Is obama a socialist or a fascist? [Archive] - Debate Policy

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-09-2012, 12:18 PM

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/is-obama-a-socialist-or-a-fascist/

by Thomas Sowell Email | Archive
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif. He is the author of 28 books, including "Dismantling America" and "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy."More ↓Less ↑

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and he wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous – something Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely – and correctly – regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book, “Liberal Fascism,” cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced itself from fascism and its Nazi offshoot – and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people – like themselves – need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People …”

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.

He pretty much nails it on obama and obama 's actions IMHO.
Although I think obama's intent is to greatly weaken this nation in order to force us to eventually voluntarily give up our sovereignty(Fully Join the New World Order) for a little future security.
Obama has put forth government ownership of GM and likely will go for any method that costs us billions with little or no return. That being a big part of his economy wrecking agenda.-Tyr

aboutime

07-09-2012, 12:23 PM

revelarts

07-09-2012, 12:41 PM

Is obama a socialist or a fascist? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35938-Is-obama-a-socialist-or-a-fascist)
yes

and so was Bush

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-09-2012, 12:41 PM

I do believe. It's a pretty safe bet. Most of us who spotted the title of this thread already KNEW, and AGREED with Dr. Sowell. So the question about Obama is a GIVEN.

Except of course. For anyone who feels that need to defend him for some reason.
So. I look forward to this discussion.
By the way. Obama is trending more toward being a Fascist, with extremely liberal leanings toward a Perfect Socialist society, based on the destruction of America from within.

Right my friend, obama seeks to destroy , then rebirth here a socialist paradise.
Socialism and Fascism both place the STATE in absolute control of the citizenry. Either one is brutal and uses deadly force as its primary method of controlling the masses. Obama is a socialist at heart that would favor fascism if it got him where he wants to be (DICTATOR) IMHO. He will use either political philosophy if it will give him a way to further weaken our nation!-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-09-2012, 12:48 PM

Is obama a socialist or a fascist? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35938-Is-obama-a-socialist-or-a-fascist)
yes

and so was Bush

Regardless, Bush isnt up for another term my friend. Obama the destroyer is! Americans had better deal with the current disaster instead of moaning about history of both Bush presidencies. For obama has done more harm than any three previous bad presidents combined IMHO.
By the way, I agree that Bush did some bad things for this nation..
However we have bigger and more relevant fish to fry(obama) my friend. I truly believe this election will prove to be the most important one in our nation's history since its first election.-Tyr

Gaffer

07-09-2012, 12:49 PM

I've been comparing him to Mussolini for years. It's almost time for the big power grab.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-09-2012, 01:46 PM

I've been comparing him to Mussolini for years. It's almost time for the big power grab.

Right , his new Executive orders point to that as a likely possibility.
The boy is getting all his eggs in a row..-Tyr

Drummond

07-09-2012, 01:49 PM

Right my friend, obama seeks to destroy , then rebirth here a socialist paradise.
Socialism and Fascism both place the STATE in absolute control of the citizenry. Either one is brutal and uses deadly force as its primary method of controlling the masses. Obama is a socialist at heart that would favor fascism if it got him where he wants to be (DICTATOR) IMHO. He will use either political philosophy if it will give him a way to further weaken our nation!-Tyr

Come to think of it ... YES. That's perfectly put, Tyr.

I've only thought of Obama as a Socialist, one wanting to sap America's capacity for greatness into terminal decline, so as to help interlock it into a gradually evolving World Order .. that a Socialist dream of old. And the similar methodologies he uses to the Socialists I've seen on my side of the Pond, I've thought of as further evidence of the 'interlocking' process.

But, this combined with a brand of fascism ? Yes, it could fit.

gabosaurus

07-09-2012, 02:08 PM

Drummond

07-09-2012, 02:52 PM

There are very conservative sites that oppose Obama, but do not label him a socialist or a fascist. Primarily because, unlike some dimwits, they actually know the true meaning of "socialist" and "fascist."

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/sowell-is-obama-socialist-or-fascist/article_ac556672-de41-538c-bed5-a45befa077ce.html

There are others who feel that Dubya was both a socialist and a fascist. For the same idiot reasons that right wing loonies believes Obama is both.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/george-bush-is-a-fascist-you-wanted-proof-here-it-is/

OK, I'll bite.

Why, according to you, does Obama fail to be a Socialist ? Or a fascist, for that matter ?

I would say that America has a social environment far more resistant to Socialism than, say, my own ... and it's this which, for example, prevents him from going so far with healthcare 'reforms' that he introduces the model of NHS that the UK has.

But I'm in no doubt WHATEVER that, if he felt he could get away with it, he'd go all the way and treat you all to the shabby excuse for healthcare we 'enjoy' here daily. Less than proper coverage, treatments declined on 'cost' grounds ... but TOTAL control exercised, throughout, by the State ...

aboutime

07-09-2012, 02:58 PM

OK, I'll bite.

Why, according to you, does Obama fail to be a Socialist ? Or a fascist, for that matter ?

I would say that America has a social environment far more resistant to Socialism than, say, my own ... and it's this which, for example, prevents him from going so far with healthcare 'reforms' that he introduces the model of NHS that the UK has.

But I'm in no doubt WHATEVER that, if he felt he could get away with it, he'd go all the way and treat you all to the shabby excuse for healthcare we 'enjoy' here daily. Less than proper coverage, treatments declined on 'cost' grounds ... but TOTAL control exercised, throughout, by the State ...

Drummond. Believe it or not. The only reason Gabby had to chime in to defend obama is because...it gave Gabby the opportunity to remind the rest of us that Gabby needed to use the name calling...as in DIMWITS, before any of us used that appropriate Name instead of Gabby.
As I've said before. Whenever any Liberal is confronted with Honest Facts they cannot dispute, or disprove. They instantly resort to the TYPICAL LIBERAL methods of disarming others with their NAME CALLING tantrums that accuse others. To prevent them from being labeled with their own childish language.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-09-2012, 03:00 PM

Come to think of it ... YES. That's perfectly put, Tyr.

I've only thought of Obama as a Socialist, one wanting to sap America's capacity for greatness into terminal decline, so as to help interlock it into a gradually evolving World Order .. that a Socialist dream of old. And the similar methodologies he uses to the Socialists I've seen on my side of the Pond, I've thought of as further evidence of the 'interlocking' process.

But, this combined with a brand of fascism ? Yes, it could fit.

My friend , when one has the kind of hatred that obama has using any and all methods of destruction comes in quite handy. Remember his hero was an avowed marxist, Saul Alinksy and obama's friends were radical terrorists that bombed the Pentagon and police stations,etc. Some muslim Sheik paid for much of his education and as always his words that stated the most beautiful sound he ever heard was the muslim afternoon call to prayers, and he stated that when it came down to it all he would side with Islam in the end. Those are declarations that he himself made. Insanity to think this guy had our and our nation's best interests at heart! Insanity that he was not vetted before being elected, as was passing a bill in order to find out what was in it.

logroller

07-09-2012, 03:31 PM

aboutime

07-09-2012, 03:35 PM

Gaffer

07-09-2012, 03:43 PM

logroller

07-09-2012, 03:52 PM

You do! Just look in the logroller dictionary, or wikipedia, where people get to make up their own definitions according to the daily, prescribed versions of acceptable Political Correctness which might change before I get to the end of this sentence.

The general acceptance of the meaning of words doesn't have anything to do with political correctness, e.g. taxes vs penalties.

aboutime

07-09-2012, 03:56 PM

The general acceptance of the meaning of words doesn't have anything to do with political correctness, e.g. taxes vs penalties.

Really? Okay. If you say so. So, nothing that takes place in Washington DC has anything to do with being Politically Correct?

Try calling Obama a name, and see who pounces on you. And that IS political correctness. This entire nation is controlled by PC. But then. Maybe I should first check to see what it says in the 'logroller dictionary'.

logroller

07-09-2012, 04:06 PM

Let's look at a few things.

GM, privately owned under govt regulations.
Utilities, privately owned under govt regulations.
Oil companies, privately owned under govt regulations.
Health care, privately owned under govt regulations.

See a pattern here? This is fascism. Socialism would be govt owned or regulated.

Fixed that for ya! Every definition I found included regulation. Like I said, socialism I see, but not fascism. Fascism exalts nation and often race above all else, with forcible suppression of opposition. I would agree that Obama is autocratic, as are most politicians, even dictatorial, but not fascist.

logroller

07-09-2012, 04:13 PM

Really? Okay. If you say so. So, nothing that takes place in Washington DC has anything to do with being Politically Correct?

Try calling Obama a name, and see who pounces on you. And that IS political correctness. This entire nation is controlled by PC. But then. Maybe I should first check to see what it says in the 'logroller dictionary'.

I don't know what your problem is pal, but be reasonable or FUCK OFF...in my dictionary that means "just ignore me".:laugh:

Gaffer

07-09-2012, 04:16 PM

aboutime

07-09-2012, 04:27 PM

I don't know what your problem is pal, but be reasonable or FUCK OFF...in my dictionary that means "just ignore me".:laugh:

Well, thank ya very much. I identify those who declare how perfect they claim to be, by the way they choose to respond like children. Congrats. You won.

logroller

07-09-2012, 04:30 PM

Since America is a melting pot racism and nationalism don't play a part in the new fascist regime. They will be used as necessary, but they are not important to the big picture. It's not the Mussolini and Hitler style of fascism, but it's based on the same principles. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...a rose by any other name...

well if you hear hoofbeats, do you look for a zebra?
To me, the use of fascism here is pretty blatant rhetoric to oppress the opposition, and that too characterizes a fascist. But just because the shoe fits doesn't make it yours.

logroller

07-09-2012, 04:39 PM

Well, thank ya very much. I identify those who declare how perfect they claim to be, by the way they choose to respond like children. Congrats. You won.

You read worse than you debate...Where did I declare or claim to be perfect? I claimed to be reasonable after you repeatedly attacked me, personally, for premising a generally accepted definition. You wanna debate me in a reasonable manner, you pick the topic and I pick the side. Challenge issued. I await your response.

aboutime

07-09-2012, 04:41 PM

well if you hear hoofbeats, do you look for a zebra?
To me, the use of fascism here is pretty blatant rhetoric to oppress the opposition, and that too characterizes a fascist. But just because the shoe fits doesn't make it yours.

Without knowing it, or thinking about it. Logroller actually managed to put a finger on the MAIN, MOST PROMINENT problem here.

Rhetoric, and Semantics, based on the ability to play with the English language, as some would call it...."Wordsmithing", just like Obama.
The use of words...or rather Rhetoric, combined with Semantics, as Obama does so well. Is the ONE tool he, and other Liberal politicians have to use.
It amazes, and confuses those Americans Obama and the Dems hope...will be so Bewildered, and Impressed with the use of words they DO NOT UNDERSTAND, nor have they generally NEVER heard them.
So. They would rather pretend they Understand the Rhetoric than admit. They have no idea what those strings of words mean. Which makes them vote for people who ONLY play the games better than they do.
Rhetoric is what makes this thread, and almost every other thread a THREAT to those who refuse to admit. They are just another Obama fan, amazed, confused, and weary of being called a Racist.

logroller

07-09-2012, 05:15 PM

Without knowing it, or thinking about it. Logroller actually managed to put a finger on the MAIN, MOST PROMINENT problem here.

Rhetoric, and Semantics, based on the ability to play with the English language, as some would call it...."Wordsmithing", just like Obama.
The use of words...or rather Rhetoric, combined with Semantics, as Obama does so well. Is the ONE tool he, and other Liberal politicians have to use.
It amazes, and confuses those Americans Obama and the Dems hope...will be so Bewildered, and Impressed with the use of words they DO NOT UNDERSTAND, nor have they generally NEVER heard them.
So. They would rather pretend they Understand the Rhetoric than admit. They have no idea what those strings of words mean. Which makes them vote for people who ONLY play the games better than they do.
Rhetoric is what makes this thread, and almost every other thread a THREAT to those who refuse to admit. They are just another Obama fan, amazed, confused, and weary of being called a Racist.
Atleast I don't presume to speak to what others think, know or understand. But then again, nobody's perfect, just forgiven.

red state

07-09-2012, 05:19 PM

Tyr, all facts you've reminded us all and facts that will surely bring down the wrath of the looniest of liberals. Aboutime is also correct...liberals do indeed act foolishly childish when confronted with truth, logic, information and common sense. The sad part is, they most always ask for links yet refuse to acknowledge any direction to truth within those links. Like roaches, they run to the deepest, darkest corners when the light is flicked on. It is obvious that b.o. Is "ALL OF THE ABOVE" when asking if he is:

A racist
b socialist
c radical
d fascist
e anti-american
f liar

he is also a loser but if we don't remove him this november, we'll all be as big a loser as the lil' libbie loser lemmings that put him there to begin with (even after all the strikingly obvious evidence).

~RED STATE

__________________________________________________ ____________________great thread...great post below:

!

my friend , when one has the kind of hatred that obama has using any and all methods of destruction comes in quite handy. Remember his hero was an avowed marxist, saul alinksy and obama's friends were radical terrorists that bombed the pentagon and police stations,etc. Some muslim sheik paid for much of his education and as always his words that stated the most beautiful sound he ever heard was the muslim afternoon call to prayers, and he stated that when it came down to it all he would side with islam in the end. Those are declarations that he himself made. Insanity to think this guy had our and our nation's best interests at heart! Insanity that he was not vetted before being elected, as was passing a bill in order to find out what was in it.

red state

07-09-2012, 05:26 PM

well, thank ya very much. I identify those who declare how perfect they claim to be, by the way they choose to respond like children. Congrats. You won.

Aboutime, the last time I checked, your avatar represents AMERICA and America represents freedom. This means freedom to either ignore or confront stupidity and (see or call) it for what it is...my hat is off to you sir!!!

~RED STATE

gabosaurus

07-09-2012, 05:29 PM

Funny how the newest of the loons want to stick tags on Obama, but don't want to admit that Thatcher was a fascist of the highest order. Being that she was huge buddies with Pinochet and all.

red state

07-09-2012, 05:34 PM

Again, Thatcher isn't running for president this November and the thread is about the liar/loser B.O.

Prove Tyr wrong about ANYTHING he has added about 'your' leader without any....
:bsflag:

gabosaurus

07-09-2012, 05:43 PM

Again, Thatcher isn't running for president this November and the thread is about the liar/loser B.O.

Prove Tyr wrong about ANYTHING he has added about 'your' leader without any....

Obama is not "my" leader. He is everyone's leader. Just like Dubya's was everyone's leader.
Also, I don't have anything to prove wrong because it was all a crock of shit. Bullshit isn't right or wrong. It is merely bullshit. If you want to walk around dropping shit on the street, fine. But, right or wrong, it's still shit.

logroller

07-09-2012, 06:59 PM

Aboutime, the last time I checked, your avatar represents AMERICA and America represents freedom. This means freedom to either ignore or confront stupidity and (see or call) it for what it is...my hat is off to you sir!!!

~RED STATE

Are you saying I'm stupid? That's rich; you condemn others for doing just that... The last time i checked, you call that being 'liberal'...I call it hypocrisy. whatever works for you I guess. And a s far as hats off, mine's in the ring.

red state

07-09-2012, 07:01 PM

Obama is not "my" leader. He is everyone's leader. Just like Dubya's was everyone's leader.
Also, I don't have anything to prove wrong because it was all a crock of shit. Bullshit isn't right or wrong. It is merely bullshit. If you want to walk around dropping shit on the street, fine. But, right or wrong, it's still shit.

Firstly, I want to congratulate you on following the typical (no info, no participation) rhetoric that the typical liberal spews out. Secondly, none of the Bushes were my leader. You FOLLOW a leader and Bush I, Bush II or the current Bush occupying the White House have nothing that I value in leadership or in following. You have shown your ignorance once again by refusing to communicate as an adult as well as refusing to stay out in the open when the light has been flicked on. Thirdly, I or my conservative brethren do not "drop $#!T on the street". That is lil' libbie loser lemmings that do that. Got it!?

Drummond

07-09-2012, 07:15 PM

Fixed that for ya! Every definition I found included regulation. Like I said, socialism I see, but not fascism. Fascism exalts nation and often race above all else, with forcible suppression of opposition. I would agree that Obama is autocratic, as are most politicians, even dictatorial, but not fascist.

... Well .. in that case, what do you make of this ?

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html

Mussolini's own summary of the Fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)

'Nation and race above all else' isn't quite the same as saying 'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State'. . The latter statement, this from Mussolini, generally regarded as the 'father of Fascism' simply describes a situation in which the State dominates everything. A form of ownership, or enslavement, to the State of which you are a part.

One can be patriotic, one can care about one's race, without that suffocating all-encompassing domination, or ownership, by the State. However ... not under Fascism.

And not, for that matter, under Marxism, either. State control is EVERYTHING.

To more fully quote from my link ...

"If the bourgeoisie think they will find lightning conductors in us they are the more deceived; we must start work at once .... We want to accustom the working class to real and effectual leadership".

And that was Mussolini quoting his own words from the early Fascist days. So while Mussolini had by that time (in his 30s) come to reject the Marxist idea of a class-war, he still saw himself as anti-bourgeois and as a saviour and leader of the workers. What modern-day Leftist could not identify with that?

"Therefore I desire that this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism"

So he was a good union man like most Leftists today.

"When the present regime breaks down, we must be ready at once to take its place"

Again a great Leftist hope and aspiration.

"Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics".

The "Liberalism" he refers to here would of course be called "Neo-liberalism" today -- the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists today.

"The present method of political representation cannot suffice".

Modern-day Leftists too seem to seek influence outside the normal democratic channels -- from strikes and demonstrations to often successful attempts to get the courts to make law.

"Fascism now and always believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say in actions influenced by no economic motive"

He here also rejects the Communist emphasis on materialism. Leftism to this day is often seen as a religion and its agitators clearly often long to be seen as heroic and unmaterialistic.

"Fascism repudiates the conception of "economic" happiness"

Leftists today also tend to regard consumerism as gross (or say they do as they drive off in their Volvos).

"After the war, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred".

Socialism has never been a buzzword in North American Leftist circles but it certainly was for a very long time in the rest of the world. And to modern day British Leftists too socialism has a meaning that is more nostalgic and emotional than concrete and many would be prepared to admit that it is functionally "dead". Mussolini, however was 70 years earlier in announcing the death. It should be noted, however, that Mussolini was principally referring here to the policies and doctrines of his own former Socialist Party -- which was explicitly Marxist -- and which were far more extreme than the socialism of (say) Clement Attlee and the postwar British Labour party.

Obama can all too easily be both Socialist and Fascist, you see ...

Drummond

07-09-2012, 07:23 PM

Funny how the newest of the loons want to stick tags on Obama, but don't want to admit that Thatcher was a fascist of the highest order. Being that she was huge buddies with Pinochet and all.

Utter nonsense. Margaret Thatcher was never Left wing. However, note my previous post, which illustrates how Fascism and Left-wing ideologies intertwine !

Note also that the father of Fascism, had MARXIST roots !! You could hardly claim any such thing (truthfully, anyway !) about Mrs Thatcher !!!

red state

07-09-2012, 07:29 PM

Are you saying I'm stupid? That's rich; you condemn others for doing just that... The last time i checked, you call that being 'liberal'...I call it hypocrisy. whatever works for you I guess. And a s far as hats off, mine's in the ring.

Stupid is as Stupid does....this doesn't mean that you're stupid but it does mean that you chose to act stupidly (as we all do from time to time). The problem is when stupidity takes over one's mental capacity or vocabulary to the point of vulgarity. It also causes one to respond awkwardly incorrect to what is clearly obviously correct to most others who choose to see things for what they are and not for how they'd prefer things to be. Take gab-e-sore-ass...clearly a poster child for what is a preferred reality as opposed to TRUE REALITY. But to make no bones about it and to leave you with one last rhetorical ole saying....if the shoe fits, wear it. I never said that you had to wear it....it's a free country and you have the right to be wrong if you so choose to do so. I could care less either way but I'd personally prefer to see you post more appropriately from now on if you do chose to paddle with those like gab. But, whether you choose to continue the way you have or take some of this in and actually apply it, I will not place you or ANYONE on ignore. It is a free country and a FREE board for ALL with ALL sorts of opinions, perspectives and contributions.

In closing....I used the QUOTE from previously to make a point. You just happened to be the one who snapped at another member who respectfully participates on what seems to be a great site (so far) so don't ruin it for everyone by limiting what others wishes to respond to or to whom they address. I personally know Aboutime to be a well informed, outspoken statesmen and you can ignore him or confront him...but don't tell any of us to place anyone on ignore.

Now that is useful rhetoric...I think...Was it long enough?! I can draw it out a bit longer if you like. Forget about it and place me on ignore if you like.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-09-2012, 07:47 PM

... Well .. in that case, what do you make of this ?

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html

'Nation and race above all else' isn't quite the same as saying 'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State'. . The latter statement, this from Mussolini, generally regarded as the 'father of Fascism' simply describes a situation in which the State dominates everything. A form of ownership, or enslavement, to the State of which you are a part.

One can be patriotic, one can care about one's race, without that suffocating all-encompassing domination, or ownership, by the State. However ... not under Fascism.

And not, for that matter, under Marxism, either. State control is EVERYTHING.

To more fully quote from my link ...

Obama can all too easily be both Socialist and Fascist, you see ...

Brilliant post my friend and I agree .You said it much better than I. The most shocking thing is obama embracing two political philosophies that hated each other in practice. Remember the Nazi fascists destroyed and overcame the"brown shirt "communists in Germany before Hitler the Nazi leader seized power! Obama being an opportunist embraces the hate and ideal of violent force as a sacred tool to be used ruthlessly. His only problem has been the Constitutional system he faced after getting the power he wanted - the Presidency. So he has set about destroying the very foundation of our liberty insuring government= the Constitution! That twins with his agenda to destroy the wealth and power of this great nation. Twin goals and twin political philosophies merged to achieve a liberal paradise= a third world hellhole status that liberals fantasise to be a heaven on earth! -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-09-2012, 07:52 PM

Utter nonsense. Margaret Thatcher was never Left wing. However, note my previous post, which illustrates how Fascism and Left-wing ideologies intertwine !

Note also that the father of Fascism, had MARXIST roots !! You could hardly claim any such thing (truthfully, anyway !) about Mrs Thatcher !!!

My God! Thatcher leftwing!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2: Looks like somebody has been toking on the wrong bong.
Or fell and hit their head once too often
Thatcher leftwing!!!!!!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Big D, I bet that shocked you!! ;)--Tyr

logroller

07-09-2012, 08:05 PM

Stupid is as Stupid does....this doesn't mean that you're stupid but it does mean that you chose to act stupidly (as we all do from time to time). The problem is when stupidity takes over one's mental capacity or vocabulary to the point of vulgarity. It also causes one to respond awkwardly incorrect to what is clearly obviously correct to most others who choose to see things for what they are and not for how they'd prefer things to be. Take gab-e-sore-ass...clearly a poster child for what is a preferred reality as opposed to TRUE REALITY. But to make no bones about it and to leave you with one last rhetorical ole saying....if the shoe fits, wear it. I never said that you had to wear it....it's a free country and you have the right to be wrong if you so choose to do so. I could care less either way but I'd personally prefer to see you post more appropriately from now on if you do chose to paddle with those like gab. But, whether you choose to continue the way you have or take some of this in and actually apply it, I will not place you or ANYONE on ignore. It is a free country and a FREE board for ALL with ALL sorts of opinions, perspectives and contributions.

In closing....I used the QUOTE from previously to make a point. You just happened to be the one who snapped at another member who respectfully participates on what seems to be a great site (so far) so don't ruin it for everyone by limiting what others wishes to respond to or to whom they address. I personally know Aboutime to be a well informed, outspoken statesmen and you can ignore him or confront him...but don't tell any of us to place anyone on ignore.

Now that is useful rhetoric...I think...Was it long enough?! I can draw it out a bit longer if you like. Forget about it and place me on ignore if you like.

Too long. Well perhaps its you who is behaving stupidly; for i see it was aboutime who first went after me, saying I invent words and their definitions, tryin to be politically correct. I responded meaningfully; only to be dismissed without consideration. If that's what you consider a Great statesman, we'll just have to disagree. Now you take sides based on previous alliances. I see that as the whole problem in politics, accepting one side because it's your side. As for respect, maybe he's done so with you elsewhere, but i e not seen it from him or you. Maybe take a look at him many names you and your fellows cast about. It's derisive of productive debate; so if you'd like to ignore me, you are welcome. I shall not.

Drummond

07-09-2012, 08:34 PM

My God! Thatcher leftwing!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2: Looks like somebody has been toking on the wrong bong.
Or fell and hit their head once too often
Thatcher leftwing!!!!!!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Big D, I bet that shocked you!! ;)--Tyr

I'm too busy laughing to be shocked, Tyr !! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lmao::lmao::coff ee:

mundame

07-09-2012, 08:53 PM

Who gets to define fascism and socialism?
Because I've always heard fascism is right-wing authoritarian nationalism. Socialism is the government ownership or regulation of means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
I could make a case for socialist, but fascist doesn't seem to fit.

Well, the German Nazis were socialists of a sort; they called themselves socialists (NAtional SoZIalists, something like that, Nazi for short). Hitler did take control of industry (means of production) -- and turned it to making his war machines, as well as the Volkswagen and other things.

One of the big things about fascism is that it was invariably totalitarian, wherever it appeared. Totalitarianism is a Napoleon-invented political system in which the individual is totally subordinated to the state and the state controls every aspect of the citizen's life from cradle to grave. So you saw the training of quite young children in the Hitler Youth, Italian Youth, etc. and later military training of draftees. Women were forced to work during the war, religion was subordinated to the state and so on. And of course any inconvenient persons like Jews or retarded persons or gypsies and homosexuals were killed or gotten rid of someway, because the state owned every citizen, so it could do that.

Obama is trying to expand government control, and that feels a lot like totalitarian fascism to a lot of people. And he certainly wants to redistribute income --- he's very open about that! Which is socialist or communist. And he certainly takes over means of production when he nationalizes banks and car companies and so on with the huge buyouts and bailouts and stimulus purchases.

So yes, I like the early part of the thread: is Obama fascist or socialist? Answer: yes.

aboutime

07-09-2012, 08:59 PM

My God! Thatcher leftwing!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2: Looks like somebody has been toking on the wrong bong.
Or fell and hit their head once too often
Thatcher leftwing!!!!!!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Big D, I bet that shocked you!! ;)--Tyr

Shocked the stuff outta me too!

Only the people who pretended to play Thatcher in that movie....ARE LEFTWING.

Maggie would have a Cow if she heard anyone call her that...according to American Left, and Right standards.

fj1200

07-09-2012, 10:05 PM

fj1200

07-09-2012, 10:10 PM

I personally know Aboutime to be a well informed, outspoken statesmen...

:laugh:

red state

07-09-2012, 10:27 PM

Well, the German Nazis were socialists of a sort; they called themselves socialists (NAtional SoZIalists, something like that, Nazi for short). Hitler did take control of industry (means of production) -- and turned it to making his war machines, as well as the Volkswagen and other things.

One of the big things about fascism is that it was invariably totalitarian, wherever it appeared. Totalitarianism is a Napoleon-invented political system in which the individual is totally subordinated to the state and the state controls every aspect of the citizen's life from cradle to grave. So you saw the training of quite young children in the Hitler Youth, Italian Youth, etc. and later military training of draftees. Women were forced to work during the war, religion was subordinated to the state and so on. And of course any inconvenient persons like Jews or retarded persons or gypsies and homosexuals were killed or gotten rid of someway, because the state owned every citizen, so it could do that.

Obama is trying to expand government control, and that feels a lot like totalitarian fascism to a lot of people. And he certainly wants to redistribute income --- he's very open about that! Which is socialist or communist. And he certainly takes over means of production when he nationalizes banks and car companies and so on with the huge buyouts and bailouts and stimulus purchases.

So yes, I like the early part of the thread: is Obama fascist or socialist? Answer: yes.

Not to mention his hating white people and Jews. It is all factual...unless you're stupid or something.

ConHog

07-10-2012, 09:12 PM

He's neither.

Economically though he DOES favor democratic socialism.

gabosaurus

07-10-2012, 09:47 PM

You don't have to be "left wing" to be a fascist. Thatcher was fascist in some of the same ways that Hitler was.

Fascism has often been associated with nationalism, since fascist states have continually relied upon patriotic nationalism to enforce enthusiasm from the people. Thatcher and Dubya employed the same methods. They created a "crisis" situation (the Falklands and Iraq conflicts) that was primarily of their own making, then ramped up the jingoism to the point where anyone who opposed them was label as "unpatriotic" and traitorous."
Fascist regimes can lose power as quickly as they gain them. What happened when the Tories got tired of Thatcher's iron fist and abandoned her? She was dumped out of power. Same thing happened in the U.S. when the American people discovered that Dubya had lied to them.

There are fascists of all types.

Drummond

07-11-2012, 12:17 PM

I've 'thanked' you for your post, Gabby, because I enjoyed its humour. Definitely funny in places !! Thank you for making my day !

You don't have to be "left wing" to be a fascist. Thatcher was fascist in some of the same ways that Hitler was.

Fascism has often been associated with nationalism, since fascist states have continually relied upon patriotic nationalism to enforce enthusiasm from the people. Thatcher and Dubya employed the same methods. They created a "crisis" situation (the Falklands and Iraq conflicts) that was primarily of their own making, then ramped up the jingoism to the point where anyone who opposed them was label as "unpatriotic" and traitorous."
Fascist regimes can lose power as quickly as they gain them. What happened when the Tories got tired of Thatcher's iron fist and abandoned her? She was dumped out of power. Same thing happened in the U.S. when the American people discovered that Dubya had lied to them.

There are fascists of all types.

You choose your words carefully, I see. Perhaps fascism has 'often' been associated with nationalism, and patriotic fervour. But to conclude a DEFINITE link with fascism, as you imply but do not insist upon, is just a preposterous thing to do.

So, immediately, isn't your case a groundless one ? Or, are you telling me that you're incapable of being patriotic without undergoing a metamorphosis into a fascist ??

You've tried to attribute fascism to Margaret Thatcher, and yet there can be few figures who deserve that label LESS. Hers was very much a social revolution centred around the worth of the individual AGAINST an overly-powerful State machine .. she lambasted her political opposition for THEIR ideas of 'big Government', more than once !!

Tell you what, 'Gabby' ... check this out. I challenge you to equate the following with evidence of 'fascist tendencies' ...

http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

Epitaph for the eighties? "there is no such thing as society"

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Er'm ... how very 'fascist' of her, Gabby. Mrs Thatcher became FAMOUS for having made just that point !!!

The other piece of amusement you have given me comes from your suggestion that the Falklands Conflict was of Mrs Thatcher's making !! I mean ... REALLY !!!!

OK, if you're right, you will, of course, be able to provide evidence of an instruction issued by Mrs Thatcher to General Galtieri, instructing him to invade !! To say nothing of being able to prove that she wielded such authority over him ...

Perhaps Hitler's Nazism, and the rise of the Nazi war machine, came about with sanction from Winston Churchill ??

Gabby, heavy rain is forecast for most of the UK tomorrow. I naturally won't hesitate to take the entire blame .... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::lol::unsure:

ConHog

07-11-2012, 01:04 PM

Jolly England has history as one of the most fascist countries in history, but a colonial foot up their ass seemed to have cured what ailed them.

Kathianne

07-11-2012, 03:30 PM

Jolly England has history as one of the most fascist countries in history, but a colonial foot up their ass seemed to have cured what ailed them.

Please cite the examples of 'fascism' in England prior to 1760.

red states rule

07-11-2012, 03:31 PM

Please cite the examples of 'fascism' in England prior to 1760.

I see another teachable moment in Mr Wind Song's future :laugh2:

ConHog

07-11-2012, 06:16 PM

Please cite the examples of 'fascism' in England prior to 1760.

I would be please to give you a world history lesson.

First, let's consider a few things.

A) the time frame we are discussing. You have already established an obvious ending point of 1760. I will further suggest a logical starting point of what most historians agree England started, the 7th century.

So were' talking about roughly 700 years of history.

B) Let's discuss what exactly defines fascism. Essentially there are twelve tenets of fascism. Not all must apply of course, but a majority should. Let's explore all and determine if England displayed any or all of those traits in the time period we are discussing.

1. Nationalism. Indeed the Norman Conquest of England exposed the nationalism omaf many Anglos. The historian William of Maimesbury in fact wrote this following the Battle Of Hastings

"That fatal day for England, the sad destruction of our dear country [dulcis patrie]".

he further wrote

"England has become the habitation of outsiders and the dominion of foreigners. Today, no Englishman is earl, bishop, or abbot, and newcomers gnaw away at the riches and very innards of England; nor is there any hope for an end of this misery".

To read more about William
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Malmesbury

Note: The quotes are from a book, but I'm quite sure they are available online as well.

Another historian of the day, Robert of Gloucester wrote

...the Norman could not speak anything then except their own speech, and they spoke French as they had done at home, and had their children taught it, too, so that important men in this country who come from their stock all keep to that same speech that they derived from them; because, unless a man knows French, he is thought little of. But humble men keep to English and their own speech still. I reckon there are no countries in the whole world that do not keep to their own speech, except England only.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_of_Gloucester_%28historian%29

In 1295 Kind Edward I told Parliment that God would prevent the French from invading England and extinguishing the English language b/c he favored the English

The Hundred Years War is where English nationalism REALLY started to take root, when the English began to feel superior

Early 20th century historian May McKisack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_McKisack in fact wrote

"The most lasting and significant consequences of the war should be sought, perhaps, in the sphere of national psychology...For the victories were the victories, not only of the king and of the aristocracy, but of the nation"

when speaking of the Hundred Years War

2. Foreign Policy. The 1932 Italian Encyclopedia stated:

"For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-175

Can it EVEN be argued that the Empire where the sun never set doesn't fit THIS definition?

3. Authoritarianism Well, since our own nation was founded as a ways to escape the authoritarianism of England, I'd say that's a given.

4. Social Darwinism. Another country, Australia, was populated by people who England decided were not worthy of remaining in England.

5. Social interventionism. Well hell, this could and does include everything from public roads, to public schools, to orphanages or essentially any social concern that the government takes an interest in. Certainly no one could argue that England has and still does practice this.

6. Indoctrination. Probably fair to say that prior the Magna Carta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta for sure the English were indoctrinated to believe that the government was absolute. Even up until the American Revolutionary War most English citizens believed and only knew what the government told them.

7. Abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. None of these apply that I'm aware of.

8. Culture, sex and sexuality. Well, women weren't treated all that well through most of England's early history. Universal female voting not even being a reality until 1928.

And certainly homosexual were treated as second class citizens. Even King Richard (the Lion Heart) had to hide his homosexuality.

9. Economic policies. Not sure this one applies

10. National corporatism, socialism and syndicalism. Probably one of the largest corporations in the history of the world. The East India company was in fact closely associated with, read IN BED with the British government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Its counterpart , the Dutch West India Company was as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_West_India_Company

There were MANY other less famous companies which were given government authority in areas of trade.

11. Economic planning. Pre American Revolution there was very little private property in England, so this one doesn't really apply.

12. Social Welfare. Certainly and absolutely pre 19th century English government had polices in place to ensure that a certain social class benefited at the expense of others.

So really the only one that does NOT apply at all would be #7 as England at no time advocated killing undesirables.

And there you have the history of fascist tendencies in English history, concise edition.

Kathianne

07-11-2012, 06:37 PM

I would be please to give you a world history lesson.

First, let's consider a few things.

A) the time frame we are discussing. You have already established an obvious ending point of 1760. I will further suggest a logical starting point of what most historians agree England started, the 7th century.

So were' talking about roughly 700 years of history.

B) Let's discuss what exactly defines fascism. Essentially there are twelve tenets of fascism. Not all must apply of course, but a majority should. Let's explore all and determine if England displayed any or all of those traits in the time period we are discussing.

1. Nationalism. Indeed the Norman Conquest of England exposed the nationalism omaf many Anglos. The historian William of Maimesbury in fact wrote this following the Battle Of Hastings

"That fatal day for England, the sad destruction of our dear country [dulcis patrie]".

he further wrote

"England has become the habitation of outsiders and the dominion of foreigners. Today, no Englishman is earl, bishop, or abbot, and newcomers gnaw away at the riches and very innards of England; nor is there any hope for an end of this misery".

To read more about William
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Malmesbury

Note: The quotes are from a book, but I'm quite sure they are available online as well.

Another historian of the day, Robert of Gloucester wrote

...the Norman could not speak anything then except their own speech, and they spoke French as they had done at home, and had their children taught it, too, so that important men in this country who come from their stock all keep to that same speech that they derived from them; because, unless a man knows French, he is thought little of. But humble men keep to English and their own speech still. I reckon there are no countries in the whole world that do not keep to their own speech, except England only.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_of_Gloucester_%28historian%29

In 1295 Kind Edward I told Parliment that God would prevent the French from invading England and extinguishing the English language b/c he favored the English

The Hundred Years War is where English nationalism REALLY started to take root, when the English began to feel superior

Early 20th century historian May McKisack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_McKisack in fact wrote

"The most lasting and significant consequences of the war should be sought, perhaps, in the sphere of national psychology...For the victories were the victories, not only of the king and of the aristocracy, but of the nation"

when speaking of the Hundred Years War

2. Foreign Policy. The 1932 Italian Encyclopedia stated:

"For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-175

Can it EVEN be argued that the Empire where the sun never set doesn't fit THIS definition?

3. Authoritarianism Well, since our own nation was founded as a ways to escape the authoritarianism of England, I'd say that's a given.

4. Social Darwinism. Another country, Australia, was populated by people who England decided were not worthy of remaining in England.

5. Social interventionism. Well hell, this could and does include everything from public roads, to public schools, to orphanages or essentially any social concern that the government takes an interest in. Certainly no one could argue that England has and still does practice this.

6. Indoctrination. Probably fair to say that prior the Magna Carta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta for sure the English were indoctrinated to believe that the government was absolute. Even up until the American Revolutionary War most English citizens believed and only knew what the government told them.

7. Abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. None of these apply that I'm aware of.

8. Culture, sex and sexuality. Well, women weren't treated all that well through most of England's early history. Universal female voting not even being a reality until 1928.

And certainly homosexual were treated as second class citizens. Even King Richard (the Lion Heart) had to hide his homosexuality.

9. Economic policies. Not sure this one applies

10. National corporatism, socialism and syndicalism. Probably one of the largest corporations in the history of the world. The East India company was in fact closely associated with, read IN BED with the British government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Its counterpart , the Dutch West India Company was as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_West_India_Company

There were MANY other less famous companies which were given government authority in areas of trade.

11. Economic planning. Pre American Revolution there was very little private property in England, so this one doesn't really apply.

12. Social Welfare. Certainly and absolutely pre 19th century English government had polices in place to ensure that a certain social class benefited at the expense of others.

So really the only one that does NOT apply at all would be #7 as England at no time advocated killing undesirables.

And there you have the history of fascist tendencies in English history, concise edition.

The problem with not only your examples from 16th C are that there wasn't a middle class. Indeed, we're talking about a mercantile class, in the loosest terms of the definition. A blink out of middle ages, which wasn't any ism, other than survivalism.

BTW, your throwing in stuff at the end of your post, OT for the post, I'm ignoring and not LOL about.

Drummond

07-11-2012, 06:45 PM

Jolly England has history as one of the most fascist countries in history, but a colonial foot up their ass seemed to have cured what ailed them.

... Heh heh. Something irritated you ?

Let me guess. The 'father' of fascism, Mussolini, was British ?

Mussolini never declared war on Britain, then ? We never fought against fascists ?

ConHog, are you even worth responding to ?

Kathianne

07-11-2012, 06:54 PM

I would be please to give you a world history lesson.

When that happens, I'll thank you.

ConHog

07-11-2012, 06:56 PM

... Heh heh. Something irritated you ?

Let me guess. The 'father' of fascism, Mussolini, was British ?

Mussolini never declared war on Britain, then ? We never fought against fascists ?

ConHog, are you even worth responding to ?

Of course they were fascists before the word was even defined, but that doesn't change anything.

By the way the England that fought Hitler is far different from the England that existed pre 1760 which is the time frame we were discussing; BUT as far as it goes Obama is fighting a war against tyrants, does it then follow that he himself can't be a tyrant?

Drummond

07-11-2012, 07:00 PM

I would be please to give you a world history lesson.

First, let's consider a few things.

A) the time frame we are discussing. You have already established an obvious ending point of 1760. I will further suggest a logical starting point of what most historians agree England started, the 7th century.

So were' talking about roughly 700 years of history.

B) Let's discuss what exactly defines fascism. Essentially there are twelve tenets of fascism. Not all must apply of course, but a majority should. Let's explore all and determine if England displayed any or all of those traits in the time period we are discussing.

1. Nationalism. Indeed the Norman Conquest of England exposed the nationalism omaf many Anglos. The historian William of Maimesbury in fact wrote this following the Battle Of Hastings

"That fatal day for England, the sad destruction of our dear country [dulcis patrie]".

he further wrote

"England has become the habitation of outsiders and the dominion of foreigners. Today, no Englishman is earl, bishop, or abbot, and newcomers gnaw away at the riches and very innards of England; nor is there any hope for an end of this misery".

To read more about William
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Malmesbury

Note: The quotes are from a book, but I'm quite sure they are available online as well.

Another historian of the day, Robert of Gloucester wrote

...the Norman could not speak anything then except their own speech, and they spoke French as they had done at home, and had their children taught it, too, so that important men in this country who come from their stock all keep to that same speech that they derived from them; because, unless a man knows French, he is thought little of. But humble men keep to English and their own speech still. I reckon there are no countries in the whole world that do not keep to their own speech, except England only.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_of_Gloucester_%28historian%29

In 1295 Kind Edward I told Parliment that God would prevent the French from invading England and extinguishing the English language b/c he favored the English

The Hundred Years War is where English nationalism REALLY started to take root, when the English began to feel superior

Early 20th century historian May McKisack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_McKisack in fact wrote

"The most lasting and significant consequences of the war should be sought, perhaps, in the sphere of national psychology...For the victories were the victories, not only of the king and of the aristocracy, but of the nation"

when speaking of the Hundred Years War

2. Foreign Policy. The 1932 Italian Encyclopedia stated:

"For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-175

Can it EVEN be argued that the Empire where the sun never set doesn't fit THIS definition?

3. Authoritarianism Well, since our own nation was founded as a ways to escape the authoritarianism of England, I'd say that's a given.

4. Social Darwinism. Another country, Australia, was populated by people who England decided were not worthy of remaining in England.

5. Social interventionism. Well hell, this could and does include everything from public roads, to public schools, to orphanages or essentially any social concern that the government takes an interest in. Certainly no one could argue that England has and still does practice this.

6. Indoctrination. Probably fair to say that prior the Magna Carta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta for sure the English were indoctrinated to believe that the government was absolute. Even up until the American Revolutionary War most English citizens believed and only knew what the government told them.

7. Abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. None of these apply that I'm aware of.

8. Culture, sex and sexuality. Well, women weren't treated all that well through most of England's early history. Universal female voting not even being a reality until 1928.

And certainly homosexual were treated as second class citizens. Even King Richard (the Lion Heart) had to hide his homosexuality.

9. Economic policies. Not sure this one applies

10. National corporatism, socialism and syndicalism. Probably one of the largest corporations in the history of the world. The East India company was in fact closely associated with, read IN BED with the British government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Its counterpart , the Dutch West India Company was as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_West_India_Company

There were MANY other less famous companies which were given government authority in areas of trade.

11. Economic planning. Pre American Revolution there was very little private property in England, so this one doesn't really apply.

12. Social Welfare. Certainly and absolutely pre 19th century English government had polices in place to ensure that a certain social class benefited at the expense of others.

So really the only one that does NOT apply at all would be #7 as England at no time advocated killing undesirables.

And there you have the history of fascist tendencies in English history, concise edition.

I'm just fascinated to learn that the British were supposedly 'fascist', hundreds of years before fascism even existed !!!!

Long ago, many generations ago, those who hailed from the British Isles (.. and bear in mind that one might reasonably call us a 'mongrel race' on account of how WE were invaded so long ago ...) .. yes, we were empire builders. We spread our power, our authority, far and wide in the world.

But by 'us', I of course refer to people long since dead from many generations back, people with very different values to today's Brit, who lived in a world very different to today's. If you could ever transplant a British person from the 1700's into today's Britain, I'm sure he'd struggle to identify with any part of it.

... and vice versa, of course.

I tell you what. Try, as an American, to identify with the mindset of an early American who considered it reasonable to kill Red Indians en masse. Of course ... you'd fail, as would most modern Americans. Times move on. Attitudes, social sensibilities, the problems you face today, these are extremely different to the America of the 1820's. Everything evolves, the world moves on.

So you see, ConHog, your attempt at insult not only doesn't work, but comes close to being completely absurd.

Have a Nice Day. :laugh:

ConHog

07-11-2012, 07:05 PM

I'm just fascinated to learn that the British were supposedly 'fascist', hundreds of years before fascism even existed !!!!

Long ago, many generations ago, those who hailed from the British Isles (.. and bear in mind that one might reasonably call us a 'mongrel race' on account of how WE were invaded so long ago ...) .. yes, we were empire builders. We spread our power, our authority, far and wide in the world.

But by 'us', I of course refer to people long since dead from many generations back, people with very different values to today's Brit, who lived in a world very different to today's. If you could ever transplant a British person from the 1700's into today's Britain, I'm sure he'd struggle to identify with any part of it.

... and vice versa, of course.

I tell you what. Try, as an American, to identify with the mindset of an early American who considered it reasonable to kill Red Indians en masse. Of course ... you'd fail, as would most modern Americans. Times move on. Attitudes, social sensibilities, the problems you face today, these are extremely different to the America of the 1820's. Everything evolves, the world moves on.

So you see, ConHog, your attempt at insult not only doesn't work, but comes close to being completely absurd.

Have a Nice Day. :laugh:

What are you talking about? So, for examples, were gays not gay before the word was invented? Of course they were.

Oh, and I never attempted to insult anyone. I merely stated historical facts. The attempts are all yours.

Roo

07-11-2012, 07:06 PM

The problem with not only your examples from 16th C are that there wasn't a middle class. Indeed, we're talking about a mercantile class, in the loosest terms of the definition. A blink out of middle ages, which wasn't any ism, other than survivalism.

BTW, your throwing in stuff at the end of your post, OT for the post, I'm ignoring and not LOL about.

Have you any idea how sexy a brain is?

Kathianne

07-11-2012, 07:08 PM

Of course they were fascists before the word was even defined, but that doesn't change anything.
Can't wait for the links! Of course.
By the way the England thant fought Hitler is far different from the England that existed pre 1760 which is the time frame we were discussing; BUT as far as it goes Obama is fighting a war against tyrants, does it then follow that he himself can't be a tyrant?[/QUOTE]

e

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-11-2012, 07:08 PM

... Heh heh. Something irritated you ?

Let me guess. The 'father' of fascism, Mussolini, was British ?

Mussolini never declared war on Britain, then ? We never fought against fascists ?

ConHog, are you even worth responding to ?

Britain has a jolly history of Monarchy. Kings are KINGS and few if any were fascists unless one wants to call all kings thruout history to be fascists(which is silly). There was no "state" (thus no state control) with kings and as they did not have a government of elected or appointed officials as is the case in the modern history of fascism. All or most all belonged to them(the kings). Britain has never been a fascist state. It has been a kingdom and it has for one rather brief time ruled most of the world ! Its greatest gift to the world was its colonies that later became the United States of America. By the way , Britain needs our support now for it has an infestation problem that will only get worse. Any guesses why obama hates Britian? Answer because it was and is our ally! Scum obama's father hated Britain too. Leftist hate Britain.
Big D, you tell 'em when they spout idiotcy , ok.. Thatcher was never a leftist, socialist , marxist or communist!!!
She was and is a true british patriot and conservative! God save the Queen...- :beer:--Tyr

Kathianne

07-11-2012, 07:08 PM

Of course they were fascists before the word was even defined, but that doesn't change anything.Can't wait for the links! Of course.
By the way the England thant fought Hitler is far different from the England that existed pre 1760 which is the time frame we were discussing; BUT as far as it goes Obama is fighting a war against tyrants, does it then follow that he himself can't be a tyrant?[/QUOTE]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-11-2012, 07:12 PM

I'm just fascinated to learn that the British were supposedly 'fascist', hundreds of years before fascism even existed !!!!

Long ago, many generations ago, those who hailed from the British Isles (.. and bear in mind that one might reasonably call us a 'mongrel race' on account of how WE were invaded so long ago ...) .. yes, we were empire builders. We spread our power, our authority, far and wide in the world.

But by 'us', I of course refer to people long since dead from many generations back, people with very different values to today's Brit, who lived in a world very different to today's. If you could ever transplant a British person from the 1700's into today's Britain, I'm sure he'd struggle to identify with any part of it.

... and vice versa, of course.

I tell you what. Try, as an American, to identify with the mindset of an early American who considered it reasonable to kill Red Indians en masse. Of course ... you'd fail, as would most modern Americans. Times move on. Attitudes, social sensibilities, the problems you face today, these are extremely different to the America of the 1820's. Everything evolves, the world moves on.

So you see, ConHog, your attempt at insult not only doesn't work, but comes close to being completely absurd.

Have a Nice Day. :laugh:

HA, I make my post and come back to read this one from you. Great minds play and think alike my friend.-:beer:

Drummond

07-11-2012, 07:13 PM

Of course they were fascists before the word was even defined, but that doesn't change anything.

Actually, it does. Either one can be recognised as something specific, or, NOT. You can't have it both ways. And you certainly can't apply moral judgments to peoples of different ages and not consider those judgments critically flawed in terms of the social contexts that must apply to each age you want to cover.

By the way the England that fought Hitler is far different from the England that existed pre 1760 which is the time frame we were discussing

Exactly my point. Since you concede it, you must know how flawed your argument is. QED.

BUT as far as it goes Obama is fighting a war against tyrants, does it then follow that he himself can't be a tyrant?

H'm. Well ... the thing of it is, by that logic, aren't the police also classifiable as criminals ? Opposing tyranny is surely, in social terms, a policing action ?

But .. in any case, I'm struggling to accept the statement about Obama as it stands. On the world stage, certainly compared to GWB, he seems extraordinarily weak. He's proving to be close to useless in squaring up to Iran, for example. Afghanistan ? He's committed to withdrawing troops !

He even set out to close Gitmo (.. until he found he had to rethink that one ..).

Obama is undoubtedly a Socialist, easily the most Left-wing President you've ever elected. For me, the only debating point worth debating about Obama is whether or not he's a closet Muslim.

Drummond

07-11-2012, 07:15 PM

HA, I make my post and come back to read this one from you. Great minds play and think alike my friend.-:beer:

Absolutely, Tyr !:beer:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-11-2012, 07:22 PM

Absolutely, Tyr !:beer:

I had just made my post number 60 this thread when I came back to find your post saying much the same thing.
Across the big pond and still we share the same principles and concepts of freedom with a tendency towards always choosing truth over any appeasing favor.-:salute:-Tyr

ConHog

07-11-2012, 07:27 PM

Exactly my point. Since you concede it, you must know how flawed your argument is. QED.

What are you talking about ? Read my first post on the subject. I was ONLY talking about England PRE 1760. In fact I never argued that England POST 1760 was fascist at all.

God damn what is so hard about admitting even the slightest of points rather than lying about what others have posted?

Since none of you actually care to or even can argue what I actually did post I'll just let you have this thread.

L

Drummond

07-11-2012, 07:27 PM

What are you talking about? So, for examples, were gays not gay before the word was invented? Of course they were.

ConHog, it wasn't even true that 'gays' were GAY, even some time AFTER the word was invented !! The homosexual connotation to the word 'gay' didn't exist for ages.

And homosexuality itself, in ages past, was dismissed as sexual perversion ... regarded very differently in ages past. Of course .. moral equivocation, led by so-called 'progressivism' from the Left, has changed all that.

Times change, which is what I've been saying.

Oh, and I never attempted to insult anyone. I merely stated historical facts. The attempts are all yours.

Oh, really ?

Drummond

07-11-2012, 07:31 PM

What are you talking about ? Read my first post on the subject. I was ONLY talking about England PRE 1760. In fact I never argued that England POST 1760 was fascist at all.

God damn what is so hard about admitting even the slightest of points rather than lying about what others have posted?

Since none of you actually care to or even can argue what I actually did post I'll just let you have this thread.

L

I'm not going to concede points to you when I've no good reason for doing so. That you think I should is not of itself persuasive.

My comments stand on their own merits.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-11-2012, 08:01 PM

Obama is a well rounded blend of socialist, fascist, marxist, communist and liberal. They all stand against conservatism and Liberty. He is himself a "composite"(remember his composite girlfriends) of all that he sees to be our enemy. Why?
Because when one is consumed with pure hate, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", becomes a cherished and faithful ally and faith!
We elected a dishonorable fraud that dearly hates this nation.-Tyr

mundame

07-11-2012, 08:35 PM

Please cite the examples of 'fascism' in England prior to 1760.

Oliver Cromwell, I think. The Glorious Revolution. Nationalistic, militaristic, totalitarian --- yep, I think so.

mundame

07-11-2012, 08:37 PM

Obama is undoubtedly a Socialist, easily the most Left-wing President you've ever elected. For me, the only debating point worth debating about Obama is whether or not he's a closet Muslim.

Yeah, I think he's a closet Muslim.

Horrible. What have we done?

fj1200

07-11-2012, 10:46 PM

I'm just fascinated to learn that the British were supposedly 'fascist', hundreds of years before fascism even existed !!!!

Jonah Goldberg argues that Woodrow Wilson was fascist prior to Mussolini so it's possible to display the tenets without tagging the title.

ConHog

07-11-2012, 10:51 PM

Jonah Goldberg argues that Woodrow Wilson was fascist prior to Mussolini so it's possible to display the tenets without tagging the title.

Exactly my argument. Instead of debating the tenets (which they can't ) they argue semantics.

gabosaurus

07-11-2012, 11:02 PM

I love how some English fobs refuse to accept it when they are schooled. ConHog laid it all out for you. Thatcher was much closer to Hitler in ideology than Obama will ever be.
Of course, the English are fortunate to have had Thatcher. If the U.S. had not entered the war, there would be no England. They would be a German colony.
And all you muckrakers would be working in my yard. :cheers2:

red state

07-11-2012, 11:11 PM

He's neither.

Economically though he DOES favor democratic socialism.

He's BOTH!

Whatever he "favors", we know, looks NOTHING like AMERICA or FREEDOM. What he favors is a weaker constitution, declining economy and the murder of developing babies, partially born babies and babies that have survived an abortion attempt...later dying in the lower, dark corners of hospitals. What he favors are radical government changes and hostile regimes toward America with little to no support for legitimate revolts such as the one in Iran that eventually saw the murder, torture and imprisonment of those brave folks who wished only to be more like the awful AMERICA! How dare they wish to be like America when B.O. himself apologizes for America's heroism and believes that everyone should be like ANYTHING but America!!!! The audacity!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-11-2012, 11:29 PM

He's BOTH!

Whatever he "favors", we know, looks NOTHING like AMERICA or FREEDOM. What he favors is a weaker constitution, declining economy and the murder of developing babies, partially born babies and babies that have survived an abortion attempt...later dying in the lower, dark corners of hospitals. What he favors are radical government changes and hostile regimes toward America with little to no support for legitimate revolts such as the one in Iran that eventually saw the murder, torture and imprisonment of those brave folks who wished only to be more like the awful AMERICA! How dare they wish to be like America when B.O. himself apologizes for America's heroism and believes that everyone should be like ANYTHING but America!!!! The audacity!

Yes, he is a blend of both and even more anti-American political philosophy.
The jackass hates this nation and his agenda shows it . The lemmings/sheeple do not and never will see it.
Dumb as a box of rocks and going thru life batshit blind while thinking themselves so enlightened , its hypocrisy at its finest.. -Tyr

fj1200

07-11-2012, 11:37 PM

It's good that people are posting NEW information in this thread. :rolleyes:

ConHog

07-11-2012, 11:38 PM

it's good that people are posting new factual information in this thread. :rolleyes:

i fify

fj1200

07-11-2012, 11:40 PM

i fify

You dishonorable sot. :slap:

:poke:

ConHog

07-11-2012, 11:41 PM

You dishonorable sot. :slap:

:poke:

LOL

okay, so you didn't give an opinion. I made the case that pre 1760 England showed fascist tendencies in your opinion. Yes , or no?

fj1200

07-11-2012, 11:50 PM

LOL

okay, so you didn't give an opinion. I made the case that pre 1760 England showed fascist tendencies in your opinion. Yes , or no?

Hmm, I suppose yes, elements of fascism. But then who hasn't?

ConHog

07-11-2012, 11:51 PM

Hmm, I suppose yes, elements of fascism. But then who hasn't?

I didn't argue that others haven't. I merely argued that England had.

red states rule

07-12-2012, 02:17 AM

What are you talking about? So, for examples, were gays not gay before the word was invented? Of course they were.

Oh, and I never attempted to insult anyone. I merely stated historical facts. The attempts are all yours.

Looks like Mr Wind Song is a little rattled by all the incoming facts :laugh2:

Kathianne

07-12-2012, 04:07 AM

Exactly my argument. Instead of debating the tenets (which they can't ) they argue semantics.

No 'they' are not. Wilson is totally a 20th C player in a country that was industrialized.

People here have a serious deficit in what constitutes fascism, socialism, communism and throw the terms around without understanding.

How does fascism work in a mercantile economy? In an agrarian country? Pre-industrial revolution?

Citing names of leaders from English Civil War does not fascists make.

jimnyc

07-12-2012, 08:20 AM

Looks like Mr Wind Song is a little rattled by all the incoming facts :laugh2:

Can we please try and remain on topic, or bring this stuff to the cage? There's no need to start crap where it doesn't exist.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-12-2012, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by red states rule
Looks like Mr Wind Song is a little rattled by all the incoming facts

Can we please try and remain on topic, or bring this stuff to the cage? There's no need to start crap where it doesn't exist.

Or my friend RSR should just toss out permitted insults like post number77.-;)--Tyr

ConHog

07-12-2012, 08:34 AM

No 'they' are not. Wilson is totally a 20th C player in a country that was industrialized.

People here have a serious deficit in what constitutes fascism, socialism, communism and throw the terms around without understanding.

How does fascism work in a mercantile economy? In an agrarian country? Pre-industrial revolution?

Citing names of leaders from English Civil War does not fascists make.

Kath, last chance to have an actual conversation with you then you go back on ignore.

I gave you the definition of fascism , I showed how England met the tenets, or at least a majority of them, and yet you insist that I am wrong. Fascism has NOTHING to do with mercantile or industrial economy. It has solely to do with the government exerting control over whatever industry is in place in order to affect the economy.

Likewise, when I posted that the English government certainly passed laws and such that gave one class an advantage over others, you said something about middle class. When the definition of fascism says NOTHING about middle class. It merely states that the government sets up controls to help A class of people.

But you are right SOME people don't know what fascism is, or care. For example those who call Obama a fascist , for the most prominent feature of fascists is nationalism, and CLEARLY Obama does not favor the US, the funny part is that those who call him a fascist will write something stupid like "Obama the fascist hates America" and you will applaud them and then turn around and claim that I am wrong when I point by point explain fascism in English history.

fj1200

07-12-2012, 08:38 AM

Or my friend RSR should just toss out permitted insults like post number77.

77 was truth. In response to what you and your friends would call "BO diatribe #7."

jimnyc

07-12-2012, 08:39 AM

Or my friend RSR should just toss out permitted insults like post number77.-;)--Tyr

I address them as I find them or as they are reported. I didn't even see that post until you mentioned it. It's sarcastic, and off topic, but not a 'personal' insult. We can't stop everything and don't want to limit freedom of speech, we just want to stop the long term feuding that just kills endless threads. My perfect solution is to have those who truly despise one another, to place them on ignore. Then we have peaceful threads and those who despise one another don't even see one another.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-12-2012, 09:23 AM

I address them as I find them or as they are reported. I didn't even see that post until you mentioned it. It's sarcastic, and off topic, but not a 'personal' insult. We can't stop everything and don't want to limit freedom of speech, we just want to stop the long term feuding that just kills endless threads. My perfect solution is to have those who truly despise one another, to place them on ignore. Then we have peaceful threads and those who despise one another don't even see one another.

My friend, my stating "permitted insult" wasnt a charge against it being allowed here. As IMHO it is borderline and allowed as sarcasm. So no biggie with me because of that. I was just advising my friend RSR to do the same by using that permitted tactic instead of outright insulting a member.
We new members fully realise that a few insecure members here will never accept us and we are ok with that. However I will not ignore all the jabs and trash. My dad didnt teach me to be a punching bag for anybody and thank God that we are all seprated by time and distance or a real brawl would erupt and the matter get settled that way.
Which is why political forums thrive instead of turning into huge fight scenes IMHO.-Tyr

mundame

07-12-2012, 10:07 AM

But you are right SOME people don't know what fascism is, or care. For example those who call Obama a fascist , for the most prominent feature of fascists is nationalism, and CLEARLY Obama does not favor the US, the funny part is that those who call him a fascist will write something stupid like "Obama the fascist hates America" and you will applaud them and then turn around and claim that I am wrong when I point by point explain fascism in English history.

The book "Analysis of Fascism" is well worth reading and very well written. I can't agree that fascism is mainly nationalism --- for one thing, it's militant nationalism. There are other very important characteristics. Remember fascism only lasted about 23 years. 1922 to 1945. Though it spread a LOT more widely than many realize, I think.

Other characteristics that have to be factored in are totalitarianism: control of the citizen cradle to grave, intrusively. The State "owns" the citizen, is the concept. This is usually expressed by drafting them all for the war effort. (Including women, to replace male work in the homeland, and late in the war, also children.) A fascinating characteristic that this book details, which I don't think gets enough attention, is parallel systems. In Germany, think of the Gestapo. It was parallel to the other intelligence systems, and the SS was parallel to the German regular army.

The point of parallel systems is that the new system directly controlled by the dictator is for doing what they cannot depend on the regular, historic systems to do: torture people as the Gestapo did, or massacre Jews as the SS had to take over in Poland. Setting up a series of concentration camps for the Final Solution.

Anytime parallel systems start to be set up, watch out. I am worried about the CIA taking over a lot of Army functions right now, for example.

ConHog

07-12-2012, 10:12 AM

The book "Analysis of Fascism" is well worth reading and very well written. I can't agree that fascism is mainly nationalism --- for one thing, it's militant nationalism. There are other very important characteristics. Remember fascism only lasted about 23 years. 1922 to 1945. Though it spread a LOT more widely than many realize, I think.

Other characteristics that have to be factored in are totalitarianism: control of the citizen cradle to grave, intrusively. The State "owns" the citizen, is the concept. This is usually expressed by drafting them all for the war effort. (Including women, to replace male work in the homeland, and late in the war, also children.) A fascinating characteristic that this book details, which I don't think gets enough attention, is parallel systems. In Germany, think of the Gestapo. It was parallel to the other intelligence systems, and the SS was parallel to the German regular army.

The point of parallel systems is that the new system directly controlled by the dictator is for doing what they cannot depend on the regular, historic systems to do: torture people as the Gestapo did, or massacre Jews as the SS had to take over in Poland. Setting up a series of concentration camps for the Final Solution.

Anytime parallel systems start to be set up, watch out. I am worried about the CIA taking over a lot of Army functions right now, for example.

I may have to add that to my reading list.But of course you're correct nationalism isn't the ONLY factor, just a major one.As I pointed out in the book I wrote earlier in the thread.

Drummond

07-12-2012, 12:50 PM

You know, there will be times when I log on here, for no other good reason than for the entertainment value of some of the stuff directed my way.

Maybe this qualifies ? >>

I love how some English fobs refuse to accept it when they are schooled. ConHog laid it all out for you. Thatcher was much closer to Hitler in ideology than Obama will ever be.
Of course, the English are fortunate to have had Thatcher. If the U.S. had not entered the war, there would be no England. They would be a German colony.
And all you muckrakers would be working in my yard. :cheers2:

I had to check out the meaning of 'English fobs'. I think you're trying to assert that I've been engaged in deception ? Underhand redirection of some kind ?

You'll have to explain yourself. I've no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing untruthful or 'deceptive' in my posts.

Obama and Hitler both clearly believe(d) in strong Governmental control, bringing things under State control, for its own sake. Mrs Thatcher believed in State controls when rendered strictly necessary, but preferred not to inflict them on people when there was a better way.

To in any way suggest similarities between Margaret Thatcher and Adolf Hitler is both absurd and, frankly, insulting ...

Leaving aside the obvious .. namely, Mrs Thatcher didn't ever invade Europe and occupy European countries through military force, nor did she build concentration camps, nor attempt genocide .. and neither did Hitler walk around in a skirt, twirling a handbag (.. though if you can prove he did, let's learn of it !!) ... consider THIS ..

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto

Point#4. Did Mrs Thatcher ever insist that only the British could be citizens of the British Isles ?

Point #5. What segregationist laws did Mrs Thatcher try to introduce ?

Point #8. Did Mrs Thatcher decree that nobody who is not of a British race should be allowed to live in Britain ?

Point #13 ... Nationalisation (.. a bog-standard Leftie idea !) Didn't Mrs Thatcher go to great lengths to DEnationalise big Companies ??

Point #14. Did Mrs Thatcher try to make big Companies share their profits amongst the workforce ?

Point #16(b) .. Did Mrs Thatcher try to make big department stores provide for small traders within them ?

Point #16 (c) ... did she try to make State and town governments (local Councils) buy from small traders ??

Point #17 .. Governmental land-seizing. Did Mrs Thatcher try any such measure ?

Point #18. Did Mrs Thatcher reintroduce the death penalty .. for ANYTHING ??

'Gabby' ... I could go on and on (the idea of Mrs Thatcher denying Rupert Murdoch ownership of any British newspapers is an especially entertaining idea .. see Point #23 !!!). But it should surely be obvious to anybody that Mrs Thatcher and Hitler had VERY different ideas and beliefs !!

Any suggestion remotely to the contrary is utter bilge.

fj1200

07-12-2012, 01:15 PM

We new members fully realise that a few insecure members here will never accept us and we are ok with that.

The false sense of oppression is strong with this one. If you can't stand a little resistance to your views then acceptance, or lack, is on your end.

However I will not ignore all the jabs and trash. My dad didnt teach me to be a punching bag for anybody and thank God that we are all seprated by time and distance or a real brawl would erupt and the matter get settled that way.

:rolleyes: Perhaps that's what is wrong with your posting "style;" Feeling that political differences need to lead to violence.

ConHog

07-12-2012, 01:20 PM

The false sense of oppression is strong with this one. If you can't stand a little resistance to your views then acceptance, or lack, is on your end.

:rolleyes: Perhaps that's what is wrong with your posting "style;" Feeling that political differences need to lead to violence.

Odd how those who condemn Muslims who resort to violence often threaten the same isn't it?

Drummond

07-12-2012, 01:33 PM

Odd how those who condemn Muslims who resort to violence often threaten the same isn't it?

As I see it, Tyr described a process where he'd defend himself from perceived attack.

Tell me, ConHog, why are you trying to keep this contention going ?

Why not just limit your efforts to straightforward debate ? Isn't that why forums such as this exist ?

fj1200

07-12-2012, 01:36 PM

Why not just limit your efforts to straightforward debate ?

Good advice for all, eh?

ConHog

07-12-2012, 01:44 PM

As I see it, Tyr described a process where he'd defend himself from perceived attack.

Tell me, ConHog, why are you trying to keep this contention going ?

Why not just limit your efforts to straightforward debate ? Isn't that why forums such as this exist ?

Since you addressed me pointedly I will respond.

I don't find it in the least bit surprising that you "see" Tyr having done nothing wrong, and never will.

And that's all I really have to say to you.

jimnyc

07-12-2012, 02:31 PM

Why not just limit your efforts to straightforward debate ? Isn't that why forums such as this exist ?

The little side jabs are happening in multiple places, and not limited to anyone in particular. Hopefully members will start ignoring one another more and get back to debating.

Kathianne

07-12-2012, 04:07 PM

Kath, last chance to have an actual conversation with you then you go back on ignore.

I gave you the definition of fascism , I showed how England met the tenets, or at least a majority of them, and yet you insist that I am wrong. Fascism has NOTHING to do with mercantile or industrial economy. It has solely to do with the government exerting control over whatever industry is in place in order to affect the economy.

Likewise, when I posted that the English government certainly passed laws and such that gave one class an advantage over others, you said something about middle class. When the definition of fascism says NOTHING about middle class. It merely states that the government sets up controls to help A class of people.

But you are right SOME people don't know what fascism is, or care. For example those who call Obama a fascist , for the most prominent feature of fascists is nationalism, and CLEARLY Obama does not favor the US, the funny part is that those who call him a fascist will write something stupid like "Obama the fascist hates America" and you will applaud them and then turn around and claim that I am wrong when I point by point explain fascism in English history.

I never mentioned the middle class from what I've seen here. Government cannot exert control over an industry, when the government is not centralized. England pre-1760 was still an uncentralized government in the main, with albeit strong control over the nobility by the mid-1600's. Still, most of the wealth was still on the manors for agrarian and in trading in the cities. The means of fascism just didn't exist.

fj1200

07-12-2012, 04:21 PM

The means of fascism just didn't exist.

Tell that to THIS guy:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW0-Kx4dmY3eK-2-inb4ecea_mU6xVrmWruZKSD8jHOJ2FwgNtckiwZ5P06g

:poke:

Kathianne

07-12-2012, 04:47 PM

Tell that to THIS guy:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW0-Kx4dmY3eK-2-inb4ecea_mU6xVrmWruZKSD8jHOJ2FwgNtckiwZ5P06g

:poke:

How could I have missed that. :rolleyes:

Drummond

07-12-2012, 06:29 PM

Good advice for all, eh?

Indeed it is.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-12-2012, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by jimnyc
I address them as I find them or as they are reported. I didn't even see that post until you mentioned it. It's sarcastic, and off topic, but not a 'personal' insult. We can't stop everything and don't want to limit freedom of speech, we just want to stop the long term feuding that just kills endless threads. My perfect solution is to have those who truly despise one another, to place them on ignore. Then we have peaceful threads and those who despise one another don't even see one another.

My friend, my stating "permitted insult" wasnt a charge against it being allowed here. As IMHO it is borderline and allowed as sarcasm. So no biggie with me because of that. I was just advising my friend RSR to do the same by using that permitted tactic instead of outright insulting a member.
We new members fully realise that a few insecure members here will never accept us and we are ok with that. However I will not ignore all the jabs and trash. My dad didnt teach me to be a punching bag for anybody and thank God that we are all seprated by time and distance or a real brawl would erupt and the matter get settled that way.
Which is why political forums thrive instead of turning into huge fight scenes IMHO.-Tyr

Now I've been accused of making a threat because of my explaining my views to Jim in the quote above.
The ankle biters here have dullwitted teeth and are about as as bright as a blown bulb to say the least.-:laugh2:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-12-2012, 06:36 PM

My friend, my stating "permitted insult" wasnt a charge against it being allowed here. As IMHO it is borderline and allowed as sarcasm. So no biggie with me because of that. I was just advising my friend RSR to do the same by using that permitted tactic instead of outright insulting a member.
We new members fully realise that a few insecure members here will never accept us and we are ok with that. However I will not ignore all the jabs and trash. My dad didnt teach me to be a punching bag for anybody and thank God that we are all seprated by time and distance or a real brawl would erupt and the matter get settled that way.
Which is why political forums thrive instead of turning into huge fight scenes IMHO.-Tyr

The false sense of oppression is strong with this one. If you can't stand a little resistance to your views then acceptance, or lack, is on your end.

:rolleyes: Perhaps that's what is wrong with your posting "style;" Feeling that political differences need to lead to violence.

Who the hell are you to try to tell me that my posting style is wrong? Are you some kind of God here, Mod here or reigning Genius here? Or just so full of yourself that you feel compelled to put forth your majestic brilliance for evrybody to read and worship? KMA.-Tyr

jimnyc

07-12-2012, 06:41 PM

Please leave it alone, Tyr. Too many good threads are going downhill because of the animosity and back and forth, regardless of right or wrong or who starts it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-12-2012, 06:51 PM

As I see it, Tyr described a process where he'd defend himself from perceived attack.

Tell me, ConHog, why are you trying to keep this contention going ?

Why not just limit your efforts to straightforward debate ? Isn't that why forums such as this exist ?

Right my friend. I was taught to ALWAYS defend myself.
THIS ENTIRE THING STEMS FROM WAY BACK WHEN IT WAS DEMANDED THAT I GIVE MY PERSONAL SOURCE TO SOME INFORMATION THAT I POSTED HERE.I explained I could not and calmly explained why but no dice, the want to be Honcho decided to teach me a lesson and since then he has stormed off no less than three times in his magnificent efforts to teach me to respect his majesty.:laugh:
Since then its escalated and that member and a friend has played little catshat games trying to belittle me.
All the while the little ankle biter has tried to play the role of a enlightened and honorable member only spreading joyful instructions and enlightenment. Piss walking is what it is my friend.
And the little pisswalkers wouldn't measure up to a drunk midget in mexican brothel if that.:laugh2:-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-12-2012, 06:55 PM

As I see it, Tyr described a process where he'd defend himself from perceived attack.

Tell me, ConHog, why are you trying to keep this contention going ?

Why not just limit your efforts to straightforward debate ? Isn't that why forums such as this exist ?

Please leave it alone, Tyr. Too many good threads are going downhill because of the animosity and back and forth, regardless of right or wrong or who starts it.

OK, I've had my say my friend.. Wouldnt have made that last post had I read your reply here first.-Tyr

Drummond

07-12-2012, 06:59 PM

Right my friend. I was taught to ALWAYS defend myself.
THIS ENTIRE THING STEMS FROM WAY BACK WHEN IT WAS DEMANDED THAT I GIVE MY PERSONAL SOURCE TO SOME INFORMATION THAT I POSTED HERE.I explained I could not and calmly explained why but no dice, the want to be Honcho decided to teach me a lesson and since then he has stormed off no less than three times in his magnificent efforts to teach me to respect his majesty.:laugh:
Since then its escalated and that member and a friend has played little catshat games trying to belittle me.
All the while the little ankle biter has tried to play the role of a enlightened and honorable member only spreading joyful instructions and enlightenment. Piss walking is what it is my friend.
And the little pisswalkers wouldn't measure up to a drunk midget in mexican brothel if that.:laugh2:-Tyr

Fair enough, Tyr. I understand your feelings.

I think that now is the time for dignified restraint. We are Conservatives .. I say that we have Right on our side at all times. Our debates, our contributions, stand or fall on their own merits (meaning we have an ongoing advantage). Cool, objective debating is the way to go. :)

Kathianne

07-12-2012, 07:23 PM

Good advice for all, eh?

Yet YOU failed to endorse it.

fj1200

07-13-2012, 05:44 AM

Yet YOU failed to endorse it.

Very true. Sometimes I get annoyed when posts are virtually repeated with only minor derivation from a central theme with no attempt at debate or even remaining on topic.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-13-2012, 06:48 AM

You know, there will be times when I log on here, for no other good reason than for the entertainment value of some of the stuff directed my way.

Maybe this qualifies ? >>

I had to check out the meaning of 'English fobs'. I think you're trying to assert that I've been engaged in deception ? Underhand redirection of some kind ?

You'll have to explain yourself. I've no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing untruthful or 'deceptive' in my posts.

Obama and Hitler both clearly believe(d) in strong Governmental control, bringing things under State control, for its own sake. Mrs Thatcher believed in State controls when rendered strictly necessary, but preferred not to inflict them on people when there was a better way.

To in any way suggest similarities between Margaret Thatcher and Adolf Hitler is both absurd and, frankly, insulting ...

Leaving aside the obvious .. namely, Mrs Thatcher didn't ever invade Europe and occupy European countries through military force, nor did she build concentration camps, nor attempt genocide .. and neither did Hitler walk around in a skirt, twirling a handbag (.. though if you can prove he did, let's learn of it !!) ... consider THIS ..

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto

Point#4. Did Mrs Thatcher ever insist that only the British could be citizens of the British Isles ?

Point #5. What segregationist laws did Mrs Thatcher try to introduce ?

Point #8. Did Mrs Thatcher decree that nobody who is not of a British race should be allowed to live in Britain ?

Point #13 ... Nationalisation (.. a bog-standard Leftie idea !) Didn't Mrs Thatcher go to great lengths to DEnationalise big Companies ??

Point #14. Did Mrs Thatcher try to make big Companies share their profits amongst the workforce ?

Point #16(b) .. Did Mrs Thatcher try to make big department stores provide for small traders within them ?

Point #16 (c) ... did she try to make State and town governments (local Councils) buy from small traders ??

Point #17 .. Governmental land-seizing. Did Mrs Thatcher try any such measure ?

Point #18. Did Mrs Thatcher reintroduce the death penalty .. for ANYTHING ??

'Gabby' ... I could go on and on (the idea of Mrs Thatcher denying Rupert Murdoch ownership of any British newspapers is an especially entertaining idea .. see Point #23 !!!). But it should surely be obvious to anybody that Mrs Thatcher and Hitler had VERY different ideas and beliefs !!

Any suggestion remotely to the contrary is utter bilge.

HA, not only was Thatcher never even remotely like Hitler but if he had walked into a room she was in during her time as the British leader she likely would have kicked his ass. For he was an evil man but a coward and a punk by any decent standard.-:laugh: