Poll

Since joining BF2S's D&ST, have your political views strayed to the...

Far Left9%9% - 6
Left7%7% - 5
Moderate Left19%19% - 12
Center (more or less)26%26% - 17
Moderate Right9%9% - 6
Right19%19% - 12
Far Right7%7% - 5
Total: 63
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA
Sorry, I do not view govt. take over of health care and private enterprise as nit picking. THese things are govt controlled now.

What you are arguing with the dictionary. the word itself, and you are using peoples interpretation of that word, IE 14 characteristics of fascism as the definition. That is not the definition.

Obama’s administration is keeping open the option of forcing management changes at banks getting substantial government aid following the release of “stress test” results.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that federal officials will want to make sure that financial institutions determined to have insufficient capital have a sustainable plan to go forward.

“The government has, in each of the current and past administrations, weighed in on changes at the CEO level and at the board of directors level” at auto companies and financial institutions needing federal aid, Gibbs said at a White House briefing. In those cases the government wanted to make sure “that the management was in place to remedy the situation and ensure long-term viability without continued government assistance.”

The message was reinforced by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. “We’ll have to make judgments about whether the quality of leadership of those boards is strong enough so that again our interests are met best,” Geithner said in an interview with Charlie Rose broadcast last night on PBS.

“As the government increases its direct ownership stake in these banks, it gets harder and harder to make the case that the government shouldn’t have some say,” Ely said.

"The “judgment call” on whether to fire the CEOs of bailed-out banks should be made by the regulators, not the White House, said William Isaac, a former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. who now is head of Secura Group, a consulting firm in Vienna, Virginia. "


taken from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … gMvyRoFoP0

not really sure how you can not come to the conclusion that this is govt. taking over.

and per the definition of fascism a govt. controlling private industry is fascist. Really no way around that. except through emotional outbursts of Hitler and Mussolini references, which I am not referencing.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
intellectual powerhouse
Tu Stultus Es
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

While fascism is a specific political ideology, it has become synonymous with authoritarianism. lowing is using it as a synonym. Just accept that and end the thread.
But that isn't valid here either. Because Obama's administration isn't authoritarian.

He's just made a retarded claim, that everyone can see is nonsensical. Nothing to do with synonyms. All to do with him not understanding the meaning of the word.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6914|IRELAND

My politics have remained the same throughout. But being from Northern Ireland its a tribal vote. So its religious based. So either you want a united Ireland or you want to maintain the union with the UK.
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6783

JahManRed wrote:

My politics have remained the same throughout. But being from Northern Ireland its a tribal vote. So its religious based. So either you want a united Ireland or you want to maintain the union with the UK.
you mean to say they don't bitch about taxes there?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

While fascism is a specific political ideology, it has become synonymous with authoritarianism. lowing is using it as a synonym. Just accept that and end the thread.
But that isn't valid here either. Because Obama's administration isn't authoritarian.

He's just made a retarded claim, that everyone can see is nonsensical. Nothing to do with synonyms. All to do with him not understanding the meaning of the word.
So you are saying that the govt. has not taken over GM when it bought it, fired the CEO,  dictates to the board of directors, and impose salary caps..............What exactly is your definition of govt. control anyway?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

While fascism is a specific political ideology, it has become synonymous with authoritarianism. lowing is using it as a synonym. Just accept that and end the thread.
But that isn't valid here either. Because Obama's administration isn't authoritarian.

He's just made a retarded claim, that everyone can see is nonsensical. Nothing to do with synonyms. All to do with him not understanding the meaning of the word.
So you are saying that the govt. has not taken over GM when it bought it, fired the CEO,  dictates to the board of directors, and impose salary caps..............What exactly is your definition of govt. control anyway?
It does happen from time to time, particularly under socialist governments. How does this relate to fascism? These are left-wing responses through and through. Government intervention to save jobs is very left-wing.


When the government do not have a mandate from the people, that's when it becomes authoritarian. Obama has a mandate from the people and a reasonably strong opposition. Therefore he's a democratic leader not an authoritarian one. He couldn't become an authoritarian leader even if he wanted to.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


But that isn't valid here either. Because Obama's administration isn't authoritarian.

He's just made a retarded claim, that everyone can see is nonsensical. Nothing to do with synonyms. All to do with him not understanding the meaning of the word.
So you are saying that the govt. has not taken over GM when it bought it, fired the CEO,  dictates to the board of directors, and impose salary caps..............What exactly is your definition of govt. control anyway?
It does happen from time to time, particularly under socialist governments. How does this relate to fascism? These are left-wing responses through and through. Government intervention to save jobs is very left-wing.


When the government do not have a mandate from the people, that's when it becomes authoritarian. Obama has a mandate from the people and a reasonably strong opposition. Therefore he's a democratic leader not an authoritarian one. He couldn't become an authoritarian leader even if he wanted to.
I don't recall the people mandating Obama to buy GM, or to take over the health care industry. In fact the polls reveal exactly the opposite. By the way....Hitler was elected as well.  So much for that argument
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


So you are saying that the govt. has not taken over GM when it bought it, fired the CEO,  dictates to the board of directors, and impose salary caps..............What exactly is your definition of govt. control anyway?
It does happen from time to time, particularly under socialist governments. How does this relate to fascism? These are left-wing responses through and through. Government intervention to save jobs is very left-wing.


When the government do not have a mandate from the people, that's when it becomes authoritarian. Obama has a mandate from the people and a reasonably strong opposition. Therefore he's a democratic leader not an authoritarian one. He couldn't become an authoritarian leader even if he wanted to.
I don't recall the people mandating Obama to buy GM, or to take over the health care industry. In fact the polls reveal exactly the opposite. By the way....Hitler was elected as well.  So much for that argument
Hitler was elected, then disolved the opposition and never had to seek re-election. Obama has an opposition and has to seek re-election.

Healthcare reform was one of his main campaign promises. It certainly played a part in why he was elected, claiming he had no mandate from the electorate to pursue that is almost as stupid as claiming he's running a fascist government.



In any case, Stalin had complete control over all industry and all public services and had an oppresive, militaristic, authoritarian regime - yet Stalin was no fascist.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It does happen from time to time, particularly under socialist governments. How does this relate to fascism? These are left-wing responses through and through. Government intervention to save jobs is very left-wing.


When the government do not have a mandate from the people, that's when it becomes authoritarian. Obama has a mandate from the people and a reasonably strong opposition. Therefore he's a democratic leader not an authoritarian one. He couldn't become an authoritarian leader even if he wanted to.
I don't recall the people mandating Obama to buy GM, or to take over the health care industry. In fact the polls reveal exactly the opposite. By the way....Hitler was elected as well.  So much for that argument
Hitler was elected, then disolved the opposition and never had to seek re-election. Obama has an opposition and has to seek re-election.

Healthcare reform was one of his main campaign promises. It certainly played a part in why he was elected, claiming he had no mandate from the electorate to pursue that is almost as stupid as claiming he's running a fascist government.



In any case, Stalin had complete control over all industry and all public services and had an oppresive, militaristic, authoritarian regime - yet Stalin was no fascist.
The people that elected Obama were the twenty somethings because he is young, good looking, charming and represents something other than the old stuffed shirt that usually is elected. The blacks voted for him for it historical significance of having the first black president ( I do not blame them). The entitled voted for him because of all they perceive he is going to take form others and give to them. This is what got him elected. He was not elected on the issues. If he was, why is the majority of the country pissed off about it, if you claim he delivered what they asked for?

You are correct about Stalin, his govt. had complete control, and there was no such thing as private industry so no, he was not a fascist. In this case however, per the definition of fascism, we have a govt. controlling private industry. There is your difference.


By the way, ya miss-spelled oppressive and dissolved, I only point it out to you because, I know how important spelling is to you and I am sure you would want to know how dumb ass you look. Especially when you spend so much time emphasizing others mistakes while correcting and trying to belittle them

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-07 11:49:10)

BLdw
..
+27|5457|M104 "Sombrero"

lowing wrote:

Sorry, I do not view govt. take over of health care and private enterprise as nit picking. THese things are govt controlled now.

What you are arguing with the dictionary. the word itself, and you are using peoples interpretation of that word, IE 14 characteristics of fascism as the definition. That is not the definition.
?

How am I able to use any other than the commonly accepted definition of the word when I am using the said word? How is that not the definition of the word? Or do you mean that everyone can just add something to the definition itself as they please because they think that the current true definition of the word is inaccurate? If that's so, then can we change every word and letter to fit what we say?

(How are we going to keep discussing over this subject if you don't agree with the commonly accepted definition of the word?)

lowing wrote:

taken from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … gMvyRoFoP0

not really sure how you can not come to the conclusion that this is govt. taking over.

and per the definition of fascism a govt. controlling private industry is fascist. Really no way around that. except through emotional outbursts of Hitler and Mussolini references, which I am not referencing.
The problem here is, you see Obama doing something slightly more "socialist-like" and turn it into a fascism because some of the things he does could apply to some terms of fascism. But you can't just pick something from the original definition of the word to support your message and then still call them by the definition of the word (in this case fascism)... because that's not fascism anymore. I don't care what it is, or what you call them, but that's not fascism. Figure out your own term for it, or find pre-existing term(s) to suit your purposes.

Last edited by BLdw (2010-05-07 11:29:01)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

BLdw wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, I do not view govt. take over of health care and private enterprise as nit picking. THese things are govt controlled now.

What you are arguing with the dictionary. the word itself, and you are using peoples interpretation of that word, IE 14 characteristics of fascism as the definition. That is not the definition.
?

How am I able to use any other than the commonly accepted definition of the word when I am using the said word? How is that not the definition of the word? Or do you mean that everyone can just add something to the definition itself as they please because they think that the current true definition of the word is inaccurate? If that's so, then can we change every word and letter to fit what we say?

(How are we going to keep discussing over this subject if you don't agree with the commonly accepted definition of the word?)

lowing wrote:

taken from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … gMvyRoFoP0

not really sure how you can not come to the conclusion that this is govt. taking over.

and per the definition of fascism a govt. controlling private industry is fascist. Really no way around that. except through emotional outbursts of Hitler and Mussolini references, which I am not referencing.
The problem here is, you see Obama doing something slightly more "socialist-like" and turn it into a fascism because some of the things he does could apply to some terms of fascism. But you can't just pick something from the original definition of the word to support your message and then still call them by the definition of the word (in this case fascism)... because that's not fascism anymore. I don't care what it is, or what you call them, but that's not fascism. Figure out your own term for it, or find pre-existing term(s) to suit your purposes.
I do not have to, the definition I posted (and not made up) holds that govt. control over private industry is fascist action. I did not call Obama Hitler and I did not make claims to Mussolini's Italy or the 3rd Reich. Those are others extremities to the word. I am going with what it is without all of the emotional drama attached to it.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-07 11:46:43)

BLdw
..
+27|5457|M104 "Sombrero"

lowing wrote:

I do not have to, the definition I posted (and not made up) holds that govt. control over private industry is fascist action. I did not call Obama Hitler and I did not make claims to Mussolini's Italy or the 3rd Reich. Those are others extremities to the word. I am going with what it is without all of the emotional drama attached to it.
You're picking parts of the definition of fascism and say that what Obama is doing is fascist, yet it's just a facet of fascism. You said it yourself too:

lowing wrote:

nope never made that claim. However govt. control over private industry is a facet of fascism, and Obama has done that. Regardless if you like it or not.
So, what is the point of having accurate definitions for anything if people just skip majority of the definitions and use them inaccurately anyway? You just skip majority of characteristics of fascism and still use the definition of fascism to define Obama's administrator. By that logic, every single one of the US administrators have been fascist thus far, safe to say that for the rest of the world too. How's that logical?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

While fascism is a specific political ideology, it has become synonymous with authoritarianism. lowing is using it as a synonym. Just accept that and end the thread.
But that isn't valid here either. Because Obama's administration isn't authoritarian.

He's just made a retarded claim, that everyone can see is nonsensical. Nothing to do with synonyms. All to do with him not understanding the meaning of the word.
Obama's administration has been very economically authoritarian. Maybe to you he's going rather light but to us he's being very restrictive and invasive into the free market. From your perspective and experience he's a conservative. From the view of the vast majority of Americans he's being very authoritarian. Taking over and 'saving' GM and Chrysler. Taking over and 'saving' the housing bubble. Taking over student lending. Taking over health care. Limiting the executive pay of TARP covered institutions etc. To you this may seem normal, to me and the 85% of Americans who don't label themselves 'Progressive' it's unacceptable. Now he's trying to push through Cap and Trade, another authoritarian measure.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But that isn't valid here either. Because Obama's administration isn't authoritarian.

He's just made a retarded claim, that everyone can see is nonsensical. Nothing to do with synonyms. All to do with him not understanding the meaning of the word.
So you are saying that the govt. has not taken over GM when it bought it, fired the CEO,  dictates to the board of directors, and impose salary caps..............What exactly is your definition of govt. control anyway?
It does happen from time to time, particularly under socialist governments. How does this relate to fascism? These are left-wing responses through and through. Government intervention to save jobs is very left-wing.


When the government do not have a mandate from the people, that's when it becomes authoritarian. Obama has a mandate from the people and a reasonably strong opposition. Therefore he's a democratic leader not an authoritarian one. He couldn't become an authoritarian leader even if he wanted to.
Because you're not connecting the dots. Socialism is nothing more than ultra conservative orthodoxy placed upon the economy. It's top down dictation with the control located at the top of the pyramid rather than down with the people themselves. You view authoritarianism in strictly social terms. This guy wants to force everyone to go to church, he's an authoritarian. We'll both agree on that, but you're not seeing that it can most certainly be in place in the economic realm as well. Economic and Social matter are linked, but are distinctly different at the same time.

This all stems from the labels that have evolved over time. While 'conservatives' tout the free market, the free market is about as classically liberal an ideology as you get. It's simply pushing the decisions down to the lowest common denominator. So while conservatives might be authoritarian in most of their social beliefs, they generally defend a liberal ideology. Paradox yes, which is why people who follow parties tend to be confused and easily manipulated.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-07 14:08:26)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

BLdw wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not have to, the definition I posted (and not made up) holds that govt. control over private industry is fascist action. I did not call Obama Hitler and I did not make claims to Mussolini's Italy or the 3rd Reich. Those are others extremities to the word. I am going with what it is without all of the emotional drama attached to it.
You're picking parts of the definition of fascism and say that what Obama is doing is fascist, yet it's just a facet of fascism. You said it yourself too:

lowing wrote:

nope never made that claim. However govt. control over private industry is a facet of fascism, and Obama has done that. Regardless if you like it or not.
So, what is the point of having accurate definitions for anything if people just skip majority of the definitions and use them inaccurately anyway? You just skip majority of characteristics of fascism and still use the definition of fascism to define Obama's administrator. By that logic, every single one of the US administrators have been fascist thus far, safe to say that for the rest of the world too. How's that logical?
I am picking the parts of what Obama is doing or wants to do as  being fascist, of course . Why would I select part of what he is doing that is not fascist and call it so?  I never said EVERYTHING Obama did was fascist, most of it is socialist. But I am glad we can agree that some of his actions are fascist as per what can be found in the definition.

Actually an argument can be made that we have endured a fascist govt. ever since FDR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ … Fascist.22  Hilter and Mussilini were quite popular before the war. Yet they were fascists. It is what the term came to mean that you are fighting, and I thought we were on this kick of getting back to the orginal meanings....Would it help if I said "NEO-FASCIST"
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6887|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Would it help if I said "NEO-FASCIST"
If you are going to create some hybrid version of the term then yes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Would it help if I said "NEO-FASCIST"
If you are going to create some hybrid version of the term then yes.
but I am not. I was being a smart ass.

I am going back to what the term was BEFORE WW2 and the stigma attached to it today...I thought that is what everyone was trying to do, get back to the original meanings?... hmmmm I guess not.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6887|132 and Bush

Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement
Somebody better tell, Glenn Hannity, Sean Beck, Rush Levin, and Mark Limbaugh.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5449

Kmarion wrote:

Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement
Somebody better tell, Glenn Hannity, Sean Beck, Rush Levin, and Mark Limbaugh.
Eh? I tried to watch the Hannity show on TV a few nights ago. It's crap. Comes off really contrived with the commercial to show to commercial sequences filled with country music and the great American Debate panel being filled with country singers trying to push albums.

Glen maybe off the fucking wall crazy but at least his show is interesting. I hate Mark Levin's voice.

Last edited by Marlo Stanfield (2010-05-07 16:58:21)

Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney
I love how I totally refuted lowing's argument two pages ago and his response has been "I'm am not talking to you - you may have the last word"

It's funny how some people will just repeat the same worn out, narrow minded, ignorantly stupid mantra for 19 pages, when the only thing it has achieved is to show how much they don't get it.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Would it help if I said "NEO-FASCIST"
If you are going to create some hybrid version of the term then yes.
but I am not. I was being a smart ass.

I am going back to what the term was BEFORE WW2 and the stigma attached to it today...I thought that is what everyone was trying to do, get back to the original meanings?... hmmmm I guess not.
What he's really saying here is "In other threads when you guys bring up history, I don't like it because I can't hold a candle to your argument so I bring up the it-happened-too-long-ago-for-it-to-be-applicable-today card, but when I see some weird way it can work for me, it's where the conversation is meant to be going cause it's the only way I can see my argument could possibly hold water"

Please, you're wasting your time here. You're allowed your point of view as is everyone but when you're arguing how you decide to take the definition of a word out of context and apply double standards to suit yourself, it's just silly.

Last edited by Jaekus (2010-05-07 17:12:44)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6887|132 and Bush

Actually, the funny thing is that he was willing to accept the scholarly explanation of fascism when he thought he could use it.

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

He does not fall in line with all of these.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
I take note you saids he does not fall in line with ALL of these...Meanig he must fall in line with SOME of these.....so elaborate please.
On further consideration..(only a couple were debatable)

Kmarion wrote:

The 14 characteristics are:

   1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
      Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

   2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
      Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes 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, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

   3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
      The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

   4. Supremacy of the Military
      Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

   5. Rampant Sexism
      The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

   6. Controlled Mass Media
      Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

   7. Obsession with National Security
      Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

   8. 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. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

   9. Corporate Power is Protected
      The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

  10. Labor Power 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 .

  11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
      Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

  12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
      Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

  13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
      Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

  14. Fraudulent Elections
      Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I highlighted the ones he does not fall in line with.. as you can see it is most of them. The ones that are not highlighted are debatable, at best.
.. then of course he wanted to through it all out.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney
See? On pretty much every point there Obama is anti-fascist, by definition.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
forum joke
Tu Stultus Es

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard