BF2S Forums [D&ST Political Slider 2010]

^Barack Ofascist sounds better. Just saying.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-09 04:33:20)

Hmph... can't please everyone.

BLdw wrote:

lowing wrote:

But I am glad we can agree that some of his actions are fascist as per what can be found in the definition.

Eh. What Obama is doing is not fascist because it doesn't fall in line with fascism. It just happens to have something similar with one or two characteristics of fascism (and even then you have to stretch term fascism) but that doesn't make it fascism nor it makes him a fascist. What Obama has done thus far is closer to socialism than fascism.

But if you still persist that what Obama does is fascist, figure out some new term for it. Start calling him Obamifscts and reference it to fascism and point out what similarities those terms have.

For that to happen YOU would have to work out how to side step the FACT that socialism is govt. owned and govt. controlled, while fascism is privately owned govt. controlled.


"Fascism, more a political than an economic system, is a hybrid; privately owned resources are combined into syndicates and placed at the disposal of a centrally planned state."

taken from http://www.answers.com/topic/economic-system-1

there is already a word for such action, it is called fascism.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-09 10:31:10)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Eh. What Obama is doing is not fascist because it doesn't fall in line with fascism. It just happens to have something similar with one or two characteristics of fascism (and even then you have to stretch term fascism) but that doesn't make it fascism nor it makes him a fascist. What Obama has done thus far is closer to socialism than fascism.

But if you still persist that what Obama does is fascist, figure out some new term for it. Start calling him Obamifscts and reference it to fascism and point out what similarities those terms have.

For that to happen YOU would have to work out how side step the FACT that socialism is govt. owned and govt. controlled, while fascism is privately owned govt. controlled.


"Fascism, more a political than an economic system, is a hybrid; privately owned resources are combined into syndicates and placed at the disposal of a centrally planned state."

taken from http://www.answers.com/topic/economic-system-1

there is already a word for such action, it is called fascism.

I don't know how you manage to get that overall interpretation from a site that defines fascism as:

n.

   1. often Fascism
         1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
         2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
   2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Oppressive? No.
Centralisation of authority? No.
Stringent socioeconomic controls? Not really, slight shift in that general direction.
Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship? No.
Policy of beligerent nationalism and racism. No.

I guess I can because, like you, I can pull from several different sources. and I have shown from a few different sources now that a fascist govt. includes, among other aspects, govt. control over private industry. That action is fascist


an argument can also be made that one form of oppression could include taxing the ever loving fuck out of the earning population..it is no less than servitude.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-09 09:22:38)

Taxes as a form of oppression?

Fucken LOL

taxes as a form of social engineering

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Taxes as a form of oppression?

Fucken LOL

Sure they are. Since it's difficult to round up pieces of time from everyone in the nation, it's much easier to gather up their money instead. If the government put you to work growing food for other people and told you that you can't have any since there are people that need it more, would you get angry? What if you were hungry? That's all that money transfers in the form of entitlements are. If I sit there and work eight hours a day, for two of those hours I'm not making money for myself but for the government and whatever it decides to spend my time on. If I don't agree with how my time is spent or feel that it is being spent to hinder my progress instead of help it, is it not oppression?

You may view money as a frivolous abstract thing but it really represents increments of work done by you the holder of that money. If you make $10 an hour and you hold $10 in your hand, you're holding an hour of your time. This is entirely rational to anyone that has worked, which I assume by your post that you haven't. Get back to me when you understand this concept by having it applied in the real world.

Fair call, but if you think the taxation system in the US government is fascist, you are sadly mistaken.

No, but then I was talking to someone else originally.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

For that to happen YOU would have to work out how side step the FACT that socialism is govt. owned and govt. controlled, while fascism is privately owned govt. controlled.


"Fascism, more a political than an economic system, is a hybrid; privately owned resources are combined into syndicates and placed at the disposal of a centrally planned state."

taken from http://www.answers.com/topic/economic-system-1

there is already a word for such action, it is called fascism.

I don't know how you manage to get that overall interpretation from a site that defines fascism as:

n.

   1. often Fascism
         1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
         2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
   2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Oppressive? No.
Centralisation of authority? No.
Stringent socioeconomic controls? Not really, slight shift in that general direction.
Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship? No.
Policy of beligerent nationalism and racism. No.

I guess I can because, like you, I can pull from several different sources. and I have shown from a few different sources now that a fascist govt. includes, among other aspects, govt. control over private industry. That action is fascist


an argument can also be made that one form of oppression could include taxing the ever loving fuck out of the earning population..it is no less than servitude.

What you have shown is that one possible aspect of fascism is government control over industry. You haven't examined the detail of that, or explored the fact that numerous systems of government that are not fascism also allow for government control of industry - such as socialism, which fits far better than fascism in this instance. You can't call it a fascist action, because lots of other scenarios exist where these things can be done and would not be considered fascist. Only when you have mos tof the aspects of fascism together in conjunction can you call it fascist.

There are lots of aspects of fascism. Without demonstrating that Obama's administration fits the majority of these, then you can't call it fascist. You have failed to do this and will continue to fail to do this, because it isn't remotely fascist.

Another thing you have failed to do is to look at the reasons behind why the government would taking control of private industry. Fascist regimes would do it to increase their own power, socialist regimes would do it to protect the workforce. In the case of GM, every indicator points to the fact it was done to protect the workforce - which makes it difficult to call it fascist.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-05-10 06:37:18)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Taxes on cigarettes and other things are not meant to stop the person from smoking (although they will say something to this effect every time they raise said tax), they're a revenue generator with a captive audience. If everyone in New York City stopped smoking the city would go bankrupt from billions in lost revenue. Ignoring the fact that the tax is ineffective, it's being used as a tool to coerce the population into taking an action that others want them to. They're trying to make the decision to quit for me every time they raise that tax.

How can you say the tax is ineffective? If the city would go bankrupt without it, then I'd say it is pretty damn effective.

These taxes also cover the added cost of healthcare for smokers, most of which is paid for through taxation.


A perfectly fair and well reasoned tax. Which is, I imagine, supported by the majority of people in the state. That's how democracy works. It is something that is frowned upon by the majority of people and is something that costs the government money, taxing it is the fairest solution.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

For that to happen YOU would have to work out how side step the FACT that socialism is govt. owned and govt. controlled, while fascism is privately owned govt. controlled.


"Fascism, more a political than an economic system, is a hybrid; privately owned resources are combined into syndicates and placed at the disposal of a centrally planned state."

taken from http://www.answers.com/topic/economic-system-1

there is already a word for such action, it is called fascism.

I don't know how you manage to get that overall interpretation from a site that defines fascism as:


Oppressive? No.
Centralisation of authority? No.
Stringent socioeconomic controls? Not really, slight shift in that general direction.
Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship? No.
Policy of beligerent nationalism and racism. No.

I guess I can because, like you, I can pull from several different sources. and I have shown from a few different sources now that a fascist govt. includes, among other aspects, govt. control over private industry. That action is fascist


an argument can also be made that one form of oppression could include taxing the ever loving fuck out of the earning population..it is no less than servitude.

What you have shown is that one possible aspect of fascism is government control over industry. You haven't examined the detail of that, or explored the fact that numerous systems of government that are not fascism also allow for government control of industry - such as socialism, which fits far better than fascism in this instance. You can't call it a fascist action, because lots of other scenarios exist where these things can be done and would not be considered fascist. Only when you have mos tof the aspects of fascism together in conjunction can you call it fascist.

There are lots of aspects of fascism. Without demonstrating that Obama's administration fits the majority of these, then you can't call it fascist. You have failed to do this and will continue to fail to do this, because it isn't remotely fascist.

Another thing you have failed to do is to look at the reasons behind why the government would taking control of private industry. Fascist regimes would do it to increase their own power, socialist regimes would do it to protect the workforce. In the case of GM, every indicator points to the fact it was done to protect the workforce - which makes it difficult to call it fascist.

Bro, great post and all, but there's not much point in arguing further.
It's a bit like talking about what is in fact a cat, and he's trying to prove it's a dog because it has 4 legs, a tail, has hair and is a mammal.
Very simplistic, very wrong.

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Taxes on cigarettes and other things are not meant to stop the person from smoking (although they will say something to this effect every time they raise said tax), they're a revenue generator with a captive audience. If everyone in New York City stopped smoking the city would go bankrupt from billions in lost revenue. Ignoring the fact that the tax is ineffective, it's being used as a tool to coerce the population into taking an action that others want them to. They're trying to make the decision to quit for me every time they raise that tax.

How can you say the tax is ineffective? If the city would go bankrupt without it, then I'd say it is pretty damn effective.

These taxes also cover the added cost of healthcare for smokers, most of which is paid for through taxation.


A perfectly fair and well reasoned tax. Which is, I imagine, supported by the majority of people in the state. That's how democracy works. It is something that is frowned upon by the majority of people and is something that costs the government money, taxing it is the fairest solution.

The tax is ineffective because it fails in it's stated mission. People don't quit cigarettes if they raise the tax by a dollar every few years. If you hit them with a $10 increase in one year, then yes, they might quit but that's not the way they do it because it would kill their tax revenue.

"A perfectly fair and well reasoned tax. Which is, I imagine, supported by the majority of people in the state. That's how democracy works."
Good, you stated it for me. Mob rule. Tyranny of the Majority. This is nothing more than a money grab against a defenseless minority.

Congrats Berster. Without irony, you just pointed out every single flaw in a democratic system. Instead of one Stalin forcing you to conform to his ideal, you get 300 million Stalin's all forcing you to conform.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-10 08:51:07)