Fascism: n.
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
-A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Now, read Dr. Lawrence Britt's Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, and explain to me how the GOoPers are the party of "small government."
14 Comments:
Oh come on, you know nobody who reads your blog and can make a coherent point without wailing about you wanting to kill the president believes that Bush is about small government.
Hey, I know I've got several readers who dislike the supposedly small-government focus of the GOP. At the very least, my pinko stalion Aerosaucer should have some appropriately socialist explanation of why the GOP is small-government at its worst. ;)
I thought Jeff was your pinko stallion? You two-timing hussy!
By the way, why is a raven like a writing desk (there is an answer)?
They are not in the least for small government, unless you mean strictly its capabilities to help people, as we've seen in New Orleans. I'm not just talking about comingling religion and politics (to, I'm sure, the great exaltation of both), but look at the incredible growth of domestic spending since 2000. The war in Iraq, which they now justify as a giant Nation Building excercise is the height of maximalist government. Sure, they get the sheep to follow the anti-big spender line, but "Democratic Talking Points" (it must be them, right?) have convinced even the Heritage Foundation that Bush has no interest in containing, much less shrinking, government spending.
I started that before your second post, so it doesn't fully address it. But I think it is a mistake to assume brilliant conspiracy when simple greed, arrogance and incompetence explain the Bush admin's performance perfectly. You might as well assume that Citizen F is putting on an act to lower the bar so that Bush lovers who don't actually accuse their opponents of insulting the military, being molested by their families or wanting the US President to die will look credible in comparison. They don't care, whatever they tell themselves or the herd, about shrinking government, they care about staying in power and diverting public funds (of generations yet unborn) to their cronies. If you're an old enough Democrat, the pattern should look familiar to you, although the magnitude of the incompetence, corruption and hypocrisy beggar comparison.
No kidding, the Russian nobles shot him and stabbed him and poisoned him and drowned him without much effect, the Democrats are hoping an investigation will take him down?
I think what most Democrats fail to see is that most Republicans know the level of spending we've seen from this Congress and this administration and we're disgusted by it. It's just that we fear, for good reason, that it would only be worse under the Democrats. If you see huge increases in discresionary spending and pose as your solution tax-hikes in a marginal economy, you won't win fiscal conservatives over. Fiscal conservatives are scared stiff of ANY increase in taxes, not because they feel Bill Gates can't afford it, but because that money spurs more economic growth in the private sector than in some failed social program. The problem is that today's Congress (on both sides of the isle, unfortunately) is trying to have it both ways. They refuse to cut unnecessary programs to decrease the deficit because they are afraid of the political fall-out. They refuse to reduce pork spending because they use those projects to buy votes. Still, they want to claim that they are not for big government. This is BOTH parties. BOTH parties are refusing to reduce spending while claiming to favor reduced government. It is not dishonest because they are comparing themselves to each other. We need a true fiscal conservative in the White House who know what a veto pen looks like. If we can get McCain in there, who is not blindly loyal to his party, you would have the potential for change. As for this administration, we fiscal conservatives have lost all hope of controlled spending. It's just that we believe that Dems would just spend more and justify it with economy-crushing taxation. We believe this only because it's exactly what Democrats have promised.
Citizen F
Do you really tell yourself you're a "fiscal conservative"? Is that like how you're "intelligent", "NOT A SHEEP", "a wolf", the incarnation of "valor", "honest" (although to give you the credit you're due, you did seem to accidently retract that particularly absurd claim), someone who doesn't "vote the party line" (unlike allegedy myself, who's such a partisan hack I've actually voted for national candidates of both parties, unlike you)? Or is this different, somehow, from all your pronouncements before?
Just as a good faith gesture to prove that you've turned a corner, where do you see that spending more money than your "ilk" is "exactly what Democrats have promised". Are you making that up yourself, or is it just another in the endless stream of talking point's you parrot without understanding, or do you for once have some actual evidence?
It's obviously not necessary to ask why you don't understand that debts have to be paid back with interest, and that just because you'll never vote for anyone who would try and pull the government out of the red doesn't mean that someone, someday won't have to pay the taxes that are being shirked now. As for McCain, you've already called his and Lieberman's environmental policies "ridiculous", and you obviously loathe his opposition to the Bush wartime taxcuts and you and Bush's pathetic "bad apples" excuse for torture. If he's a serious primary player, it's pretty hard to believe you won't end up thinking he insults the military, wants Bush to die, etc. etc.
He's hiding from me, apparently still sulking from when he smugly demanded that someone explain to him how hurricane Katrina, being what he called "an American, no, an international, human issue" had anything to do with the State department and I did. So if someone else would like to ask the same questions, please do.
I don't understand why you say I'm hiding from you while we've been asked not to confiscate the comments section to the detriment of all others. I committed to not doing that anymore and I thought you did, too. You prefer to take shots at me knowing that I won't respond because it would be breaking a promise. I find that comical. But to say I'm hiding when I'm clearly only trying to keep my word is deceptive.
To answer your post, all I can say is that I feel both parties are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Both parties are spending millions, if not billions in pork. The Democrats are saying we should raise taxes, but they aren't commiting to cutting programs. The Republicans are saying we should cut programs, but won't actually do it. Both parties claim to be for smaller government, but neither votes like they speak. If you call that blindly following a party like a "sheep", I'd love to see that argument supported. Since I don't expect such support, I'll be content just to point out that I said I would likely vote for McCain in a primary and would likely have voted for Lieberman in '04 had he won the primary. Do I agree with everything either have done? No. I'm not a sheep, so I don't blindly follow anyone. But, since we live in a republic, I tend to choose the individual who most closely represents my views. Now you can proceed to make some more stuff up about me and pretend someone cares. To me, discussing the issues is a little more interesting, but you can do what you want.
CF
Ah, I thought you'd given up on that particular slander when I called you on it and you couldn't show that I'd ever said anything about allowing you to slander me and my friends without responding. Naturally I'm not disappointed, since I already know you too well for that.
As for your being a sheep, you can fool yourself and whine about your victimization, we've seen both many times, but it was your term so to act like it's offensive is typical of you. You say that both national parties are flawed, and there's unlikely anyone who would disagree with that, but you vote with 100% consistency for RNC candidates while accusing people who've voted for both of being "sheep" and voting the "party line". You also parrot White House talking points so stupid that even Bush repudiates or abandons them, and don't know even the basic, nonpartisan and undisputed, facts about those "issues" you claim to find interesting. None of this is new or refuted despite your amazing intellect, so it's again typically you to suggest that I can't support my position that it is you and not I who is a "sheep".
Aleks, I know that you know I haven't voted for RNC canditates every time, so that is simply a lie. I'm not going to get into this with you because it's pointless. You just want a shouting match and there's no value in that. If you want to discuss an issue, that's fine, but I'm trying very hard not to create a three-hundred thread post about nothing. I don't parrot talking points and don't know why you talk about them so much. I also don't know why you try to bring previous discussions into current discussions. Why is that productive? What does it accomplish? Is the goal to silence all opposition so that you don't have to argue the facts? I don't know the answers to these questions and I don't think you do either. I wander if you notice that you don't seem to make any arguments anymore without referencing previous discussions. I wander if the reason for that is that you are uncapable of winning a debate based purely on the facts of a particular issue. I wander if you have to use the old discussions to try to discredit me because you can't win an argument without trying to discredit your opponent. I don't know. I can't tell. I've tried to maintain civil discourse in recent discussions and thought for a second you were agreeing that that was a good idea. It's a shame that I was wrong.
CF
You keep alledging that I try to "suppress" your "facts" but you've never used or even known the facts on any issue we've discussed. Claiming that I insult the military, am a "sheep", or insinuating that my uncle abused me are not "facts", however proud you may be to use them in their place. But I would love to hear what "issues" you feel you've presented the superior argument on. Alas you can't seem to name any, after a year. As for parroting Republican talking points, does it mean anything to you that you started out claiming, like the White House, that there was no sense in laying blame for the Katrina response (playing the "blame game"), and that Bush was absolutely faultless (you called him the one person who could not have done better or other), but that it was the Democratic governor and mayor who (in your words) "fucked up", but now that Bush has said federal failures were his responsibility you say almost exactly the same thing?
I'm used to you calling me a liar and will be suprised only if for once you can back it up. Would you like to name an RNC candidate you voted against?
Do you tell yourself you try to maintain "civil discourse", it just so happens you asked if my uncle was a child molester and said my friend "probably" wished the President of the United States was dead? I guess you're so well trained by watching your ilk win elections though slander that you consider that "civil", and "intelligent", "honest", "valorous", "classy" and an attempt to focus on "facts" and "issues". So I'll just lay out why I object to your "facts" and "issues": 1. My uncle is not a child molester, and I am not a victim of one. I do however have friends who were, and I know what a gross and terrible thing it is to be, and hence to falsely accuse someone of it. I hope that your family has been spared such horror, but that should hardly be required to understand why it's a terrible thing, and when falsely and maliciously made a terrible accusation. You're such a sick fuck that you think it's funny, virtuous and a noble debating tactic, but as I like to tell myself, we have very little in common. 2. The United States has had a democracy for over two centuries and NEVER HAD A REAL MILITARY COUP OR MILITARY GOVERNMENT. If you know anyone who has any knowledge of history or politics, go ask them how utterly amazing that is, and how much credit is due to the United States military. Then you would understand why someone would find it offense for you to lie about them insulting the United States Armed Services as one of your ilk's standard dirty tricks (what you seem to call "issues"). I was working for the McCain campaign when you shits slandered him for having "abandoned" the troops, and I've seen your ilk played your "anti-military, unpatriotic" card against Sens. Cleveland and Kerry. So when you tried to pull the same garbage on me, I wasn't as impressed as you probably expected. Naturally, understanding that you're just a dumb herd animal (stop whining you lying little hypocrite, you called me a sheep first) repeating what you see from those you emulate, I don't expect you to understand why I'd consider that offensive.
An RNC candidate I didn't vote for: Mike Rounds. You already knew this.
I did not say in any "recent" discussion that your uncle molested anyone. As for the "dead" post, please provide a quote that contains the context (the whole paragraph would be nice, but I'll accept the whole sentence). It would also be helpful to have a link to what I was responding to.
As for those "facts" you mentioned, they aren't facts at all. They are misinterpretted statements that don't apply to the current discussion. So if you have to use those points to win an argument, you aren't using the "facts" in that discussion. You are trying to discredit me rather than debate me.
You were asked why it was productive to bring previous discussions into current debates. You responded by saying how terrible it is that I've said something in a previous discussion. Once again, you've avoided responding by diverting the discussion to the past. Are you going to answer my question or not?
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home