Then they came for us...

[SAT2]

Thanks for illustrating your further ignorance of the roots and basic philosophy that formed progressivism and their bastard offspring and philosophical heir, fascism.

I'd say educate yourself, but all the schooling in the world is wasted on a rancid turnip like yourself.

So implying sarcasm and irony is a political tool to shut down opposition?

Huh... really?

So what is Stephen Colbert other than a fascist stooge. Or Jon Stewart? Or every other leftwing crackpot comedian making hay off of mocking conservatives since 1920?

I think you meant "employing" and not "implying". I wasn't saying that you were employing, or even implying, sarcasm. I was saying that in attacking someone else as a fascist, you were yourself using a fascist tactic. The irony was unwitting. I wasn't calling you clever.

Your argument's fooked so you complain about grammar which was correct regardless of your complaints. Yeah, snarky Lenin is still right. U still nawt useful idiot.

You haven't even approached my argument. You've just recited slogans, posted pictures, and patted your own back.

You were busted like a cherry.

Your post made me laugh. Sorry. The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

Alinsky rules for radicals tactics are a fail when used on some. You can't hide, cover them up or mask them. I suggest that you try a new tactic.

I'm not using a tactic. I'm explaining something to you-that fascism, and Nazism, are not liberal or progressive movements. The responses have been on the intellectual level of "yes they are", now here's a insult to prove it. So I laughed. As I said, sorry.

 

[Big Fitz]

You were busted like a cherry.

Your post made me laugh. Sorry. The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

and all we see you saying is "No, they're not! I won't believe any evidence I see!"

Soooo... who's shouting whom down without any intellectual reason to back it up?

From now on, your posts are only worth responding to in lolcat form.

 

[SAT2]

You were busted like a cherry.

Your post made me laugh. Sorry. The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

and all we see you saying is "No, they're not! I won't believe any evidence I see!"

Soooo... who's shouting whom down without any intellectual reason to back it up?

From now on, your posts are only worth responding to in lolcat form.

You haven't posted any evidence. Just corny humor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think you meant "employing" and not "implying". I wasn't saying that you were employing, or even implying, sarcasm. I was saying that in attacking someone else as a fascist, you were yourself using a fascist tactic. The irony was unwitting. I wasn't calling you clever.

Your argument's fooked so you complain about grammar which was correct regardless of your complaints. Yeah, snarky Lenin is still right. U still nawt useful idiot.

You haven't even approached my argument. You've just recited slogans, posted pictures, and patted your own back.

Your post made me laugh. Sorry. The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

Alinsky rules for radicals tactics are a fail when used on some. You can't hide, cover them up or mask them. I suggest that you try a new tactic.

I'm not using a tactic. I'm explaining something to you-that fascism, and Nazism, are not liberal or progressive movements. The responses have been on the intellectual level of "yes they are", now here's a insult to prove it. So I laughed. As I said, sorry.

And this is how you were taught to react when busted. I suggested that you use another tactic, now I'm telling you too.

 

[dblack]

The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

Progressives and liberals are clearly not fascists. But the policies of the modern Democratic party are increasingly corporatist and authoritarian. They are eager to control society with state solutions that mandate conformity via centralized authority and favor collective interests over individual rights.

 

[SAT2]

Your argument's fooked so you complain about grammar which was correct regardless of your complaints. Yeah, snarky Lenin is still right. U still nawt useful idiot.

You haven't even approached my argument. You've just recited slogans, posted pictures, and patted your own back.

Alinsky rules for radicals tactics are a fail when used on some. You can't hide, cover them up or mask them. I suggest that you try a new tactic.

I'm not using a tactic. I'm explaining something to you-that fascism, and Nazism, are not liberal or progressive movements. The responses have been on the intellectual level of "yes they are", now here's a insult to prove it. So I laughed. As I said, sorry.

And this is how you were taught to react when busted. I suggested that you use another tactic, now I'm telling you too.

More crazy. Are you this emotionally invested in the idea of "liberal fascism"?

Again, it's an authoritarian, nationalistic ideology. It's neither socialist, nor progressive. You've fallen for a disinformation campaign.

 

[SAT2]

The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

Progressives and liberals are clearly not fascists. But the policies of the modern Democratic party are increasingly corporatist and authoritarian. They are eager to control society with state solutions that mandate conformity via centralized authority and favor collective interests over individual rights.

The modern Democratic party is too beholden to corporations for donations, and the corporations get the payback of friendly legislation. Citizens United assures that will continue.

But "mandate conformity" and "collective interests"? Can you give an example of what you mean?

 

[Oddball]

No, of course not. Why on earth would i answer your question? Silly me. I thought you actually wanted to understand.

It has become readily apparent that he doesn't care at all to understand the completely authoritarian nature of progressiveism/socialism....It's much safer to live in your little Utopian cocoon and assume that the do-gooder will always seek the power under such a system, rather than the tyrant.

Like I said....Dumber than dirt.

You continue to conflate ideas and make uninformed statements about those ideas, while ignoring the world around you, and refusing to make your own views at all clear. There are social democracies-which I assume you would call a social democracy either progressive or socialist-on this planet that are not authoritarian. How can you pretend that you don't see that? I guess the same way that you can pretend that progressives are like Hitler. You just prefer it that way, so you think it.

No, I don't...What I do is look at the history of socialism and accurately report its complete incompatibility with the ideals of the American republic, while you jam your fingers in your ears and holler "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!" when those numerous and very real conflicts are pointed out to you.

Moreover, speaking of pretending and ignoring the world around you, your presumption that the kind of centralized power called for by progressivism/socialism will attract the sort of super-technocratic do-gooder babysitter, rather than the incompetent bungler -at best- to the malevolent totalitarian -at worst- demonstrates little more than utter historical puerility on your part.

Are you really fool enough to believe that the people who elevated Hitler to power wanted global war and concentration/ extermination camps for the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etcetera?

Are you really fool enough to believe that the people who fought with Mao to defeat Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists wanted Mao's subsequent political purges and pogroms of the peasants?

Are you really fool enough to believe that the supporters of Marxist revolution in Russia really wanted the Ukrainians to be starved and their land ravaged?...Are you really fool enough to believe that the Generals and other senior officers in the Soviet army wanted to be taken out and shot by the monomaniacal Stalin, when they became "a little too popular" with the proletariat after winning the war?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You haven't even approached my argument. You've just recited slogans, posted pictures, and patted your own back.



I'm not using a tactic. I'm explaining something to you-that fascism, and Nazism, are not liberal or progressive movements. The responses have been on the intellectual level of "yes they are", now here's a insult to prove it. So I laughed. As I said, sorry.

And this is how you were taught to react when busted. I suggested that you use another tactic, now I'm telling you too.

More crazy. Are you this emotionally invested in the idea of "liberal fascism"?

Again, it's an authoritarian, nationalistic ideology. It's neither socialist, nor progressive. You've fallen for a disinformation campaign.

Crazy is using a tactic that you were advised not to use.

 

[Mr.Nick]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- Martin Niemöller

Who will speak for us when they come, I ask you?

The funny part is that it's the communists that "get people" - at least in the modern world.

Any philosophy that requires strict obedience to be successful is dangerous, because usually the dissidents are culled, purged or imprisoned.

If you want to know what I would do if any authoritarian regime came to get me - the answer to that would be war.... This is why we have a Second Amendment - to prevent authoritarian rule... An unprotected populace will always be at the mercy of its rulers...

 

[dblack]

The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

Progressives and liberals are clearly not fascists. But the policies of the modern Democratic party are increasingly corporatist and authoritarian. They are eager to control society with state solutions that mandate conformity via centralized authority and favor collective interests over individual rights.

The modern Democratic party is too beholden to corporations for donations, and the corporations get the payback of friendly legislation. Citizens United assures that will continue.

But "mandate conformity" and "collective interests"? Can you give an example of what you mean?

PPACA is a good one.

 

[SAT2]

No, I don't...What I do is look at the history of socialism and accurately report its complete incompatibility with the ideals of the American republic, while you jam your fingers in your ears and holler "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!" when those numerous and very real conflicts are pointed out to you.

You haven't done that, though. Or even tried.

Moreover, speaking of pretending and ignoring the world around you, your presumption that the kind of centralized power called for by progressivism/socialism will attract the sort of super-technocratic do-gooder babysitter, rather than the incompetent bungler -at best- to the malevolent totalitarian -at worst- demonstrates little more than utter historical puerility on your part.

You've really worked your way up to a great state of self-righteousness here, but what you're describing isn't like a modern social democracy.

Are you really fool enough to believe that the people who elevated Hitler to power wanted global war and concentration/ extermination camps for the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etcetera?

By the people who elevated him to power, who exactly do you mean? Hitler wasn't elected by popular vote. The people who fought in the streets for Hitler's cause had no problem with killing Jews.

Are you really fool enough to believe that the people who fought with Mao to defeat Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists wanted Mao's subsequent political purges and pogroms of the peasants?

Are you really fool enough to believe that the supporters of Marxist revolution in Russia really wanted the Ukrainians to be starved and their land ravaged?...Are you really fool enough to believe that the Generals and other senior officers in the Soviet army wanted to be taken out and shot by the monomaniacal Stalin, when they became "a little too popular" with the proletariat after winning the war?

Oddball, your views are totally screwed up. You're taking examples of totalitarian governments, and comparing them to progressives [social Democrats], and to liberals.

We have the examples of modern Germany, of Norway, of Sweden-all social democracies-and they aren't dragging people out and shooting them, they aren't starving them, and they aren't taking over their land.

 

[SAT2]

Progressives and liberals are clearly not fascists. But the policies of the modern Democratic party are increasingly corporatist and authoritarian. They are eager to control society with state solutions that mandate conformity via centralized authority and favor collective interests over individual rights.

The modern Democratic party is too beholden to corporations for donations, and the corporations get the payback of friendly legislation. Citizens United assures that will continue.

But "mandate conformity" and "collective interests"? Can you give an example of what you mean?

PPACA is a good one.

So the ACA mandates conformity?

 

[Oddball]

No, I don't...What I do is look at the history of socialism and accurately report its complete incompatibility with the ideals of the American republic, while you jam your fingers in your ears and holler "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!" when those numerous and very real conflicts are pointed out to you.

You haven't done that, though. Or even tried.

Moreover, speaking of pretending and ignoring the world around you, your presumption that the kind of centralized power called for by progressivism/socialism will attract the sort of super-technocratic do-gooder babysitter, rather than the incompetent bungler -at best- to the malevolent totalitarian -at worst- demonstrates little more than utter historical puerility on your part.

You've really worked your way up to a great state of self-righteousness here, but what you're describing isn't like a modern social democracy.

I'm not the one here committed to trying to pimp Euro-styled socialism under the semantically dishonest "social democracy" bullshit label, you are.


I'm worked up into nothing but pointing out your utter political naïveté and complete lack of historical understanding, which is quite profound.

BTW, our ancestors left (mostly) Europe for a reason...Your progressive/socialist "social democracy" is currently manifesting the fruits of its foolhardiness in that continent at this very moment...You really should tune into the news out in the real world a little more often.

 

[SAT2]

No, I don't...What I do is look at the history of socialism and accurately report its complete incompatibility with the ideals of the American republic, while you jam your fingers in your ears and holler "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!" when those numerous and very real conflicts are pointed out to you.

You haven't done that, though. Or even tried.

Moreover, speaking of pretending and ignoring the world around you, your presumption that the kind of centralized power called for by progressivism/socialism will attract the sort of super-technocratic do-gooder babysitter, rather than the incompetent bungler -at best- to the malevolent totalitarian -at worst- demonstrates little more than utter historical puerility on your part.

You've really worked your way up to a great state of self-righteousness here, but what you're describing isn't like a modern social democracy.

I'm not the one here committed to trying to pimp Euro-styled socialism under the semantically dishonest "social democracy" bullshit label, you are.

I'm worked up into nothing but pointing out your utter political naïveté and complete lack of historical understanding, which is quite profound.

BTW, our ancestors left (mostly) Europe for a reason...Your progressive/socialist "social democracy" is currently manifesting the fruits of its foolhardiness in that continent at this very moment...You really should tune into the news out in the real world a little more often.

Except you aren't describing what I've said. You're describing your own straw man, and I'm not overwhelmed with your knowledge of history, or your understanding of anything beyond your own opinions.

Again, social democracies do not bear a resemblance to the USSR, or to Nazi Germany, or to Mao's China.

 

[boilermaker55]

Let's take them before they take us.

Damn straight! Load up your cars. Get all the guns you can. Everyone up to Montana! We'll make our last stand there. There are a lot of us up there already!

C'mon guys! Let's GO!

Beforethey would let guys like you come to Montana they would shot you first.

 

[Oddball]

You haven't done that, though. Or even tried.



You've really worked your way up to a great state of self-righteousness here, but what you're describing isn't like a modern social democracy.

I'm not the one here committed to trying to pimp Euro-styled socialism under the semantically dishonest "social democracy" bullshit label, you are.

I'm worked up into nothing but pointing out your utter political naïveté and complete lack of historical understanding, which is quite profound.

BTW, our ancestors left (mostly) Europe for a reason...Your progressive/socialist "social democracy" is currently manifesting the fruits of its foolhardiness in that continent at this very moment...You really should tune into the news out in the real world a little more often.

Except you aren't describing what I've said. You're describing your own straw man, and I'm not overwhelmed with your knowledge of history, or your understanding of anything beyond your own opinions.

Again, social democracies do not bear a resemblance to the USSR, or to Nazi Germany, or to Mao's China.

No, I'm describing historically accurate information, while you continue to live in utter denial of that very real evidence, much of which has been laid right before your eyes.

You are the fool who continues to bury your head in the sand and refuses recognize what the framers of the republic knew more than two centuries ago; that your progressive/socialist "social democratic" mob rule always -read: always- degenerates into despotism and tyranny of either the mob or a singular authoritarian thug.

But you just go ahead and keep going ...It's really your only trick in the bag.

 

[dblack]

The modern Democratic party is too beholden to corporations for donations, and the corporations get the payback of friendly legislation. Citizens United assures that will continue.

But "mandate conformity" and "collective interests"? Can you give an example of what you mean?

PPACA is a good one.

So the ACA mandates conformity?

Yes. It insists that all of us conform to corporate health insurance to finance our health care. I creates a regulatory regime that will dictate what kinds of health insurance we must buy and punishes those of us who don't comply.

 

[JDzBrain]

Peacefully? You forgot the Civil War. The Civil War ended the founder's error of legalized ownership of other humans. Please drop your attendance at Glenn Beck University.

Hey dummy...the founders didn't cause slavery or the Civil War. PROGRESSIVES DID!

The word slavery doesn't appear in the Constitution. The closest thing addressed in the Constitution, Article IV, Section 2...says, "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." was later suspended by the 13th Amendment.

This clause was to address indentured servitude and to stop states from becoming sanctuary states for those who attempt to flee their debt. The first mention of slavery found in our Constitution came up in the 13th Amendment as a result of this clause.

You know what...the ONLY reason it became necessary in the first place is because of an ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!

See, a former indentured servant bought his freedom and became a businessman. He then became the holder of indentured servants and filed suit in federal court to TAKE POSSESSION of a black man...making him the FIRST legal slave owner. And guess what...that first slave owner...was a BLACK MAN. That's right, the first legal owner of black men WAS a black man!

Get your head out of liberal blogs and LOOK IT UP!

And the only reason the War of Northern Aggression happened in the first place is because PROGRESSIVES in the north bent on centralizing wealth and power in the State...Fed, used the issue of allowing southern states the Right to abolish slavery in their own time as had happened in the north as an excuse to STEAL taxes from rich textile manufacturing resources in the south!

So before you talk bullshit about the founders, who even in a time when indentured servitude was a moral exercise and slave ownership accepted law, saw fit to write into the constitution a clause, Article I, Section 2, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." which made it IMPOSSIBLE for even those not considered to be FREE American Citizens to be totally discounted by defining them as ACTUAL MEN and whose very PREMISE for separation from England was the concept that all MEN are created equal to give them standing for claim to freedom...you MIGHT want to know the facts.

FREE black men lived in every state in the union when the Constitution was ratified and they were NOT rounded up an put in chains!

By the way, contrary to popular belief, blacks were NOT the only slaves in colonial America. SO WERE WHITES!

Oh, and IF Glen Beck has said that...then HELL YES I'm with him. So you aren't insulting me. Just showing your ignorance!

 

[SAT2]

I'm not the one here committed to trying to pimp Euro-styled socialism under the semantically dishonest "social democracy" bullshit label, you are.

I'm worked up into nothing but pointing out your utter political naïveté and complete lack of historical understanding, which is quite profound.

BTW, our ancestors left (mostly) Europe for a reason...Your progressive/socialist "social democracy" is currently manifesting the fruits of its foolhardiness in that continent at this very moment...You really should tune into the news out in the real world a little more often.

Except you aren't describing what I've said. You're describing your own straw man, and I'm not overwhelmed with your knowledge of history, or your understanding of anything beyond your own opinions.

Again, social democracies do not bear a resemblance to the USSR, or to Nazi Germany, or to Mao's China.

No, I'm describing historically accurate information, while you continue to live in utter denial of that very real evidence, much of which has been laid right before your eyes.

You are the fool who continues to bury your head in the sand and refuses recognize what the framers of the republic knew more than two centuries ago; that your progressive/socialist "social democratic" mob rule always -read: always- degenerates into despotism and tyranny of either the mob or a singular authoritarian thug.

But you just go ahead and keep going ...It's really your only trick in the bag.

You seem to be misinformed about how Hitler obtained power. Just saying.

Again, the social democracies that I mentioned aren't like the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or Mao's China. Your comparison is senseless. Norway has been a social democracy for a long time, and they have not degenerated into despotism, or tyranny, or authoritarianism.

PPACA is a good one.

So the ACA mandates conformity?

Yes. It insists that all of us conform to corporate health insurance to finance our health care. I creates a regulatory regime that will dictate what kinds of health insurance we must buy and punishes those of us who don't comply.

It does demand that you financially participate in a system that you're bound to use sooner or later. When the GOP proposed it, it was seen as personal responsibility.

So you prefer single payer?