while the republitards scream socialism...

[HazelGod]

What a laughable pile of liberal retard bullshit. OMG this is worse than 9/11 truther bullshit. I love the strategy though...create a narrative in such a way so that anyone opposed to collectivism, multi-cultural homogenization, egalitarianism, borderless borders, redistribution of wealth, big gov't, etc., ect., is a FASCIST. This article is ridiculous and intellectually offensive. This is the kind of propaganda that appeals to idiots; ignorant, uneducated idiots. Thats why im surprised at some of you on here (whose opinions i respect) who seem to go along with this horseshit.

There were comparable groups to the KKK on the left (black panthers,etc.)

There were comparable movements to the Tea party movements(which by the way is a grass roots movement of Dems, Repubs, and Indys who are opposed to big govmt and fiscal irresponsibility, and in no way display any organized push toward anything that even closely resembles fascism) during the Reagan and both Bush administrations (million man march {which was self-admittedly nationalist}, code pink, etc).

And here we are in a position where the left controls all three branches of the fed and we are somehow on the brink a right-wing fascism?

This is an example of ridiculous, selective, revisionist history and analysis.

You were saying something about ignorant, uneducated idiots...?

Apparently, you have quite a problem with movement, which could very well explain why you're so ridiculously full of shit.

Oh, and I'm LMAO at your grass-roots characterization of the Teabaggers...

 

[Bbucko]

You were saying something about ignorant, uneducated idiots...?

Apparently, you have quite a problem with movement, which could very well explain why you're so ridiculously full of shit.

Oh, and I'm LMAO at your grass-roots characterization of the Teabaggers...

I'm not sure that spell-check is available in Boones Mill, VA, HG.

 

[Ajacoid]

Amazing how much ignorance can float freely around the internet.

 

[B_24065]

You were saying something about ignorant, uneducated idiots...?

Apparently, you have quite a problem with movement, which could very well explain why you're so ridiculously full of shit.

Oh, and I'm LMAO at your grass-roots characterization of the Teabaggers...

How is this helpful? I do not understand how spell checking someones post is anything other than immature, childish, and petty. cusae i gould giv a rhats asss if itz spellt rite most of the time. Grow up fuckrs. (lol sarcasm in case your too stupid to see it)

 

[Qua]

You were saying something about ignorant, uneducated idiots...?

Apparently, you have quite a problem with movement, which could very well explain why you're so ridiculously full of shit.

Oh, and I'm LMAO at your grass-roots characterization of the Teabaggers...

Spelling is hardly an indication of intelligence. I thought we'd moved past that retort by age 10? Oh wait...we're on the Internet.

 

[Zeuhl34]

Spelling is hardly an indication of intelligence. I thought we'd moved past that retort by age 10? Oh wait...we're on the Internet.

Internet arguments are all about class.

 

[scotchirish]

to me, an article like this has the same effectiveness as a bible-thumper expecting to convert every heathen merely by saying "it's true cuz the bible says it's true". Now I'm a moderate, independant, southern baptist (attending a fundy church), and gay...very interesting combination...but I know that if you have any intent of trying to pursuade the opposition, you have to meet them on common ground. To me, this article is so far left that it only serves to kiss it's own ass and drive anyone who believes otherwise even further away.

 

[HazelGod]

(lol sarcasm in case you're too stupid to see it)

Spelling is hardly an indication of intelligence.

Perhaps...but the inability to spell is a sign of ignorance, which is largely synonymous with lack of education, as well as intellectual laziness. Toss in a concomitant lack of grammatical savvy, et voilà...an amusing hypocrisy!

 

[SilverTrain]

Well, isn't that convenient.

Include in your definition of "fascism" the fact that historical fascism considered "liberal" forms of government and society to be enemies, and you're all set. Volia, anyone who criticizes modern "liberals" must be a fascist. Pat yourself on the back. Rinse and repeat.

No.

The author's first definition of fascism was "“...a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline.”

"Liberal democracy" does not refer to a left leaning component of the 21st century United States. Rather, it refers to any constitutional democracy, whether it be a republic (US, France, India), a constitutional monarchy (UK, Spain) or some hybrid thereof.

In fact, you pretty much acknowledge this later in your post. But the sum total of your argument amounts to you conveniently skipping back and forth between the classic and colloquial definitions of liberalism in a vain attempt to cast aspersions on the author's assertions.

It's a quite poor attempt at logical sleight of hand. Transparent and fallacious.

As such, I nevertheless remain interested in hearing disagreement with assertions the author has actually made.

 

[Ajacoid]

Fascism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (A wannabe in this case), stringent socioeconomic controls (e.g., control how much CEOs can earn, dictate to GM what cars to make and how to make them), suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (control the internet, shut down talk radio under the guise of fairness while leaving main stream media firmly in control of the left), and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism (any fundamental disagreement with Obama is labeled as racist).

 

[slurper_la]

Fascism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator...

YouTube - Bush Dictator

 

[b.c.]

Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (A wannabe in this case),

A dictator?? who speaks of bipartisan agreement?

stringent socioeconomic controls (e.g., control how much CEOs can earn, dictate to GM what cars to make and how to make them),

Well, excuse the fuck outta us, but yeah, if we're going to bail your asses out then no, you can't give CEO's their million dollar bonuses and continue to make shitty cars, thankee very much.

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (control the internet, shut down talk radio under the guise of fairness while leaving main stream media firmly in control of the left), ).

Who's terrorizing or censoring anyone? If you talk bullshit be prepared for people answering back, and for corporations making sound decisions as to whether they want their products associated with (said) bullshit.

and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism (any fundamental disagreement with Obama is labeled as racist).

Well maybe that's your problem in a nutshell: your " disagreement" is "with Obama".

Disagreement with issues and policy is your right, and is the American way when it works toward some kind of accord.

Disagreement on a personal level, just for hate's sake, is exactly what it is...you know it, Jimmy C. knows it, and so do we.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well maybe that's your problem in a nutshell: your " disagreement" is "with Obama".

Disagreement with issues and policy is your right, and is the American way when it works toward some kind of accord.

Disagreement on a personal level, just for hate's sake, is exactly what it is...you know it, Jimmy C. knows it, and so do we.

Now you know that's too deep for the opposition to understand. Naughty, b.c... :biggrin1:

 

[Ericsson1228d]

A great, concise description of republicans:

the entire Republican party now openly defines itself along these lines. At this late stage, it’s blatantly racist, sexist, repressed, exclusionary, and permanently addicted to the politics of fear and rage. Worse: it doesn’t have a moment’s shame about any of it. No apologies, to anyone.

I think you forgot: law abiding and moral.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

Well maybe that's your problem in a nutshell: your " disagreement" is "with Obama".

Disagreement with issues and policy is your right, and is the American way when it works toward some kind of accord.

Disagreement on a personal level, just for hate's sake, is exactly what it is...you know it, Jimmy C. knows it, and so do we.

So once again, disagreeing with Obama must be *Racism*
I was never in the Klan, and I disagree with Obama. Robert Byrd was in the Klan and agrees with Obama. So who is the racist?

 

[Ericsson1228d]

...we really need to be worried about fascism:

Cognitive Policy Works Is the US on the brink of Fascism?

BTW, your derivative use of "retards" in the thread title is very classy. Then again, you probably are an abortion supporter, so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Qua]

BTW, your derivative use of "retards" in the thread title is very classy. Then again, you probably are an abortion supporter, so I shouldn't be surprised.

It is a jab back at the common use of "libtard" amongst most of the more conservative, or at least anti-left crowd. The guys who use it are probably abortion opponents, so...yeah whatever.

By the way, since when are Republicans "moral"? What does that even mean, unless it's some personal notion of morality and moral reality that you're trying to impose on people with different sentiments and equally valid arguments?

 

[slurper_la]

BTW, your derivative use of "retards" in the thread title is very classy. Then again, you probably are an abortion supporter, so I shouldn't be surprised.

my only regret is that YOU weren't aborted

 

[Bbucko]

It is a jab back at the common use of "libtard" amongst most of the more conservative, or at least anti-left crowd. The guys who use it are probably abortion opponents, so...yeah whatever.

By the way, since when are Republicans "moral"? What does that even mean, unless it's some personal notion of morality and moral reality that you're trying to impose on people with different sentiments and equally valid arguments?

Republicans have been throwing around the label of "immoral" since I was a kid in the 1960s, when Democrats were supposedly the party of free love and drug-crazed hippies.

Once "hippy" became an anachronism in the late 70s, they switched tactics and sponsored Anita Bryant and the Moral Majority (Jerry Falwell): without their piviol support, Ronald Reagan might never have been elected in 1980.

Republicans have never looked back. Dan and Marilyn Quayle ran the whole "family values" bullshit into the ground during the 1992 campaign. Am I the only one who remembers her speech at the Republican convention when she said in a speech "Not everyone demonstrated, dropped out, took drugs, joined in the sexual revolution or dodged the draft"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Quayle#cite_note-1 (this article encapsulates her stump speeches nicely).

It's outrageously disingenuous for anyone to not recognize that the conservatives in this country have been beating the drums of the Culture Wars for many, many years. It has always been hypocritical.

 

[faceking]

...we really need to be worried about fascism:

Cognitive Policy Works Is the US on the brink of Fascism?

a kingdom for a legitimate source...fucknoid.