SF lefties rally for Hezbollah!

The far right, in contrast, doesn't want government telling them what to do. You'll hear Cons say, "Hey! The government doesn't know what's best for me, I know what's best for me! They're not going to tell me what to do!" The right wing would rather tell you what not to do. Don't get an abortion, don't marry somebody of the same gender, don't use stem cells in scientific research, don't teach evolution in schools. So when voting this year, just ask yourself, "Do I want the government telling me what to do? Or do I want the government telling me what not to do?"

I dont want either of them telling me anyhting. I want both of their noses out of my ass. I want to carry guns, smoke weed and cigarettes, have abortions, marry a gay guy (or even better a gal:)), have evolution taught in schools, have the ten commandments in the Court House, leave the cross in San Diego up. I want to profile Muslims, wipe my butt on the flag, put a crucifix in pee and let Mel Gibson rant. Im a big enough boy to take care of myself and I know who my enemies are.

In the ideal world, folks like Savage, Linbaugh, Streisand, Buchanen, Gore, Move On, and all the rest of the shrieking nincompoops would just poof disapear.

Just leave me alone and spend lots of money on the military so I dont get blowed up.

WildihavethefluandimdonestickaforkinmeAlaska
 
Fascist has a dictionary definition which basically says that fascism is the melding of the state and industry to control a society. Socialist is a precursor to communist. And you can be a socialist and a fascist by statement and definition as were the Nazi’s by their own definition
 
The primary reason that "islamofascist" drives me nuts is that the relationship between religion and the State is totally different. In Fascism, the Church serves the State, as an agent of State power, and is subservient to the needs of the State. I don't think that's what Osama Bin Laden wants. In fact, it just about 180 degrees from it.

ODL and his ilk are theocrats, and by definition therefore are totalitarians. At least, I'm not aware of any free theocracies. But Fascists, they clearly are not. Fascism's ideology had some clearly-defined themes, here are the ones that leap to mind right now:

1. The inate superiority of "the nation" or "the people." This was more racial in Nazi ideology, where for Mussolini and Franco, I think it was more nationalistic. Might be wrong on that one, though.

2. The strong (see #1) not only deserve to rule over the weak, it is their duty to do so. The weaker should support and serve their superior masters.

3. While Fascism was not primarily an economic ideology, it had some economic ideas. Work is the duty of the citizen to the State. (like communism) The work of some is more valuable to the nation than that of others, and the citizens should be ranked accordingly. (not like communism) The economic power of business should be allied with the power of the State, and should be directed towards the glory and expansion of the Nation. If you get rich in the process, that's OK, as long as you do not betray the goals of the State for money, or use your wealth to challenge the State's power.

4. The natural goal and duty of the People and the Nation is to expand, pushing aside the weaker nations and taking their resources and lands. War, and specifically imperial war, is essential to Fascist ideology. In fact, Fascist social organization was all geared to the creation of a war machine, and the soldiers to make it go. Some inspiration was clearly taken from the Spartans, here.

5. Religion is seen as a means of social control. As long as the Church remains subservient to the State, and does not create a rival power base, it's tolerated, even encouraged. The three countries that had Fascist governments all had authoritarian religious traditions. Spain and Italy are heavily Roman Catholic, as was southern Germany. Northern Germany was Protestant, but the churches there had a long tradition of serving the will of the princes and kings.

Yes, "fascist" has come to mean "authoritarian", but it's a squares-and-rectangles kind of thing. All Fascists are authoritarians. Not all authoritarians are Fascists. I'm not trying to be pedantic, either. Fascism is a specific ideology, and one that will reappear. Since I consider it to be one of the most deadly ideologies ever dreamt up by the mind of man, I think it's important to know what it is, and what it is not. The last time it reared it's ugly head, it cost over 100 million people their lives. The way to not have to pay that butcher's bill again is to be able to recognize it when it comes, and kill it then.

I hope I didn't come across like I was trying to slap anyone down. I wasn't.

That is a good synopsis. However, I wonder if you are familiar with Clerical Facism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_fascism
 
definition of fascism

"Fascist has a dictionary definition which basically says that fascism is the melding of the state and industry to control a society."

***According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of fascism is:
1. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.

Gee, which country does this sound like?
 
Russia. they are not quite there yet but the state is gaining control of most of the profitable industries, arresting non-Russian business tycoons, and promoting Russia-for-Russians policies.

Cuba. too bad they live on readmittence from the USA....hypocritical commies.
 
I'll say it. America. And I do still love this country.

Edited to add: Note that Facism does not always mean the state taking control of business and industry, it CAN be the other way around.

Blackwaterputshisflamesuitonops
 
Wild, if that weren't such a long post (#21), it would make a great sig line. ;)

btw - couldn't agree more. Doesn't happen often so live it up. :p
 
I'll say it. America. And I do still love this country.

Edited to add: Note that Facism does not always mean the state taking control of business and industry, it CAN be the other way around.

Missed the part about a dictatorship, didn't you?
 
We are no where near that Blackwater and picking single events to broad brush the entire nation like so many do proves nothing. I wonder if anyone saying that has EVER been to a real facist nation, if they had they would understand how valuable and rare the USA is in the light of world events.
 
capitalism is the disease, revolution is the cure
ooh please start your revolution commies. Like scarface said "I kill commies for free" and I got plenty of ammo. My dads M1903-A3 is very eager to go to work also.:cool:

(edit: Same thing goes for facists)
 
Missed the part about a dictatorship, didn't you?

No. A dictatorship is "leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors". In the past 6 years I have seen a man rule while ignoring the law, the constitution, and what the people and representatives of the country want.

We are no where near that Blackwater and picking single events to broad brush the entire nation like so many do proves nothing.

No where near what? I think we fit the definition pretty well.

I wonder if anyone saying that has EVER been to a real facist nation, if they had they would understand how valuable and rare the USA is in the light of world events.

Been there, done that, and I most certainly do. What I worry about is that we are drifting closer to becoming as bad as certain places outside the US, now and in history.

Bottom line is Churchill put is best, America has "the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
 
^ Drifting closer in your mind is not the same thing as a fact of law. Please list for me all the civil and constitutional rights you have lost in the last Oh say five years. No opinions about what "maybe" happening, list the "rights" you have lost in law.
 
Please list for me all the civil and constitutional rights you have lost in the last Oh say five years. No opinions about what "maybe" happening, list the "rights" you have lost in law.

It's not just rights that have been lost, but checks and balances in the constitution that are being ignored. But I'll bite.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I currently attend a public college. Students here are only allowed to speak freely in one small area, if they leave it they are subject to arrest. The campus newspaper is required to submit a copy to the college president before publishing for his approval, and a member of the paper carrying a visible press pass was arrested for filming a protest outside the "free speech area" on campus. The same sort of "free speech zone" has been inacted around government gatherings, events, and meetings, keeping the press and persons attempting to petition the government for a redress of grievances far away and out of sight. We have warrentless wiretapping, illegal spying on US citizens. ECT ECT.
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do I really need to go into this here? I live in CA, that should be enough.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Do you read the news? "Secret" prison camps on foreign soil, US Citizens(Jose Padilla) held for years without charges or trial, eminent domain, hell I can't even get a trial for the bogus tickets the local PD writes.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This one is probably the least known and ignored. It is also probably the most important, and the most abused. Madison never wanted a bill of rights because he (rightly, as we now see) belived it would help a government leaning toward oppression to take all sorts of power it had no right to, claiming that the bill of rights spelled out an all inclusive list of things it could not do. The fact is the founding fathers would have viewed 95% of todays laws as unconstitutional.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Same as 9.
 
No. A dictatorship is "leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors". In the past 6 years I have seen a man rule while ignoring the law, the constitution, and what the people and representatives of the country want.
Considering the fact that our leadership IS restricted by law, as demonstrated by several court decisions and congressional investigations, that isn't going ot get it. Add to that the fact that the Constitution has played a major role in these restrictions, and that won't get it either. Of course, our leadership is obviously restricted by political factors, so I really have no idea what you were even thinking.
 
Considering the fact that our leadership IS restricted by law, as demonstrated by several court decisions and congressional investigations, that isn't going ot get it. Add to that the fact that the Constitution has played a major role in these restrictions, and that won't get it either.

Yup, and as soon as they heard about those court decisions/investigation they just stopped all the bad stuff they were doing right?:rolleyes:

Of course, our leadership is obviously restricted by political factors, so I really have no idea what you were even thinking.

Really? In what way can you demonstrate this? I'm specifically talking about the things the President has done with no legal authorization.
 
Yup, and as soon as they heard about those court decisions/investigation they just stopped all the bad stuff they were doing right?
That will depend on which event you reference. You may be unaware of the appeal process we have here. You know about that, right?



Really? In what way can you demonstrate this?
Wait. You are seriously asking me to demonstrate that our current crop of politicians are restricted by political factors? Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

I'm specifically talking about the things the President has done with no legal authorization.
That wasn't part of the definition you provided. It also has nothing to do with a dictatorship. If it did, then the mayor of DC would have been a dictator, along with Nixon, GW in Texas, and on and on.
 
Back
Top