Cain and the greatest 9 words a politician has ever said
12-07-2011, 12:10 PM
#21
You have no idea what fascism is. Fascism is the merger of government and the corporate interest of the business and wealthy elites. Its roots are in conservative principals, Conserving social economic and class order in society, It stems from right wing Ideology, In practice it always seems to radically divide income levels by working class privilege the wealthy and suppress labor and the working class for the benefit of the wealthy. Fascism will come from the right.
In my opinion Ron Paul is the only current republican candidate that isn’t a fascist. It is just that the ideology though different in intent will look very similar and have similar result. Economically It’s like ok we’ve given the proceeds of our productivity to a small group of people for a while now they can keep that and we want to pare the rules down to nothing, remove the civilized aspects that help provide opportunity to the players and start the game over. I believe it will be a really short game before society crumbles.
Government regulatory agencies are not fascist in a liberal democracy as we attempt to be they can and often do help protect the environment, civilized society, and the livelihood of people. The people that want to control or eliminate them solely for the benefit of big business are the fascist. Many of these regulatory agencies peaked in there level of fascism under GWB and we have yet to recover.
And you’re statement that FDR was a fascist further proves to me you don’t have a clue what fascism is. I will buy FDR as having socialist tendencies but not fascist. With Wilson though I can definitely see the Federal Reserve act as fascist but most of the rest of the stuff he did not so much.
Bob
In my opinion Ron Paul is the only current republican candidate that isn’t a fascist. It is just that the ideology though different in intent will look very similar and have similar result. Economically It’s like ok we’ve given the proceeds of our productivity to a small group of people for a while now they can keep that and we want to pare the rules down to nothing, remove the civilized aspects that help provide opportunity to the players and start the game over. I believe it will be a really short game before society crumbles.
Government regulatory agencies are not fascist in a liberal democracy as we attempt to be they can and often do help protect the environment, civilized society, and the livelihood of people. The people that want to control or eliminate them solely for the benefit of big business are the fascist. Many of these regulatory agencies peaked in there level of fascism under GWB and we have yet to recover.
And you’re statement that FDR was a fascist further proves to me you don’t have a clue what fascism is. I will buy FDR as having socialist tendencies but not fascist. With Wilson though I can definitely see the Federal Reserve act as fascist but most of the rest of the stuff he did not so much.
Bob
No, you are wrong. Fascism maybe the definition you give, but conservative ideology is the smaller the government the better. Merging government and corporate interest may or may not be the policy of some corrupt politicians who associate themselves with the republican party (not to be confused with conservative ideology), but its certainly not conservative at all.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 12:15 PM
#22
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Eddie Murphy's lesson on gov't lobbying in 1 minute:
(Fast forward to 1:44)
Or, a 60 Minutes segment, confessions of a real life lobbyist:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n
Again, the above dynamic will not change unless gov't's power to intervene in the economy is curtailed. You can change all the lobbying rules, and even if you get rid of the bribery, the idea that controlling the economy from the top down will make it better, is flawed.
(Fast forward to 1:44)
Or, a 60 Minutes segment, confessions of a real life lobbyist:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n
Again, the above dynamic will not change unless gov't's power to intervene in the economy is curtailed. You can change all the lobbying rules, and even if you get rid of the bribery, the idea that controlling the economy from the top down will make it better, is flawed.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 12:28 PM
#23
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,199
Total Cats: 145
In one sentence I thought fascism would be the total control of a government controled by a dictator taking over all aspects of citizens lifes. I pretty sure we are getting there as a country. Ron Paul is against this type of government and has stated many times the government is too big.
? Educate me Brian...
Oh and the left or right can be fascist, its an act not a party.
? Educate me Brian...
Oh and the left or right can be fascist, its an act not a party.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 12:42 PM
#24
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Dude. That's so wrong it's not even funny.
What you are describing is Corportism, otherwise known as crony capitalism, and it's NOT a right wing ideology. It happens on both sides of the table, but it is heavily embraced by the left.
Ex: 80% of all Department of Energy green loans are tied to President Obama’s most prolific donors.
Is the above not "fascism" then?
But I guess callingsomeonea conservative a fascist is the new race card; the new pink.
Conservatives are driven by liberty. They believe in the limit in power and scope of the federal government as outlined by the Constitution. This is a far cry from the centralized-state control over the ecomony/industry/daily lives that have a common thread in liberalism, communism, and fascism.
Are you trolling me? Did you read what you wrote? Now you just sound like another brainless #occupy drone. Obama LOVE big business, he's in bed with them, would you then not call HIM fascist?
But that's because George Bush sits on the left side of the isle. But let me point out, that if the addition of regulatory agencies is anti-fascism, therefore you are suggesting that GWB is not fascist--since his term in office significantly increased them.
Or does it prove that I'm more cynical than you? But it helps if you know what the definition of terms means first. I'm so happy I never paid attention is school, I can't believe the drivel I might have "learneded."
I link those two presidents with fascism specifically for the Progressive movement during WWI and the New Deal during WWII. If you read the wikipedia page on the subject, the true meaning of the word, you can see where I can pull the relationship from.
What you are describing is Corportism, otherwise known as crony capitalism, and it's NOT a right wing ideology. It happens on both sides of the table, but it is heavily embraced by the left.
Ex: 80% of all Department of Energy green loans are tied to President Obama’s most prolific donors.
Is the above not "fascism" then?
But I guess calling
Conservatives are driven by liberty. They believe in the limit in power and scope of the federal government as outlined by the Constitution. This is a far cry from the centralized-state control over the ecomony/industry/daily lives that have a common thread in liberalism, communism, and fascism.
Government regulatory agencies are not fascist in a liberal democracy as we attempt to be they can and often do help protect the environment, civilized society, and the livelihood of people. The people that want to control or eliminate them solely for the benefit of big business are the fascist.
Many of these regulatory agencies peaked in there level of fascism under GWB and we have yet to recover.
And you’re statement that FDR was a fascist further proves to me you don’t have a clue what fascism is.
I link those two presidents with fascism specifically for the Progressive movement during WWI and the New Deal during WWII. If you read the wikipedia page on the subject, the true meaning of the word, you can see where I can pull the relationship from.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 01:18 PM
#26
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
No, you are wrong. Fascism maybe the definition you give, but conservative ideology is the smaller the government the better. Merging government and corporate interest may or may not be the policy of some corrupt politicians who associate themselves with the republican party (not to be confused with conservative ideology), but its certainly not conservative at all.
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 02:42 PM
#27
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
Brain: Ima skip massive giant quoting, but can you seriously tell us you think any of the majority of current Republicans are honestly pro-small government and pro-minimizing government intrusion on our life?
Sure, we may have a small, tiny amount of Republicans that want that (See: Ron Paul, Rand Paul), but the vast majority and even the GOP itself does not seem to want it. One of the biggest expansions of government in our history was the TSA/Homeland Security dept under Bush and a Republican government. They had the votes they needed to trim the **** out of government, but instead? Massive government expansion.
Sure, we may have a small, tiny amount of Republicans that want that (See: Ron Paul, Rand Paul), but the vast majority and even the GOP itself does not seem to want it. One of the biggest expansions of government in our history was the TSA/Homeland Security dept under Bush and a Republican government. They had the votes they needed to trim the **** out of government, but instead? Massive government expansion.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 02:52 PM
#28
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
That's kinda why I've been saying conservatives, not republicans. Notice where I place republicans on my left/right chart, notice where I put Bush. There are plently of conservatives in congress, you just dont hear about them.
But it's still unfair to say fascism is a rightist way of thinking, it couldn't be further from the truth.
I finally agree with you, only because as a country we've move more and more left every day, ever since the inception of the articles. Further supported by a president who says he will act outside of the authority of congress to whatever he feels like.
Bob, you act like the left is made up of angels, are all poor, and only live to support the needy. Boy did they fool you.
But it's still unfair to say fascism is a rightist way of thinking, it couldn't be further from the truth.
I think we as a society are way closer to the fascism extreme end of things right now.
Bob, you act like the left is made up of angels, are all poor, and only live to support the needy. Boy did they fool you.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 03:02 PM
#29
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
I'm not so sure about that, Brainy.
I've been reading a book recently on historical conservatism in the US. First off, I'm going to lead with this quote,
That's a quote from the Wikipedia article on conservatism, etc. etc., now why I bring this up is simple...
Extreme conservative positions in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s are now merely "moderate" conservative positions in our current system.
Yes, I'll let people read that several times I guess, and look at me in shock, awe, and disbelief. I am not claiming the country has shifted over to the right, although I dispute that the country has shifted significantly over to the left, but my claim is that the right itself has shifted over to the right more and more.
Now, this has twofold impacts. Yes, Brainy, you are right in your definition of non-US conservatism - but the problem is, US conservatism isn't exactly an easy-to-define beast as it isn't conservatism as one would traditionally define it. This goes back to the '60s, when Goldwater warned the Republicans and conservatives about letting the religious right and similar interest groups taking prominent places in the Republican party.
Honestly, Goldwater was right in hindsight.
I've been reading a book recently on historical conservatism in the US. First off, I'm going to lead with this quote,
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[18
Extreme conservative positions in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s are now merely "moderate" conservative positions in our current system.
Yes, I'll let people read that several times I guess, and look at me in shock, awe, and disbelief. I am not claiming the country has shifted over to the right, although I dispute that the country has shifted significantly over to the left, but my claim is that the right itself has shifted over to the right more and more.
Now, this has twofold impacts. Yes, Brainy, you are right in your definition of non-US conservatism - but the problem is, US conservatism isn't exactly an easy-to-define beast as it isn't conservatism as one would traditionally define it. This goes back to the '60s, when Goldwater warned the Republicans and conservatives about letting the religious right and similar interest groups taking prominent places in the Republican party.
Honestly, Goldwater was right in hindsight.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 03:19 PM
#30
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
define your terms. I'm using modern, U.S. definintions.
By that standard, a conservative, could not be a fascist because a conservative as I've defined believes in individual rights, freedoms, property rights, limited, small government--fascism requires a strong central gov't that holds economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.
If the extreme right is anarchy, and the extreme left Nazism, fascism, Statism, Oligarchy, then the country has by those terms moved from extreme right (revolution), to the left since inception. The Articles of Confederation is a bit left of anarchy, the Constitution is left of the Articles. Our Constitution was drafted to limit our gov'ts powers over us.
The true political right would never tell any individual what they should eat, drink, smoke, or believe, or raise taxes beyond the absolute minimum. They wouldn't move to regulate every industry and capitalistic exchange. They wouldn't tolerate any state-driven racism or genderism or laws about religious expression or laws protecting people from getting their feelings hurt. They wouldn't tolerate virtually anything that a fascist system.
By that standard, a conservative, could not be a fascist because a conservative as I've defined believes in individual rights, freedoms, property rights, limited, small government--fascism requires a strong central gov't that holds economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.
If the extreme right is anarchy, and the extreme left Nazism, fascism, Statism, Oligarchy, then the country has by those terms moved from extreme right (revolution), to the left since inception. The Articles of Confederation is a bit left of anarchy, the Constitution is left of the Articles. Our Constitution was drafted to limit our gov'ts powers over us.
The true political right would never tell any individual what they should eat, drink, smoke, or believe, or raise taxes beyond the absolute minimum. They wouldn't move to regulate every industry and capitalistic exchange. They wouldn't tolerate any state-driven racism or genderism or laws about religious expression or laws protecting people from getting their feelings hurt. They wouldn't tolerate virtually anything that a fascist system.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 03:24 PM
#31
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Extreme conservative positions in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s are now merely "moderate" conservative positions in our current system.
Yes, I'll let people read that several times I guess, and look at me in shock, awe, and disbelief. I am not claiming the country has shifted over to the right, although I dispute that the country has shifted significantly over to the left, but my claim is that the right itself has shifted over to the right more and more.
Yes, I'll let people read that several times I guess, and look at me in shock, awe, and disbelief. I am not claiming the country has shifted over to the right, although I dispute that the country has shifted significantly over to the left, but my claim is that the right itself has shifted over to the right more and more.
It's a binary sort of thinking that seems instinctive. It's like, if you disagree with a conservative position like deregulation, the proponent of that position automatically assumes you are a pro-Obama "lefty." Likewise, if you favor a reduction of Federal government size, you must be a heartless shill for Rush Limbaugh's brand of Republicans.
You can see some of that in this thread, which is somewhat ironic.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 03:33 PM
#34
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
Assuming your thesis was correct, I think it would reflect a polarization of politics rather than a general shift in one direction or the other. That is, it would not be left or right, but both at the same time.
It's a binary sort of thinking that seems instinctive. It's like, if you disagree with a conservative position like deregulation, the proponent of that position automatically assumes you are a pro-Obama "lefty." Likewise, if you favor a reduction of Federal government size, you must be a heartless shill for Rush Limbaugh's brand of Republicans.
You can see some of that in this thread, which is somewhat ironic.
It's a binary sort of thinking that seems instinctive. It's like, if you disagree with a conservative position like deregulation, the proponent of that position automatically assumes you are a pro-Obama "lefty." Likewise, if you favor a reduction of Federal government size, you must be a heartless shill for Rush Limbaugh's brand of Republicans.
You can see some of that in this thread, which is somewhat ironic.
Brainy: I'll respond to your post ASAP, but it will take some effort and time to give it a proper response. It'll likely be another late night post, you may even see me use sources, eww.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 04:53 PM
#38
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
That's kinda why I've been saying conservatives, not republicans. Notice where I place republicans on my left/right chart, notice where I put Bush. There are plently of conservatives in congress, you just dont hear about them.
But it's still unfair to say fascism is a rightist way of thinking, it couldn't be further from the truth.
I finally agree with you, only because as a country we've move more and more left every day, ever since the inception of the articles. Further supported by a president who says he will act outside of the authority of congress to whatever he feels like.
Bob, you act like the left is made up of angels, are all poor, and only live to support the needy. Boy did they fool you.
But it's still unfair to say fascism is a rightist way of thinking, it couldn't be further from the truth.
I finally agree with you, only because as a country we've move more and more left every day, ever since the inception of the articles. Further supported by a president who says he will act outside of the authority of congress to whatever he feels like.
Bob, you act like the left is made up of angels, are all poor, and only live to support the needy. Boy did they fool you.
When those republicans who claim to be conservatives take control of congress they were much more successful at eliminating regulations especially the ones that did have a purpose to prevent misconduct of the financial industry or filling the regulatory agencies with fascist cronies of business than a democratic controlled congress ever was. They Did a great job at creating financial bubbles. Is there a difference between a conservative republican and a fascist neocon one? On issues that matter they pretty much all vote the same as a unified block you can’t tell the difference. More and more it seems everything is about providing disproportionate privilege to the rich and well connected.
As far as the federal government spending money on science and technology the world would be a much different place and I think the US would be much less prominent in it if it wasn’t for actions taken to promote education and technology and doing frivolous things like sending people to the moon. Modern computers, lots of software, GPS, the internet you now take for granted all owe their roots to actions and spending by the federal government much of it probably wasteful a few things however changed the world as we know it. I certainly see alternative energy of some sort as being the next world changing thing. I expect some money to be wasted in that area.
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 05:05 PM
#39
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
I don't even know how to respond to this. So I will leave with the words of Herman Cain to at least tie back into the OP.
"I'm not sure what you mean by neoconservative."
"I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement, I'm familiar with the conservative movement. Let me define what I mean by the conservative movement -- less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility."
and I might as well include this again: 80% of all Department of Energy green loans are tied to President Obama’s most prolific donors.
It's being wasted there alright.
"I'm not sure what you mean by neoconservative."
"I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement, I'm familiar with the conservative movement. Let me define what I mean by the conservative movement -- less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility."
and I might as well include this again: 80% of all Department of Energy green loans are tied to President Obama’s most prolific donors.
It's being wasted there alright.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-07-2011 at 05:17 PM.
Reply
0
0
