Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet...
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156069] |
Mon, 23 May 2005 19:24  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7957374/
Senate came pretty close to breaking right there.
Good thing we have such morally strong Republicans ready to break any institution, no matter how old. Except, of course, the institution of marriage, because that's much more important than a silly little thing like the government.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156227] |
Tue, 24 May 2005 15:54  |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
You all obviously haven't been following news closely enough for the past month. The Republicans almost broke the Senate by invoking cloture. 'Nuff said.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156306] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 00:15 |
 |
bigejoe14
Messages: 1302
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
You all obviously haven't been following news closely enough for the past month. The Republicans almost broke the Senate by invoking cloture. 'Nuff said.
|
Which is something you didn't want to happen (and would have considered facist if it did happen) since it didn't follow your liberal ideals.
WHATEVER, FAGGOT
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156315] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 04:31 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Liberal ideals of a working government?
What the hell does that even mean? Of course I didn't want that to happen. Last I checked, those counted as conservative ideals, too.
Additionally, I think it's funny no one here knows anything about what happened or could have happened with this whole cloture vote. You should perhaps try harder to get the news.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156322] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 04:45 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Interesting concept, no matter how obviously incorrect it might be.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156331] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 05:49 |
 |
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| theplague |
are all politisions this ugly?
|
Yeah... it seems that way... I mean, look at the monkey in office O_o
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156361] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 09:25 |
 |
Toolstyle
Messages: 215
Registered: May 2004
Location: Manchester
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Fascism on the extreme right wing of politics (stemming from Conservatism) and Liberalism is Left of centre…how did Liberals invent Fascism?
The 3 most famous fascist were all conservatives. Mussolini (inventer of fascism), Hitler and Franco (he was just conservative but because Hitler and Mussolini helped him was considered fascist). So how did a group of people who are left of centre invent an extream right wing political stance?
| Aircraftkiller |
That's irrelevant to this thread.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156437] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 14:25 |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Yes, it does. The word fascism originates from Italy during the reign of Mussolini.
Mussolini quotes:
| Quote: |
"If the bourgeoisie think they will find lightning conductors in us they are the more deceived; we must start work at once .... We want to accustom the working class to real and effectual leadership".
|
Sounds somewhat similar to Marx, doesn't it?
| Quote: |
"Therefore I desire that this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism"
|
He's a good union guy, too. Sounds like many liberals.
| Quote: |
"Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics".
|
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.
| Quote: |
"Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington's large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson's cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington. Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments".
|
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.
Wonder where Mussolini got his ideas?
| Quote: |
"If we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because, without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good".
|
Hey, that comes from Roosevelt...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DOCUMENTS/Roosevelt_Inaugural.txt.html
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156511] |
Wed, 25 May 2005 19:06 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Not Fascist Just Yet... [message #156561] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 04:36 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Except for when Scott McClellan came out saying that it was a start that Newsweek pulled the story and apologized, but they need to do more. That is indeed a form of attempted censorship, whether you would like it or not.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 12 13:10:44 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01040 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
