republicans are not fascists there is only proof that they are!
john they pulled my lame stream media account because they dont want the truth this is the only thread left of it ........
The problems News International is having in the UK could still seriously harm Fox.
Why is that important? Karl Prove once said (from memory) 'We thought Fox News was our dog then we realized we are Fox's dog.'
There is no doubt the Republican Party has been hijacked by extremists but it will only be really scary if people are foolish enough to elect them.
Fox is the only force powerful enough to push that level of delusion.
I'm not a republican but I have no doubt that this country would not survive as a nation of freedom with four more years of this administration.
Maybe someone will check the ratings of Fox vs the lame stream media and then with logic and reason determine how Fox got that power.
"...determine how Fox got that power."
By forgetting that journalism is about telling people what happened, where it happened, when it happened, who did it, and why, and instead creating a narrative that plays on the fears of the general population, and embedding words and phrases designed to make people angry, while reassuring them that they're superior to the "enemy," whoever that might be.
When people are scared and angry, they tend not to think clearly, and will believe anything, especially when they're told that they're not to blame, even a little bit, for the things they're sacred and angry about. It's all their fault, whoever they are.
That's Fox's recipe for getting and keeping viewers. Fear and anger, and absolution for the viewer of any sense of real responsibility.
Take a look at Fox's reaction to the Norway Bomber's Christian manifesto: they went nuts to claim two things: 1) the bomber clearly wasn't a Christian (even if he did write up a huge Christian Crusader manifesto) and 2) the rest of the media are out to get Christians because they mentioned that the guy wrote a huge Christian Crusader manifesto.
But all Fox needed to conclude that the guy who shot up Ford Hood was a Muslim was that they guy had Soldier of Allah business cards in his wallet.
Yeah, that's fair and balanced.
Fox is a propaganda machine telling people what they want to hear: Fox blames other people (muslims, intellectuals, immigrants) for everything that's bad in the world, and absolves its viewers of any culpability or complicity. Great way to get ratings and money. Bad recipe for good journalism.
Lets see if I have this right: Fox (the #1 news station on TV does not know journalism...they have millions of viewers scared and angry and they're superior to an unknown enemy.
Now these scared and angry people who now are confused as well, are told by Fox that they are not to blame for what they are scared and angry about....whoever they are.
The Fox news reporters that went "nuts" must have recovered because they didn't fail to mention that a true christian doesn't go and plan pre-meditated murder....oops, forgot........ alot of people must have those soldier of allah business cards in their wallet so that shouldn't count.
Okay, this is not a personal attack....you are obviously not a Fox viewer and have knowledge of what a journalist should be.....if you are muslim, you should not be offended unless you are an extremist and want to push sharia law instead of living by our laws in the US.
Whatever your problem, you appear to be "scared, angry, and confused".
"Lets see if I have this right:"
You sorta have it right... let's go point by point.
"Fox (the #1 news station on TV does not know journalism."
it's not so much that they don't know journalism, but rather, they're not doing journalism.
"they have millions of viewers scared and angry "
"and they're superior to an unknown enemy."
I assume you mean "...[thinking that] they're superior..." If so, yes, you're right.
"Now these scared and angry people who now are confused as well, are told by Fox that they are not to blame for what they are scared and angry about....whoever they are."
Okay, this was a bit muddled, but you're essentially right: Fox reassures its scared, angry viewers by telling them that the things they're scared and angry about are problems caused by people who aren't like themselves. The message is that "Real Americans" (that is to say, Fox's audience) aren't to blame.
"The Fox news reporters that went "nuts" must have recovered because they didn't fail to mention that a true christian don't go and plan pre-meditated murder."
No, they did mention that a true Christian wouldn't go and plan premeditated murder. But they don't mention that a true Muslim would also never plan premeditated murder. And they also mentioned that talking about the guy's Christian-looking manifesto amounts to an attack on Christians and Christianity by the so-called "lame-stream media." No it doesn't. It's called reporting the facts, and not ignoring the ones that might make some folks a little uncomfortable.
"...oops, forgot........ alot of people must have those soldier of allah business cards in their wallet so that shouldn't count."
Um...no, that should totally count. It should count exactly as much as the Norway guy's Christian-looking manifesto counts. (Which is "not for much.")
See, what I'm pointing out is that Fox glommed onto the Ft. Hood guy's Muslim trappings and mentioned that he was a Muslim extremist every time they talked about him. But they take great pains to downplay the Norway guy's Christian trappings, and never ever call him a Christian extremist.
There's a bit of a double-standard there. You do see that, right?
"Okay, this is not a personal attack....you are obviously not a Fox viewer... "
Why on Earth do you imagine that I'd view that as a personal attack? But no, I do occasionally watch Fox. I'm not a regular viewer, but I don't watch TV in general all that much either.
"...and have knowledge of what a journalist should be."
Yes, I do have knowledge of what a journalist should be. I'm glad that is also obvious. (Wait, that's not what you meant, was it? But it is what you said, so I'll just accept the accidental compliment. No need for me to get my trousers in a twist.)
"if you are muslim, you should not be offended unless you are an extremist and want to push sharia law instead of living by our laws in the US."
I'm not a Muslim, and I'm not offended. I'm just pointing out the double-standard Fox has for violent extremists who kill in the name of Allah, and violent extremists who kill in the name of Christ.
"Whatever your problem, you appear to be "scared, angry, and confused"."
I'm not scared. I'm not angry. I'm not confused. I don't really have a problem other than the fact that Fox is using a hypocritical double standard in its reporting, and so many people don't seem to see it.
(Oh, and by the way? The Emperor is naked.)
Christians, of course, have had a history but in this country, in general we don't kill each other over religion and believe for the most part that ones' religion be personal and be shared in the home or church. It should never be forced but our constitution is embedded with religion and for that reason should be respected. My view is: if your religion is not based on love and respect for life....it has no place in America.
" in this country, in general we don't kill each other over religion..."
Of course we don't, in general.
The same thing can be said of most countries: In general, they don't kill each other over religion.
"...our constitution is embedded with religion..."
Er...Can you point me to the part with the religion in it? 'Cos I've been through the Constitution more than a couple times, and I don't remember reading anything about religion other than the bits that say the people can practice whatever religion they want, and that you can't use a religious test to disqualify someone for a government job.
Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights.
As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers.
Nice sidestep, but please, answer the actual question I asked: can you please point me to the part of the Constitution with the religion in it?
You just showed that other people also think the Constitution is full of religion. That's cool, but you haven't shown me where, exactly, in the Constitution, that all this religious stuff is.
Where does the word "God" appear in the preamble to the Constitution? Or anywhere else? Answer: Nowhere!
God does not appear anywhere in the body of the Constitution.
Not even in the Presidential oath of office: the phrase "so help me God" isn't there! No Bible is required; it's just tradition.
I'm sure you believe that the Constitution is religion-ridden, but it's not. Try reading it.
The framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. However, this is not to say that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ." Note 2. The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people. This is the point I was trying to make.
I see that you are unable to cite a Constitutional clause in support of your assertion that "...our constitution is embedded with religion..." and instead have cast about for other stuff.
The framers were religious men to one degree or another; that is not in dispute. But they deliberately founded a secular republic, with authority derived from the people, rather than from any impossible-to-verify supernatural entity, be it God or any other.
But this bit:
"The framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy."
...tells me that there is hope.
It had nothing to do with him screaming "allahu akbar" throughout the attack?
And yeah, a soldier of allah card, does speak to the mujihadeen.
So, let's get this straight.
I carry out an outrage, shouting Christian slogans and carrying Christian literature, that makes it a Christian outrage!
Fine, glad we got that sorted.
Only individuals act. This is the epic argument of liberty over the past centuries. The Austrian School of Economics recognizes this clearly: one of its tomes of knowledge is entitled "Human Action".
The people who did carry out the attacks WERE Muslims, and they were likely somewhat motivated by what they read in their scriptures. We have to admit this.
But, obviously, that doesn't mean that every Muslim is evil. We can all, minus TM, agree on that.
But the real question is what motivated these people to literally kill themselves in order to hurt the US? The answer simply can't be "religion", otherwise Christians would be bombing Jews, Jews would be bombing Muslims, Muslims would be bombing Shintoists, and Shintoists would be killing Buddhists, and Buddhists would be killing Taoists, and Taoists would be murdering Christians.
Religion simply can't be the answer.
Once again, the answer comes from liberty. The Western world, especially the US has been over there killing them and telling them how to run their governments for about a century now.
I'd be pretty pissed off, too!
"But, obviously, that doesn't mean that every Muslim is evil. We can all, minus TM, agree on that."
And those who believe Fox to be the only "balanced" news source. That was really my point. Fox is quick to label the Fort Hood guy a Muslim terrorist based on superficial stuff like "He shouted Allahu Akbar!" and "He has 'Soldier of Allah' on his business cards!" but is equally quick to say that the Norway guy can't possibly be a Christian even though he printed off a huge, cross-emblazoned manifesto about reclaiming Western Europe in the the name of Christ. Nope, that guy can't possibly be a Christian. But the other guy is obviously a Muslim, 'cos, 'Allahu Akbar'! It's so obvious!
If some business cards and a slogan are enough to say one nutcase is representative of one religion, why is a several-hundred-page manifesto not enough to say that a different nutcase is representative of a different religion?
The answer? Obviously, to the rational mind, neither are enough.
But if you're a propaganda machine, it's okay to focus on the Fort Hood guy's 'obvious' Islamic faith and pretend the Norway guy has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever because we're trying to market our message to American Christians, and we want them to feel good about themselves while being angry at and scared of everyone else. If we mention the Norway guy's Christian manifesto, or even concede its existence, we might make some of our viewers uncomfortable, so we can't do that.
But we can't just ignore it completely; it exists, and other media sources have reported its existence. What we have to do is accuse the other media sources of anti-Christian bias! It fits perfectly into the Christian Siege mentality narrative that we're trying to push on everyone! Yeah--the Norway bombing is also an attack on Christians, but it's secular humanists that are attacking this time! Never mind that the actual bomber didn't write a secular humanist manifesto--that's not important. Most of our viewers don't think about what we tell them; they just think what we tell them. And that's exactly what we want.
You all are funny.
One is, I did not say all muslims were "evil", Evan. That's all you and these here, with your extremism.
I said Fox News stated it was a Muslim attack based on the card and the Muslim screaming allahu akbar... which would make it a pretty good guess.
Cease with the extrmism you all.... you're bunch a radicals.
Of course all muslims are not "evil".... but the are all "Muslim" and will choose Islam and allah over you and your nation.
That is just a simple fact of life.
And the motivation is, Islam.
"I said Fox News stated it was a Muslim attack based on the card and the Muslim screaming allahu akbar... which would make it a pretty good guess."
Given the above, then you'd think that a "fair and balanced" news source would call the Norway bombing a "Christian attack," based on the Christian manifesto the bomber guy wrote.
But they didn't. This is what is known as a double-standard. And it's not what a rational person would call "fair and balanced."
Only individuals act, TM. To say otherwise is to blame YOU for the Crusades.
Why would anyone strap bombs to themselves to kill one another? Well, the answer CAN'T be religion - I don't see any Christians flying planes into any buildings, nor Jews.
The real reason is that the Western world has been over there, especially the US, telling them how to run their lives for about a century.
I'd be pissed off if that had been happening to the US.
Totalitarianism is evident on both the extreme right and the extreme left. It seems though that politics is more naturally drawn to one end or the other, with the middle-of-the-road view being unattractive to those of a political persuasion. It is why it is often so difficult to make progress in society, because there is a constant battle between those on the far- right and the far-left, with the control of a country swinging every few years from one to the other. Years of liberal, politically correct politics, causes the people to react, by voting for parties of the right. Then, after a few years of these, the public react by returning to the left. From what I read of the Republicans, they do seem to becoming even more right in their thinking, perhaps because they are reacting to their dislike of Obama, and because of the far-right religious lobby groups, which now have more influence than ever in American society.
They fit both sides to a T because both sides make up our federal government and the federal government as a whole is becoming more and more totalitarian. PLenty of blame for both sides of the aisle.
if one religious group gets the approval of the congress then you basically have undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers. I appreciate all of the comments, very interesting how the conversation has flowed.
by Alternative Prime24 months ago
Prosecuting malicious conservative republican politicians in congress for attempting to Shut Down OUR Tax-Payer-Funded United States Government is long over due ~ If there are no consequences for their irrationally...
by Cedar Cove Farm6 years ago
PLease, only answer if you have been a traditional conservative. I am a conservative Christian and my view is that the neo-conservatives stink just as bad as the liberals. I want true, American old fashined...
by My Esoteric2 months ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with...
by Credence23 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Jimbo'daNimbo2 weeks ago
We have two major political parties that would seem to stop at nothing to get or keep power. This was highlighted to me when my son and I went to see The Campaign. Who do you feel is the least scrupulous? Please...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.