Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet...
U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156511] Wed, 25 May 2005 19:06 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
SuperFlyingEngi is currently offline  SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma:
General (1 Star)
ACK

Tell that to the Progressives, who have a similar line of thought as you do, at the turn of the last century. They are the root of fascism as it's known today.


Gosh, that's weird, progressive thinkers thinking progressively? No.....

ACK

Perhaps you could prove me wrong with some factual evidence instead of being your normal fungal self. I might start utilizing the ignore feature for you soon, since nothing you say has any value whatsoever.


If you're going to ignore me, then cut the crap and just do it, or shut up.

ACK

Yes, it does. The word fascism originates from Italy during the reign of Mussolini.


And the word fascism originates from the fasces, an axe surrounded by a bundle of wooden rods symbolizing the power of the Roman king before the establishment of the Republic.

ACK

Sounds somewhat similar to Marx, doesn't it?


Propping up the proles is certainly one way to gain mass attention.

ACK

He's a good union guy, too. Sounds like many liberals.


But not a direct to modern day liberals. Conservatives would like Unions too if they had an economic stance other than pro-Big Business.

ACK


His definition of liberalism being neo-liberalism, politics defined by people like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15077

Progressives and the definition of them, what they did. They sound a lot like you, super fungal infection.


In interesting point to make of fascism is no matter how liberal it's policies are, there is no end to the government declaring that it is anti-liberal and denouncing liberalism, since hypocrisy rolls off the tongues of fascist leaders.

By the way, that article is nothing more than a cobbled-together, commentaried sweep of random historical events that "shows" how all liberals ever are commie bastards. Hidden, of course, under pretend college-level thesis paper language. Of course.

But back to the real issue. I believe we've talked before when I compared "neo-cons" [I know, it's an oxymoron, we've been over this.] to fascists over the current "liberal".] Which really is not so much a defining system of classification in political thoughts as it telling of someone who has progressive thoughts. Which is more than a few groups of people, you may well know. The point I attempt to make, that you so casually and emtpy-mindedly cast aside, is that the majority of Republicans sitting in public office today closely follow this ideal of "neo-conservatism", which closely mirrors fascism in leftist policies whilst denouncing leftism. Like fascist, and communist, parties attempting to take control, they fool all the country bumpkins into thinking they're getting a good deal, in this case "tax cuts". In Mussolini's time, it was discarding the bourgeouis, while the same thing happened as China turned communist under Mao Zedong. Hitler actually did help the proletariat, and made it known as he created many new jobs after the devastating German depression Post-WWI. In the other major cases, the poor didn't exactly get what they hoped. The Italians eventually got mad enough at Mussolini to hang him upside down from a lamppost and kill him with machine gun fire. Mao Zedong's 3-year plans and Cultural Revolution killed about 30 million Chinese from starvation and being targeted by the Red Guard. And of course, all of these people suppressed dissenting opinions in the press. Just like Bush is doing now. Look at Newsweek.

Funny thing is, I didn't need some website to tell me that. Unlike you.

ACK

Hey, it's your buddy Woodrow Wilson! Wonder why he's racist... Oh wait, that's because he's a Progressive, which is a liberal by today's standards.


Well, I must be a racist to. By the way, where the hell did you quote that from? I like how they provide no evidence to actual segregation of Washington. Sounds a lot like how you think the Clintonites "trashed" the White House, of which you of course have not one shred of evidence for, but will never stop believing. And therein lies your weakness when it comes to politics.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)

The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Renegade Alert & Reality Television
Next Topic: The pipeline that wiill change the world?
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat Dec 14 18:48:32 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01107 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 420.69.
Copyright ©2001-2023 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software