Who Are The Real Fascists?

>> Wednesday, July 7, 2010

"When Fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts." ~ George Carlin

Lowering the voting age to eighteen.

The minimum age for Representatives to twenty-five.

Universal suffrage, including for women.

End of the draft.

A Federal law sanctioning a legal work day of an actual eight hours of work for all workers.

A creation of various government bodies run by workers representatives.

A minimum wage.

Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.

A progressive tax.

These principles are all principles of modern liberalism in America. They define much of what Liberals stand for today. With a few minor modifications.

But, do you know what other political ideology embodies those exact same principles?

Want a hint?

Here's more:

The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce, and culture.

Repeal of titles of nobility.

A foreign policy aimed at expanding the nation's will and power in opposition to all foreign imperialisms.

Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.

The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the proletariat's moral and cultural condition.

The progressive tax (mentioned above) would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.

The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal revenues.

The review of all military contracts and the sequestration of 85% of all war profits.

The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.

Here's the answer:

These are some highlights of the principles upon which the Fasci di Combattimento was founded, back in 1919, by Benito Mussolini.

Better known as Fascism.

This post is already too lengthy. I'm not going to explain which of these fascist principles are seemingly already on Obama's drawing board.

But, should the act of creating unelected and unaccountable "czars" to regulate, advise, and create official government policy give us pause?

How about the words, "America is not a Christian nation"?

Or, the phrase, "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them..."?

Or the Government takeover of automobile industries, banks and lending institutions, and insurance companies, etc.?

Am I making my point clear?

For the benefit of any left-wing moderately progressive Liberals who may have accidentally or intentionally stumbled upon my humble blog, I'll make it crystal clear, because I know you aren't bright enough to make the connection:

The principles outlined by Mussolini's Fascist party are the exact same principles embraced by modern American liberals.

So, before you hurl insults such as "Fascists", "Brown shirts", "Nazi's", "Jack-booted storm troopers", "Racists", etc, at Conservatives, first consider which political ideology most closely resembles the traits you are describing.

Then, shut the Hell up.

Or don't.

I don't care.

It's still a free country. You still have the right to disagree.

So far.

cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

58 comments:

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 8:58 AM  

Lowering the voting age to eighteen.

The minimum age for Representatives to twenty-five.

Universal suffrage, including for women.

End of the draft.

A Federal law sanctioning a legal work day of an actual eight hours of work for all workers.

A creation of various government bodies run by workers representatives.

A minimum wage.

Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.

A progressive tax.


Wow. Are you really coming out against these things? You think women and minorities SHOULDN'T have the right to vote?? You're opposed to progressive taxation? You think a minimum wage, protection for elderly workers and 18 year olds voting is fascism?

Wow. Just wow.

Marshall Art July 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM  

Well, I'm definitely opposed to a progressive tax. A flat tax, if we must be taxed, is socially just, with everyone paying the same percentage of their income. And if I haven't decided on the minimum wage concept (the market should decide these things ideally), I'm certainly opposed to the constant attempts to raise it, which hurts business and job creation.

And a look a the term "universal suffrage" shows us that it can include granting the right to vote to non-citizens. This is NOT necessarily opposed by this administration or components of it. It is opposed by me.

But as Dan prefers to demonize by his questions, rather than act with the grace he demands of others, he supposes that all that he has copied and pasted comprise that which Mark opposes. Nowhere in the post does Mark suggest so, as I'm sure he has specific opinions on each issue on the list. What he does say is that all those things were done by fascists in the past.

So Dan, once again I ask that you use the God-given ability to reason that you claim to possess when reading our posts, or at least the ability to read.

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM  

But as Dan prefers to demonize by his questions, rather than act with the grace he demands of others, he supposes that all that he has copied and pasted comprise that which Mark opposes.

This is laughable, Marshall. Mark posted these items in order to suggest that "liberals" who support them support a facist agenda. It was written specifically to demonize - to associate liberals with fascists was the specific intent of this post. But now, you're saying Mark ALSO probably believes in many of these same things? And you suggest I'm demonizing Mark? You live in an upside down world here lately, Marshall.

For the record, when I ask questions, it is in order to seek answers. Some clarity. It sounds like Mark is coming out against these things which "fascists" support. He specifically mentioned the enfranchisement of women.

And so I asked, "Do you REALLY mean this?" in order to find clarity and because it sounds like he means it, even if it is a ridiculous thing and hard to believe.

I ask to clarify. If Mark comes out opposed to voting rights for women, then I WILL denounce that as ugly and wrong (far beyond wrong). If Mark suggests that supporting 18 year olds voting is equivalent somehow to fascism, I'll denounce that as wrong-headed.

But I ask to clarify, not to demonize.

and a flat tax is not socially just, no matter how much you may feel like it is because it makes you feel better or whatever reasoning you are using.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 12:00 PM  

"Are you really coming out against these things?"

No, not all of them. But you knew that, didn't you?

Progressive taxation? Yes. It is unfair taxation.

Minimum wage? Yes. Minimum wage has been shown to do exactly opposite what it is supposedly intended to do.

Against 18 year olds voting? Yes. Few teens are knowledgeable or educated enough to vote for a candidate based on common sense and logic. It's probably best to wait until the prospective voter has had a bit more experience with the consequences of poor and wise choices.

"It sounds like Mark is coming out against these things"

No, it doesn't. It is merely a list of things supported by both Liberals and Fascists. Scroll down a little further, and you'll find other principles that are probably on Obama's "to do" list. Those same principles wouldn't be found on a Conservative's list.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Dan has once again missed the point. The point is: Throughout history, it has been the left that are the fascists, not the right.

Despite what the Government run media says, and Dan believes.

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 12:16 PM  

Traits of fascism:

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...

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..."

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.

[as Mark so aptly proves here]

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding...

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. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

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...

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...

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...

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws...

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions...

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...

-----

Sounds a lot closer to today's conservatism than today's liberals to me (not that I'm saying conservatism=fascism - that'd be almost as crazy as saying liberalism=fascism).

But believe what you wish, Mark. Liberals=fascists, unicorns=magic and pretty, leprechauns under your bed. Believe 'em all if you like.

We'll just ignore you and go about adult business.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 12:23 PM  

Oh, and Dan, you didn't mention this point, but I'll throw my two cents worth in on this, too:

"A creation of various government bodies run by workers representatives."

A code term for Unions. Liberals support unions, because they've done so much good for us so far. You know, like drive prices of goods and services so high only Union boss thugs and politicians can afford them with their ill-gotten gains. Bully the average American worker into going along weakly with the political agenda that the Union Boss thugs promote. (You know, like card-check) Create massive lay-offs because the companies cannot afford to pay the ridiculously high wages and benefits demanded by union workers. Hold corporate America hostage so the Union Officers can afford their sumptuous lifestyle.

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 12:23 PM  

Minimum wage? Yes. Minimum wage has been shown to do exactly opposite what it is supposedly intended to do.

Against 18 year olds voting? Yes. Few teens are knowledgeable or educated enough to vote for a candidate based on common sense and logic.


I'd suggest that a case could be made for and against these things and reasonable adults could disagree. What these things DON'T represent, though, is fascism.

WHERE is the oppression that is part and parcel of fascism? You all are dumbing down words to mean something other than their actual meaning then using these modified non-words as a blunt weapon to demonize those who disagree with you on some policies.

You all lost the election and it galls you and now you want to take your ball and go home.

Well, the "ball" belongs to all of us, but you are welcome to go home and pout if you want.

Again, we adults have real work to be about.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 12:29 PM  

Dan, YOU ALL lost the election of 2000 and to this day, insist it was stolen. Who needs to grow up again?

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 12:37 PM  

The difference was that there was actual evidence of misconduct and fraud in 2000, whereas you all just lost because Bush was just such a bad president - probably the worst in our history - the US wanted nothing like that again, and so you lost and now you whine and complain and pout and demonize.

Get over it.

If you disagree with a policy, make your case against it. Make a strong enough case and spread that message to the electorate and you can change things.

If you just want to engage in the Fascist tactic of demonizing your enemies for such petty pathetic reasons, go home and pout alone.

Edwin Drood July 7, 2010 at 1:48 PM  

Dan’s Traits of fascism:


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...
how about “yes we can” and forcing kids to sing songs to Obama

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..."
certain cases such as the unborn. But a liberal will say the unborn are not human

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.

ohh lord were to start: corporations, Limbaugh, Fox News, the Tea Party. All enemies as defined by Obama , DHS, etc . . .

4. Supremacy of the Military
typical nonsense from the left

5. Rampant Sexism . . .
????

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...

Obama tried to kick Fox News out of the Whitehouse Press Corps. Obama regularly holds meeting with bloggers and news outlets to define his message to the masses. Liberals (not Obama) has talked about regulating media with the “fairness doctrine”

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...

for liberals global warming and intelligent design are the new religion and it is definitely being used as a tool to manipulate people: cab and trade, banning Bibles from schools

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.

auto bailout, Obama played a key roll in making sure Fanny Freddie were not regulated as other banks

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia...

way to subjective to make any sense in this context

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions…

“Obama care” deals where states are excluded from paying for it, or cash was given to states that cooperated

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...

Obama wouldn’t have even made it to the Senate if his didn’t get some crony judge to let him see his opponents divorce records violating a host of laws


Just going by Dan’s definition (stolen from http://www.ratical.org) of a fascist regime, Obama can easly fit into this category.

ELAshley July 7, 2010 at 3:21 PM  

Where was the fraud in 2000? In the left's tossing out of thousands of military ballots? In the left's insistence that only heavily democratic counties be recounted?

Truth is, at no time after the 2000 election did Gore receive a majority of votes in Florida. Bush won, albeit by a very small margin. And how, pray tell, can anyone objectively determine how another person intended to vote by eye-balling 'pregnant' chads? Recount after recount? Each counter reading the chad differently? The best thing to have done would have been to conduct an immediate revote,for the entire state, with only those who signed in at a polling house eligible to recast. I don't know if that would have even been legal but, barring that, dems still would have never been satisfied with the result unless Gore came out on top.

This is how democrats steal elections. They conduct recount after recount until they find enough votes, by hook or by crook, to put them over the top. This same tactic was used a few years later in Washington state for a governor's seat. Remember? Recount after recount, boxes of ballots going missing, until finally the democrat won.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 3:23 PM  

From Dan's comment, we now see how ignorant he really is.

Dan's list, wherever he got it, describes but one form of fascism. It reads something like Naziism (but not exactly). But, if Dan knew anything about fascism, he would know that fascism is pretty much indefinable. There are different forms of fascism in varying degrees of oppression. And yes, some oppression comes through excessive taxation.

Naziism is one form, So is Stalinism, Leninism, Marxism, Red China's version, etc. Different fascist governments vary greatly between them.

For instance, Mussolini had no antipathy for the Jews, while Hitler clearly did. Yet they were both undeniably fascist.

Some forms are more similar to Mussolini's brand than others, but the main focus, the one defining factor of all forms of fascism is to require the state to be the main provider of the wants and needs of the people to varying degrees.

This describes Obama's form of fascism perfectly, and to some lesser degree, even George W Bush's. One has to go back as far as Ronald Reagan to find a government philosophy that didn't include some facets of fascism.

My post specifically described Mussolini's Fascism. I used Mussolini because it was under Mussolini that the term "fascism" was coined.

And, as stated, Mussolini's fascism embodies principles embraced by the modern American Liberal. Of that, there is ample evidence.

As I said in the post, "I'm not going to explain which of these fascist principles are seemingly already on Obama's drawing board."

I will let my more intelligent readers figure it out. That, of course, excludes Dan. He doesn't have to try to figure it out. He wouldn't recognize fascism if it slapped him in the face, he's so brainwashed by the Liberal (read "fascist") mindset on the left in this country.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM  

Eric, don't forget Al Franken stealing the Senate election in Minnesota by obvious voter fraud.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 3:34 PM  

And, by the way, Dan..who's demonizing who? Let's talk about the "evil rich" or "Big Oil" or "Halliburton" or any of thousands of sobriquets uttered by the Liberal unwashed masses to try to marginalize and demonize any and all Conservativers.

We Conservatives don't even come close to the level of rancor exhibited by you Liberals.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM  

OK, I don't know why I'm going to reiterate, but...

"What these things DON'T represent, though, is fascism."

Uh, actually, Dan, that's exactly what they represent, according to Mussolini's fascist party platform. You don't agree? Take it up with Mussolini. They are his idea.

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM  

Dan's list, wherever he got it, describes but one form of fascism. It reads something like Naziism (but not exactly). But, if Dan knew anything about fascism, he would know that fascism is pretty much indefinable.

The list is a fairly well-known list based on (brace yourselves, I know you hate this notion) study and research by a political scientist...

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each...

Not a perfect list, perhaps, but a reasonable one.

I like that, for Mark, fascism is indefinable. Which is convenient, because then he can make anyone he wants out to be a fascist.

If a word is indefinable, Mark, it is meaningless. Fascism HAS a definition, thus, it IS definable.

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

That is the definition of fascism. Creating policies that allow for 18 year olds to vote is NOT fascism, BY DEFINITION. Creating policies to protect elderly works is NOT fascism, BY DEFINITION. Letting the womenfolk vote is NOT fascism, BY DEFINITION.

Words have meanings unless you just mold words to mean anything you want. This appears to be the tack of some here.

By the way, Mark, you never specifically said: DO YOU think women should be allowed to vote?

Marshall Art July 7, 2010 at 4:14 PM  

I think Mark's use of the word "indefinable" a poor choice for his underlying sentiment, but the google dictionary supports his choice. It says "not capable of being precisely or readily defined". It uses "an indefinable feeling of terror" as an example of its use. So one knows one feels terror, but to accurately describe it is something else.

Likewise, the use of the term indefinable as related to fascism is as Mark says, that it can take many forms and still be within the parameters of the common understanding of the word. It is the same as comparing Obama's policies to socialism. It is not the text-book example, but it is without a doubt stumbling in that direction. And all socialism has the potential of leading toward complete fascism if the people allow it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, there are way too many like Dan out there that would not even know it's happening (because it isn't an example of his strict definition) when it is about to crush him under its heel.

In addition, the list you put up isn't the issue, but how those understandings are applied to either conservatism or liberalism. Conservatism, as it is understood by REAL conservatives (you never were one as evidenced by your poor understanding of it), simply can't lead to fascism. The extreme of conservative ideology would be more like anarchism for its disdain of over-reaching government. Fortunately, real conservatives don't want to eliminate government, but only to insure it stays within its Constitutional mandates and limitations.

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 4:20 PM  

Conservatism, as it is understood by REAL conservatives (you never were one as evidenced by your poor understanding of it), simply can't lead to fascism.

Hey, I agree. REAL conservatives - like real liberals - would NOT abide by fascism. It's counter to their ideals.

I'm not the one making the claim of fascism, though. It's you two.

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM  

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

THAT is the definition of fascism. No amount of word-twisting and falsehood-bearing can make letting 18 year olds and women vote can make those fit into fascism's definition.

ELAshley July 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM  

"...spread that message to the electorate and you can change things."

We are, Dan, and will. But sore losers? Is that all you got? Isn't that what Gore was? And all you dems? Sore losers?

But let's talk about just who the sore losers are on November 3rd.

@ Mark... That's RIGHT! How could I have forgotten Franken. If ever a race was stolen, THAT was the one!

ELAshley July 7, 2010 at 4:28 PM  

For the record, I DO think women should have the right to vote, but not anyone under 29 (exempting military personnel for obvious reasons) or congenital welfare recipients (but how to separate the ones who live their lives on welfare and those who fall into it for a period of time? Better to exclude them all. If you're on government assistance, not vote).

Mark July 7, 2010 at 4:46 PM  

Dan, I was hoping I wouldn't have to get into the "he said, she said", type of argument with you, but since you've drawn first blood, figuratively, I will indulge you, but not for much longer as you are beginning to bore me:

You cite one (1) so-called expert, a Dr. Lawrence Britt, who attempts to define one all encompassing definition of fascism.

Look up these men:

Jonah Goldberg, for starters, who wrote, "For what we call liberalism--the refurbished edifice of American Progressivism--is in fact a descendant of fascism. This doesn't mean it's the same as Nazism. Nor is it the twin of Italian Fascism. But today's Liberalism is the daughter of Progressivism."

Then, look up Roger Griffin, author of "The Nature of Fascism"

Not enough? Look up Roger Eatwell, Emilio Gentile, Ernst Nolte, R.A.H. Robinson, Stanley G. Payne, or Gilbert Allardyce.

The authors of the "Dictionaire historique des fascismes et du nazisme" flatly asserts, "No universally accepted definition of the fascist phenomenon exists, no consent, however slight, as to it's range, it's ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize it."

George Orwell famously said, "The word 'fascism' has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"

I can do this all day, Dan. You sure you want to play?

But the point you are still missing is this: Benito Mussolini's platform of Fascism bears more than a striking similarity to modern Liberalism.

Now, move along, little boy, and let the adults play.

Edwin Drood July 7, 2010 at 4:51 PM  

Fascism and liberalism both share one core philosophy; the central government controls the resources.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 4:51 PM  

Eric, "not anyone...[who are] congenital welfare recipients..."

Can't do that, Eric. That would be fascism.

(I hope Obama isn't reading this. I wouldn't want to give him anymore radical ideas.)

Mark July 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM  

Edwin, exactly! Tthat's what I said, when I said, "...the main focus, the one defining factor of all forms of fascism is to require the state to be the main provider of the wants and needs of the people to varying degrees."

Mark July 7, 2010 at 4:58 PM  

Erggg, only two "t's" in "That's"

Typos are fascist. :-)

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 5:05 PM  

How about it, Mark? Do women get to vote in your little boy dictatorship?

I suspect you're being quiet for a reason, because you might be holding a nutso position. I hope I'm wrong.

Eric, I disagree with your suggestion that only those over 29 (sort of a random age, why 29?) should vote and I disagree with saying there should be an exception for soldiers. Do our teachers not lay their lives on the line for love of country? Do our police officers, fire fighters, social workers not do their part for this nation? We can't get in the business of allowing people to vote at 18 based on a job. It would not pass constitutional muster, I'm sure and it is entirely whimsical.

Nor would disenfranchising those on welfare pass constitutional muster. And would you also ban motorists who receive welfare from the state in the form of cheap roads and parking spots from voting? We wouldn't have a very large electorate if we disenfranchise everyone who receives something from the gov't.

Your parameters would never fly in the real world for many reasons, but I'm sure you are aware of that.

Mark, the definition of fascism is what it is. Do you want me to find a list of people who define fascism to be fundamentalist Christians? I could do so. Do you want me to find a list of people who define fascists as philandering men? I am sure I could do so.

Orwell was writing in the 1940s and the word did not come into use as we know it until the 1920s. So, perhaps in his time, the meaning was not settled upon, but it means what it means and it does NOT mean "If you support 18 year olds and women voting, you are a fascist."

You DO understand, don't you, how absurd that is?

The word has a meaning and it is what it is.

Mark? Women? Voting?

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM  

You know, maybe this is what it gets down to: Some here have no idea of the meaning of words and they just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Drood...

Fascism and liberalism both share one core philosophy; the central government controls the resources.

sigh. rolls eyes.

Here we go again...

Liberalism DEFINITION: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities.

You will note that there is NOTHING in there about liberalism believing in "the central government controls the resources." That is NOT part of the definition of liberalism. You JUST MADE THAT UP.

Now, if you all want to just be silly and make up nonsense definitions, just run on out back and play and we'll call you when dinner's ready.

Jeez.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 5:13 PM  

Dan, (sigh) I'm not going to get into playing "gotcha" with you. You know very well I am a Libertarian Conservative.

You figure out for yourself if I am for allowing women to vote or not.

You wouldn't believe me anyway, because you are a dishonorable man.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 5:17 PM  

"You JUST MADE THAT UP."

So, are we to discount everyone who makes up the definition of fascism? OK. Let's do that:

Dan, your definition of fascism is just made up. So is your Dr. Britts. Whatever web site you pulled those narrow definitions of fascism from made them up, too.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 5:19 PM  

Also, you just made up your apostate view that God blesses homosexuality.

Again, I can do this all day.

When are you going to just admit I'm smarter than you?

Dan Trabue July 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM  

I'm not going to get into playing "gotcha" with you. You know very well I am a Libertarian Conservative.

You figure out for yourself if I am for allowing women to vote or not


Mark, I have no idea what you consider yourself. "Libertarian"? Again, that word has a meaning and I don't think it means what you think it means.

So, fellas, Mark here won't say if he'd allow women to vote or not. And he's calling "liberals" fascist?

Good luck with that, guys.

Mark July 7, 2010 at 5:51 PM  

"Mark, I have no idea what you consider yourself."

Then you are much stupider than even I thought.

I told you I wouldn't discuss this with you for long. You are boring me now. Think what you want. You will anyway, in spite of the preponderance of evidence that you are dead wrong. About everything.

Marshall Art July 7, 2010 at 6:06 PM  

"So, fellas, Mark here won't say if he'd allow women to vote or not."

First of all, what's fascistic about that? Secondly, why should he have to state what he believes about women voting? He didn't put up the list as comprising that with which he does or doesn't agree. And I don't recall anything he's ever said that would lead anyone who visits here, his blog, my blog, your blog or any other that he might indeed favor taking the vote from women.

And where do you get your definitions from anyway? I alread showed you were mistaken on "undefinable". Why should anyone take your word for your definitions? Besides, there's still the issue of degrees. What trends toward fascism is fascism as well, whether it hits the final stage or not. We plainly see the trend as it compares to what other fascists have done. THAT is what Mark's point is. How much more will our policies match ALL the policies of a card-carrying fascist like Mussolini before any liberal even realizes we're there? THAT's a true concern because people like you refuse to acknowledge the first steps of the socialist leanings of Obama and most in his admin. Is Obama a socialist? Again, it's a matter of degrees. But in his case, it's more clear that he indeed favors socialist policies. It doesn't matter what he says of himself, it matters what he does and the impact of his policies should they be enacted.

Marshall Art July 7, 2010 at 6:19 PM  

"Do our teachers not lay their lives on the line for love of country?"

No. They don't. This is typical rhetorical claptrap you so routinely like to throw out to sound as if you have a point. Except for teachers working in areas already corrupted and dessimated by liberal welfare policies, teachers don't "lay their lives on the line". That expression means to be ready to die and you damned well know that. They devote their lives to teaching, they don't lay them on the line. That's typical of your dishonesty in debate.

As to age in voting, I don't see that 21 or 18 is any less subjective. YOU prove that age doesn't indicate intelligence or wisdom, so age alone isn't the best indicator. YET, 18 and 21 year olds do NOT typically even think of what it means to be an adult, much less try to live it out.

The voting age was dropped to 18 on the notion that if one is old enough to truly and literally "lay their life on the line", that they then should be allowed to vote. I disagree with that sentiment. When they agree to lay their lives down, it takes no wisdom once they've made that decision to do what they're told and act as they are trained. Oh sure, there's a wisdom developed once they've experienced combat, but they don't go in with it unless they've grown up in a war zone. And still, it's "situation specific". It doesn't mean they have the knowledge of life in general to make an informed political decision. And, considering so few actually enlist, there's less political involvement, especially amongst those that vote Democrat, than is desirable for someone who votes. Dems count on this.

Regarding welfare recipients, I agree that among them are those who are less than involved to the point where they are less than uninformed. Unfortunately, we cannot weed them out and to refuse someone who has fallen on hard times the right to vote is bad form.

There are many who should not vote because they are too lazy, too stupid or too gullible to resist the lure of liars and frauds like Obama. That's how idiots like him get elected. But other than the age factor, there's really no justifiable and "American" test for determining who should be deprived the right as long as they are citizens and registered. It's a downside to our system with which I'm willing to deal.

Jim July 7, 2010 at 8:14 PM  

forcing kids to sing songs to Obama Ah, jeez! What bullshit!

don't forget Al Franken stealing the Senate election in Minnesota by obvious voter fraud. Ah, jeez! What bullshit! Not supported by ANY EVIDENCE nor claimed by the Coleman campaign. Coleman lost EVERY challenge adjudicated by non-partisan parties.

Jonah Goldberg? Ah, jeez! He's supposed to be some kind of academic?

Fascism and liberalism both share one core philosophy; the central government controls the resources.

I don't think anyone objects to the suggestion that Fascists believe in the central government controlling the resources. The objection is the suggestion that Liberals agree.

They don't.

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 8:38 AM  

"Do our teachers not lay their lives on the line for love of country?"

No. They don't.


I'll address this, as it is typical of the problem, I now realize.

You can lay your life on the line in more than one way. Teachers are laying their lives on the line every day. They (not all of them, but a good many of them in my experience) are pouring out their lives every day in service to America's children.

Now, admittedly, most of them are not in serious physical danger, but there are risks. Does it match the violence directed towards soldiers in wartime? No, absolutely not.

But then, teachers aren't at war and they aren't armed.

Eight percent of teachers say they are threatened with violence at school on an average of once a month. Two percent report being physically attacked each year.

source

Each year 253,000 teachers are threatened with injury in the U.S.A. 127,500 are physically attacked by students.

source

The point is, you all have what I would call an emotion-based approach to understanding and communication. It doesn't matter what the definition of liberal is. If you FEEL LIKE "liberal" means they want gov't control of resources, then that's reality for you. If you FEEL like "fascism"="liberal," then that's what it means to you. If you FEEL like Dan (or Geoffrey or whoever) hates the Bible, then they do (whether or not that's what they say or believe).

Word meanings are entirely fluid to you. If your feelings tell you that teachers aren't laying down their lives, then they aren't. In the case of words with specific meanings, if you feel like changing that meaning, then you do so that it makes you feel good about your side. In the case of phrases (lay down their lives, atonement) that don't have a spelled-out meaning or that can be taken in more than one way, you insist on one and only one TRUE meaning.

People who act in such a way will have deficits when it comes to communicating to the world at large and if they cling to such irrationality viciously, then perhaps the best thing to do with such people is leave them alone.

Lord, help me learn this lesson.

Now, I don't think this is a problem for all conservatives, nor do I think it's always a problem for all the commenters here, but these last few threads have certainly been chock-full of this "faith-based logic" (ie, "If I think it, it must be true").

Good luck with that, I don't see how reasonable communication can occur when this approach is rabidly clutched.

ELAshley July 8, 2010 at 9:06 AM  

For the record...

There is NO Constitutional right to vote in a general election. This was established long ago, and upheld as recently as 2000, thanks to Gore's attempted theft of the presidency. But you're right, Dan, the number '29' is an arbitrary number. The point is, I'm willing to give anyone who gets shot at the benefit of a doubt in terms of maturity and cognizance of larger national and world issues, than I do eighteen year olds who've spent all their formative years playing World of Warcraft, drinking, drugging and hangin with their hommies. As far as I'm concerned anyone who has graduated college and/or has been a productive member of society; defined as being a self-supporting gainfully employed individual for a minimum of (5) five years, or a member of the armed forces or a public or civil servant, can be reasonably expected to have a modicum of awareness of the larger world around them.

When you allow those with their hands perpetually out a right to vote, they will always overwhelmingly vote to perpetuate their personal social status; that being, a man or woman with his or her hand perpetually out... in expectation of their continuing free ride.

We treat voting rights in this country as a rite of passage; turn eighteen and you get to vote. We take away the right to vote from felons... we expect citizens of this country to act responsibly within the law and punish them with imprisonment and forfeiture of the right to vote if the do not. What could be more responsible than to expect the same conduct from the rest of Americans. Work hard, stay off public assistance as best you can, carve out your own niche in this great country, or serve your country in the military of civil services... THEN come and register to vote. If you don't have a personal stake in the country, you'll vote for those who promise to give you that stake from the sweat and labor of others. And there's nothing "right and proper" in that.

Edwin Drood July 8, 2010 at 9:07 AM  

[at this point Dan has gone off his typical Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis (choose your favorite) deep end]


Jim, you don't even know what the terms Liberal and Conservative are in reference to. They are polar opposite points of view. Conservatism believes in limited role of [federal] Government in our everyday lives where as LIberalism believes Government should be a daily part of our lives.

Historically liberalism has always been the predecessor of Fascism because its a necessary tool to acquire people's personal property, most commonly wealth through taxation or land through communal need, guns for public safety etc. . .

I don't think anyone objects to the suggestion that Fascists believe in the central government controlling the resources. The objection is the suggestion that Liberals agree. They don't

You need to pay more attention to current events Jim.

How many banks and corporations have the federal government taken over in the last 2 years?

Do you even know what Cap and Trade is and how it relates to control of resources by the federal government?

Have you paid any attention to the recent emanate domain rulings?

What does the President mean when he said "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." ?

If you don't see these as examples of the Federal Government controlling resources then nothing is.

ELAshley July 8, 2010 at 9:15 AM  

"The point is, you all have what I would call an emotion-based approach to understanding and communication."

WOW! If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black!

All you liberals/progressive DO is argue based on emotion.

"What about all those poor people! We should WANT to help them out! Are you so callous that you wouldn't want to help someone who is starving!? The rich don't pay their fair share! If only they would the poor wouldn't have to suffer! Woe is me!"

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 9:40 AM  

Well, except, I didn't say any of that.

I gave you specific examples of what I meant by that (saying that "It doesn't matter what the definition of liberal actual is, I think it also means that they want gov't control of resources..." or "It doesn't matter what the definition of fascism is, I think it means if you want 18 year olds and women to vote, you're a fascist..." that sort of thing). Do you have ANY specific quotes of mine (or someone else) where I'm leaning on emotion rather than just the meanings of words or what people have actually said?

I see this whole "liberals are emotion-based" argument regularly from some of you all. I've about decided that you're mostly projecting your own issues.

Of course, there are some liberals who argue on a more emotional level (just as there are conservatives who do so), but I see nothing to suggest that it is a specific issue for liberalism, itself (or conservatism, itself, for that matter). Just some individuals like, well, some of you all here.

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 9:48 AM  

When you allow those with their hands perpetually out a right to vote, they will always overwhelmingly vote to perpetuate their personal social status

Like motorists, for instance? Which is most of us.

My son just turned 19. He is a responsible young man who I would trust with a vote.

Do I trust ALL 18 year olds to vote responsibly? No. Do I trust ALL 44 year olds to vote responsibly? No.

People of all ages make bad decisions in the voting booth or vote for people for misguided reasons. I see no logical, constitutional or moral way to go about limiting that vote beyond some age limit. I'm not arguing that 18 year old is THE ONE RIGHT AGE to vote. I'm pointing out the reality that thinking that 18 is as good an age as 21 or 29 is not a sign of fascism, as Mark seems to suggest.

That, and letting the women have the vote.

ELAshley July 8, 2010 at 10:44 AM  

Women HAVE the vote, Dan, and no one here advocates taking it away. If anything, I at least advocate denying the vote to welfare recipients.

Mark July 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM  

"Lord, help me learn this lesson."

I'm not the Lord, Dan, but I'll help you learn this lesson:

"In the case of phrases (lay down their lives, atonement) that don't have a spelled-out meaning or that can be taken in more than one way, you insist on one and only one TRUE meaning."

Several times in this very thread I (and others)have told you the word, "Fascism" has an undefinable meaning, yet you insist it has a very definite, narrow, all encompassing meaning, even at one point, finding a quotation from some obscure academic somewhere.

And, now you're complaining that we are the ones who insist in one and only TRUE meaning.

End of lesson one.

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM  

Mark appears to be advocating such. He is condemning liberals for supporting such "craziness" and won't affirm that he is in support of women's enfranchisement.

Take it up with him.

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM  

Several times in this very thread I (and others)have told you the word, "Fascism" has an undefinable meaning, yet you insist it has a very definite, narrow, all encompassing meaning, even at one point, finding a quotation from some obscure academic somewhere.

Yeah, Merriam Webster is in on the plot... Them and their crazy liberal "definitions."

Mark July 8, 2010 at 12:27 PM  

"I'm pointing out the reality that thinking that 18 is as good an age as 21 or 29 is not a sign of fascism, as Mark seems to suggest."

I'd surely love to see where I suggested that, Dan. If you are referring to the comment in which I said, "Eric, "not anyone...[who are] congenital welfare recipients..."

Can't do that, Eric. That would be fascism",

Well, you are wrong. I was plainly talking about his idea of not allowing welfare recipients to vote. I said nothing about a voting age requirement being fascist.

And, I was being facetious, as the smiley face at the end of the comment should have been clear to any but the most moronic of the commenters here.

You moron.

And since I'm in a magnanimous mood today, I'll go ahead and answer your previous question, although it also should be obvious to any but the most moronic commenters:

Yes, I women should be allowed to vote. But...you knew that, too.

Idiot.

Marshall Art July 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM  

"Yeah, Merriam Webster is in on the plot... Them and their crazy liberal "definitions.""

""It doesn't matter what the definition of fascism is, I think it means if you want 18 year olds and women to vote, you're a fascist..."--a less than accurate restatement by Dan of someone else's position."

"You can lay your life on the line in more than one way. Teachers are laying their lives on the line every day."

"Some here have no idea of the meaning of words and they just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks."

The above is a very short list of the type of confusion, poor reasoning and comprehension typical of Dan's style of engagement. What we find is that it isn't so much whether a word or expression has a strictly specific definition or a fluid one. No. The issue is when it is either and who gets to decide. Since Dan cannot argue against the point (assuming he even gets the point---always in question), he'll attack something not truly relevant to the point made. (I think this makes him think he's on to something that will win him debate points or that he's found a way to trap someone or maybe even he believes it will cause someone to rethink the actual point itself--sad and humorous simultaneously)

In any case, it is either stupid or dishonest and whichever is equally bad.

The quotes above will be reviewed next.

Marshall Art July 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM  

The first is silly in that any word of common usage will find its way into most dictionaries and therin will be found the most common definition. But those definitions will not define the parameters or degrees to which the word can be applied. Liberalism, socialism and communisim are levels of fascism as they all point in the same direction (left of center politically)with fascism the furthest. That liberalism doesn't maintain the full weight of fascism doesn't lessen the fact that it is fascism in a weaker form.

The second is typical of Dan and shows his hypocrisy. Nothing Mark said comes close to this. Nothing ANYONE said, except for Dan himself, said anything close to this. He whines about being misinterpreted, about people not stating his positions correctly, but no one ever fails so badly at this than he himself. Indeed, no one even comes close, as no one so badly misinterprets his positions as he thinks or as he does the positions of others. If this is his version of seeking clarification, it also fails to follow the form he demands of his opponents and will likely be now followed with some lame excuse such as, "we started it".

This is an example of Dan deciding the level of a word's or expressions's "fluidity". Few would use the term "lay down his life" to mean anything more than "willing to die" or "willingly acting when the possibility of death is high". Teachers do NOT go into the profession with this on their minds. With 2% reporting assaults, there is little reason why anyone would think so. Soldiers, cops, firemen...these people understand that death is a real possibility. There are others, but Dan applies it to teachers to make an argument against Eric's point about voting. A stupid point. I'm sure I could easily list why 100 jobs hold some threat for the worker, whether it is something that can kill immediately or slowly over one's career, where one could apply the expression. Such stretch's makes Dan's argument moronic.

The last quote is simply hypocrisy. Dan showed it in the above use of the expression "laying down his life".

And all this started when Dan questioned Mark's position on a few items in a list that Mark presented as being on the agenda of Mussolini leading to fascism. The stupidity here is in arguing against any individual item on the list (assuming Mark has a problem with any of them), when it was the list as a whole, together with other items he chose to leave off that was the salient point of his presentation.

A reasonable question, a gracious, thoughtful and relevant question would be "why do any of these things spell point to fascism to you?" or "why are these relevant concerns of fascism now?" I don't think it's reasonable to assume that just because Mark presented this list that he's making a judgement on EVERYTHING on the list. No one individual item on the list is the point, but the totality of the list is. That and how it relates to the liberal agenda.

Sorry for the rant, but I just feel compelled these days to not only refute the comments made by Dan (and other libs), but form the arguments take as well. As I said, it's either stupid or dishonest and I'll add, insulting.

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 2:14 PM  

Okay, I'll ignore most of Marshall wrote as it is irrelevant and just nonsensical. But you said...

A reasonable question, a gracious, thoughtful and relevant question would be "why do any of these things spell point to fascism to you?" or "why are these relevant concerns of fascism now?"

And I agree. WHICH IS WHY MY VERY FIRST QUESTION WAS:

Are you really coming out against these things?

It's why, when you defended him, my SECOND comment was:

For the record, when I ask questions, it is in order to seek answers. Some clarity. It sounds like Mark is coming out against these things which "fascists" support. He specifically mentioned the enfranchisement of women.

And so I asked, "Do you REALLY mean this?" in order to find clarity and because it sounds like he means it, even if it is a ridiculous thing and hard to believe.


I offered him a chance to clarify his position. WAS he really saying that those who think that 18 year olds are old enough to vote are fascists? Does he really think that allowing women to vote leads to fascism? Does he really think support for a minimum wage is a part of fascism?

IF there is nothing especially fascist about any of these positions, THEN WHY was he comparing those who support those positions to fascists?

THE WHOLE POINT OF Mark's stupid post was, in brief, "Liberals support these things. Fascists supported these things. Therefore, liberals are fascists."

THAT was the stupid, idiotic suggestion he was making, was it not? IF not, then what point WAS he making?

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM  

To point out the obvious, Mark gave that first list that included letting women and 18 year olds vote. Then Mark said...

These principles are all principles of modern liberalism in America. They define much of what Liberals stand for today. With a few minor modifications.

But, do you know what other political ideology embodies those exact same principles?


The answer? Fascists. So, according to Mark, fascists AND liberals both support letting 18 year olds and women vote.

Mark even summed it up for us, saying...

I'll make it crystal clear, because I know you aren't bright enough to make the connection:

The principles outlined by Mussolini's Fascist party [letting women vote, letting 18 year olds vote, etc -dt] are the exact same principles embraced by modern American liberals.


If he's NOT trying to say that, therefore, liberalism leads to fascism or that liberalism=fascism (or, as he states it, "first consider which political ideology most closely resembles the traits you are describing." - ie, liberalism resembles fascism), what IS he trying to say?

Mark July 8, 2010 at 5:15 PM  

Dan, I am constantly astounded at your complete idiocy. Just when I think you have reached the lowest point of idiocy, you sink even lower. Is there no bottom to your idiocy?

Here. I'll make it so clear even you can understand:

You asked, "If he's NOT trying to say that, therefore, liberalism leads to fascism or that liberalism=fascism (or, as he states it, "first consider which political ideology most closely resembles the traits you are describing." - ie, liberalism resembles fascism), what IS he trying to say?"

Liberalism and fascism are the same thing.

Oh, wait. maybe that's not clear enough for Dan. Sorry, Dan. That's as clear as I can make it. Guess you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

Jim July 8, 2010 at 7:33 PM  

Liberalism and fascism are the same thing.

And that PROVES you are on the far edge of wingnuttia.

Dan Trabue July 8, 2010 at 8:30 PM  

Thanks, Mark, for demonstrating I knew exactly what you were talking about. Wingnuttia, next stop...

Mark July 9, 2010 at 6:06 AM  

"And that PROVES you are on the far edge of wingnuttia."

Jim and Dan: Wrong. It merely proves you are both in denial about your own ideology.

The list published in the post is, in fact, the principles of Mussolini's Fascist party.

It is also, in fact, a list of principles embraced by the modern left, as stated.

Nothing about the above statements are in error. They are true.

You just bristle at being labeled "something bad". You've had your feelings hurt. Crybabies.

So what? I don't care. If you don't like being called fascist, there are one of two things you can do about it:

1. Stop being a fascist.

2. Or, stay a fascist, admit you are a fascist, and stop calling Conservatives fascists.

Because, as I pointed out, Liberals are the ones who are fascist. Not Conservatives.

Jim July 10, 2010 at 12:31 AM  

It is also, in fact, a list of principles embraced by the modern left, as stated.

No, it is not fact. It is false.

Nothing about the above statements are in error. They are true.

No, they are not true. They are false.

Liberals are the ones who are fascist.

No, they are not. That is false.

Mark July 10, 2010 at 6:04 AM  

Jim, You throw like a girl.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP