Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:I know that the Australian Liberals(our conservative party) were in power for a number of years (Around 12 I think?) and built up a huge surplus, but they also didnt significantly upgrade any infrastructure across the country, and have stated that had they been in power during the GFC they would not have done any economic stimulus (at least not in the same manner as the Labour party did) John Howard (Former Prime Minister) even went so far as to say that he wasnt convinced the GFC was global, and thought it was probably just something that happened in other regions...

On infrastructure - that's actually a state issue, and even then infrastructure allocations were considerably increased over the course of the Liberal government. NSW is complaining about the federal Liberal government now, but that's something they always do to explain their own mismanagement.

On the GFC and the stimulus - Yeah, Abbott spent a fair amount of time talking about no stimulus, but he's a lying turd. When the stimulus was being passed then opposition leader Turnbull was talking about a much reduced stimulus bill, but he was talking about a total around 70% of the Labor bill. Which is still a lot of money, and miles away from Abbott's fibs.

Fair point on the state government, though correct me if I'm wrong (which I may well be) but during the Howard era most states also had liberal governments?

I'll admit that my interest in politics only really stated to pique during this years election (I've just left uni and entered the "real" world, so it seems that it will actually start affecting me to some degree), so most of my information has come from what I've heard from the Turnbull days is second hand.

I completely agree with your summation of Abbott though, and its refreshing to hear you say (As I understand it) that the waste has been massively overblown by him and his "5 simple catchphrases to win the Bogan vote"..I got so sick of hearing the words Waste, Boats and White Elephant during the election campaign....

The Green Git wrote:
You want Tea Party perspective? This latest bit of propaganda from the GOP is the old gaurd's last gasp trying to retain power. They see the steam roller coming and are trying to appease the public with promises and mea culpas.

Right, well, if this is meant to be a last grasp for power, then it must follow that the message is targeted at those who are poised to take power. Given who you are, I suspect that you believe this to be the Tea Party. If that is the case, then it follows that this is basically the Republican interpretation of the Tea Party position. If they're the 'old guard' as you say, then they must also be savvy pols given that they have reached elderly status; meaning that they probably have a good handle on the Tea Party message. And, really, it isn't a terribly complex thing.

Honestly, I've never seen a comment so intent on contradicting itself. It's really astounding.

del'Vhar wrote:Fair point on the state government, though correct me if I'm wrong (which I may well be) but during the Howard era most states also had liberal governments?

In the beginning of the Howard government they had mostly Liberal governments, by the end they were mostly Labor. The two state premiers who really invested in infrastructure were Court and Carr, so I'm not sure there's all that much of a pattern really.

I mean, at the end of the day there's not really that much ideology in state politics, as close as the parties are at the Federal level they're even closer at the state level.

I completely agree with your summation of Abbott though, and its refreshing to hear you say (As I understand it) that the waste has been massively overblown by him and his "5 simple catchphrases to win the Bogan vote"..I got so sick of hearing the words Waste, Boats and White Elephant during the election campaign....

I don't think I've ever seen a thing quite so ridiculous in Australian politics as the boatphone. That was truly something special. And it really summed up an election that was almost entirely about pretend issues.

Gailbraithe wrote:Which means that if we cut 80 billion in welfare payments, we end up shifting 800 billion dollars in law enforcement costs onto the states, which means for the average American the cost of government just skyrocketed.

Well, it means that the average cost of state or municipal government skyrockets. Many people, including myself, have argued that the states have artificially low taxes, and that a shift of the burden from the Federal Government to the states would allow for greater accountability, and less bureaucratic loss. Obviously there would be pain involved in the transfer, but that's basically an inevitable consequence of the current US ledger.

Gailbraithe wrote:
So we could save $36 million, but the economic costs would be far greater than what we're spending.

I absolutely agree with you, but the problem is that the money simply isn't there. We cannot continue borrowing forever, and even in the event that we do something foolish, like renege on our debts, the consequences are going to be quite dire. The issue is whether or not we come out of the inevitable recession with a stronger system, or a weaker one. Thus far we've been putting the decision off, but we won't be able to do so much longer.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That's why I sneer at Republicans who constantly say they'll cut spending but never say where they'll cut it from. Because I've looked at the numbers, and there just isn't the trillions of dollars in waste that would have to exist to make their plans feasible.

Sure, but then the issue becomes one of "What do we cut that isn't waste?"

sebster wrote:I don't think I've ever seen a thing quite so ridiculous in Australian politics as the boatphone. That was truly something special. And it really summed up an election that was almost entirely about pretend issues.

The vibe I got from it was either that:

A: He wants to be involved in everything, regardless of his experience or preparation in the field.
B: He doesn't trust anyone else to make decisions, because only he can make the right ones.
C: He wishes he was batman.

It was the single most ridiculous election promise I have ever heard of, and I can't believe it didn't get more media attention than it did.

I consider myself a swinging voter, but there is no chance I would ever vote for a Political Party willing to put a man like him in charge of a country.

Anyway, given this thread was in no way about Australian politics, or my personal feelings about Tony Abbot, I'll bow out for now.

del'Vhar wrote:The vibe I got from it was either that:

A: He wants to be involved in everything, regardless of his experience or preparation in the field.
B: He doesn't trust anyone else to make decisions, because only he can make the right ones.
C: He wishes he was batman.

It was the single most ridiculous election promise I have ever heard of, and I can't believe it didn't get more media attention than it did.

If he'd actually just said 'I want to be Batman' I would have thought about voting for him

To me, the boatphone thing just summed up how much of a beat up the whole refugee issue is. We get about 6,000 refugees a year, of which around 2,000 arrive by boat - that's one for every 10,000 Australians. While it is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a better way than we have, it just isn't on the same level as infrastructure and service provision, the budget or unemployment.

I mean, the fact that there's so few boats arriving that the PM could possibly be called every time one arrives tells you how trivial an issue it is.

I consider myself a swinging voter, but there is no chance I would ever vote for a Political Party willing to put a man like him in charge of a country.

This is very much my opinion on the subject. Still, his win was hopefully the last rallying cry of the old Howard arch-conservatives of the Liberal party, as those guys do not have time on their side.

Cheesecat wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Tax cuts could work if spending was trimmed accordingly.

The problem is where do you cut? Because when you actually look at the budgets, and look into why that money is spent, it turns out that a lot of the spending actually make a lot of sense. And is vital to our economy.

You could cut money out of the military budget or foreign affairs, isn't money spent on making the people live better lives more important than affairs happening outside of America?

Foreign aid doesn't amount to enough to make a sizable difference. The military is the only place we could realistically cut spending, but it would require drastically changing our role internationally, and more to the point: The GOP has said they will not cut anything from defense spending. Quite the opposite, they intend to increase it.

I think it's worth noting that back in 2000-2001, before 9/11, the GOP claimed they could pull off this same magic trick of cutting "wasteful" government spending...and one of the results of that was the gutting of FEMA, which in turn was directly responsible for unmitigated disaster of Hurricane Katrina. That's what really happens when you cut for the purpose of cutting, you end up undermining the ability of the government to function -- once again demonstrating that GOP claims that the government can't do anything right is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But hey, that's old news. Let's talk about what Miss Maddow revealed on her show tonight:

1) The GOP plans to privatize the Veteran's Administration, turning the honorable service and sacrifice of our veterans into a new profit sector for the private healthcare industry. This is the most ridiculous nonsense since they tried to privatize social secuity. Veterans are happier with their service than any other health care consumer in America, VA healthcare gets better marks than private healthcare, and the non-profit nature of VA care means that taxpayers aren't paying the profit margins of overpaid doctors.

Yet for some reason, the "pro-military" chickenhawk GOP wants to lower the quality of care that veterans receive while increasing the costs to taxpayers. Because they're so "fiscal conservative." Or more likely, because their corporate masters told them to.

2) The entire Pledge To America was written by a former corporate lobbyist who now works for John Boner. Bohner. Whatever. The Day-Glo orange idiot.

Gailbraithe wrote:2) The entire Pledge To America was written by a former corporate lobbyist who now works for John Boner. Bohner. Whatever. The Day-Glo orange idiot.

Boehner.

And yeah, that guy is freakishly orange.

Phryxis wrote:Honestly this is one of the reasons why I find G-bizzy's whole "Republicans are fascists" thing to be ridiculous. The Tea Party is to the right of the Republican party in virtually every way, and it's got a lot of popular support. If the Republicans are so far right, then how come there's a large popular movement to the right of them, and they're scared of it, and trying to make it go away?

I don't consider the Tea Party to be separate from the Republican party. The Tea Party is the GOP's base. When I say the Republicans are fascists, I am mostly referring to the Tea Party. My contention is basically that the GOP has been flirting with fascism since Reagan, and now the chickens have come home to roost. They have been using the same propaganda and rhetoric to demonize the left that fascists use, stirring up the same slack-jawed idiots, yokels and space-wasters all fascist movements appeal to, and now the monster has slipped its chains, and is dragging the party ever further to the right.

Example: The mainstream GOP uses fear of gun control to agitate paranoics, using the rhetoric of fear of a tyrannical government, and the supposed need for guns to defend against the federal government, all to gain votes. After thirty years of that, what is created? Sharron Angle saying that if the Tea Party loses this election, they'll have to turn to "second ammendment remedies." Which means shooting people if they don't win the election. Is that just empty rhetoric from Mrs. Angle? I don't think it is. I don't think nutjobs like Angle are cynical enough to say something like that and not mean it.

This is why I am worried about the right. Because the cynical manipulators have lost control of the squiggoth they have created, and while the cynical manipulators never meant any of that BS about "feeding the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots," their followers don't realize that's crazy talk. They really don't get it. That's why there's been a massive increase in right-wing violence in the last two years. That's why that psycho flew into the IRS and killed those people. That's why that guy shot up that church, and that other guy shot up the holocaust museum. Because for thirty years the GOP has been pandering to these kind of unstable loonies, telling them that their paranoid fantasy is real, and that we are at war for our very culture and freedom. That has consequences.

And that's my concern. That the Tea Party represents the full blossoming of American fascism. That in the name of "defending freedom" they will revolt violently against the fair outcome of a democratic election, that to "restore honor" they will attempt to overthrow the government and impose their insane ideas about "freedom" on us.

You dig into it and these people are nuts. Like the members of this far-right Christian group, the Family. This is an international organization to whom which several prominent GOP lawmakers are beholden. They have members in African nations who are pushing for laws that would make homosexuality punishable by death...and they want those kind of laws here in America, someday. Because you know, in the bible it says you're supposed to stone the gays to death.

That's where the GOP is headed. That is the trajectory they are on. And if you think fascist is the wrong word for that, then okay. But that's not conservative. That's insanity. Absolute insanity.

After Allende was overthrown in Chile there were surveys taken that made it apparent that the desire for revolt was not set against the desire for democracy. What I have taken from this is that democracy is fragile, and that people are far more interested in their own desires being reflected in the state than some abstract notion of freedom.

This goes along with the seminal Gurr bit on directiveness as a barometer for polity durability.

Gailbraithe wrote:Because the cynical manipulators have lost control of the squiggoth they have created, and while the cynical manipulators never meant any of that BS about "feeding the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots," their followers don't realize that's crazy talk. They really don't get it. That's why there's been a massive increase in right-wing violence in the last two years. That's why that psycho flew into the IRS and killed those people. That's why that guy shot up that church, and that other guy shot up the holocaust museum. Because for thirty years the GOP has been pandering to these kind of unstable loonies, telling them that their paranoid fantasy is real, and that we are at war for our very culture and freedom. That has consequences.

Can you reference sources backing up this opinion? I like charts.

It seems reasonable enough to assume that both sides (if you really want to limit a discussion that way) have their fair share of whackos. Not so long ago the story of the day was 'liberals' running around with signs comparing G-dubya to Hitler and all of the above. Because that is just as rational as comparisons in the same vein against Obama. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG.

You may be right. Maybe, just maybe, you're in fact correct in one way or another. Lets pan out a bit, we are looking through a rather myopic lens after all. There are dozens of ways to look at this subject and suggesting that one 'side' is any less ridiculous than the other, on the point of committing acts of terrorism, is silly IMO. A country of 300 million people and I am supposed to take a suggestion such as yours as fact? Meh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_States#2000-present

IN THE LAST 5 MINUTES WE HAVE INCREASED OUR MPH BY 2000%. From a starting mph of 1, of course. 2000% is a very large number though, I will give you that.

From your account it is more like 200%, but I think a bit of additional oomph may have been needed on your part.

Gailbraithe wrote:When I say the Republicans are fascists, I am mostly referring to the Tea Party. My contention is basically that the GOP has been flirting with fascism since Reagan, and now the chickens have come home to roost. They have been using the same propaganda and rhetoric to demonize the left that fascists use, stirring up the same slack-jawed idiots, yokels and space-wasters all fascist movements appeal to, and now the monster has slipped its chains, and is dragging the party ever further to the right.

You can be a right wing loon without being a fascist. There's no-one in the GOP trying to sell a more powerful government building a new empire. Quite the opposite.

Example: The mainstream GOP uses fear of gun control to agitate paranoics, using the rhetoric of fear of a tyrannical government, and the supposed need for guns to defend against the federal government, all to gain votes.

Fear of government is not a fascist arguments. Fascism embraces a powerful state, it makes the individual feel empowered through the state having power.

After thirty years of that, what is created? Sharron Angle saying that if the Tea Party loses this election, they'll have to turn to "second ammendment remedies." Which means shooting people if they don't win the election. Is that just empty rhetoric from Mrs. Angle? I don't think it is. I don't think nutjobs like Angle are cynical enough to say something like that and not mean it.

Oh yeah, Angle is absolutely bonkers and it is simply incredible that she could be accepted in a major party, let alone elected, but her craziness isn't fascism.

You dig into it and these people are nuts. Like the members of this far-right Christian group, the Family. This is an international organization to whom which several prominent GOP lawmakers are beholden. They have members in African nations who are pushing for laws that would make homosexuality punishable by death...and they want those kind of laws here in America, someday. Because you know, in the bible it says you're supposed to stone the gays to death.

That would be theocracy, not fascism.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Because the cynical manipulators have lost control of the squiggoth they have created, and while the cynical manipulators never meant any of that BS about "feeding the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots," their followers don't realize that's crazy talk. They really don't get it. That's why there's been a massive increase in right-wing violence in the last two years. That's why that psycho flew into the IRS and killed those people. That's why that guy shot up that church, and that other guy shot up the holocaust museum. Because for thirty years the GOP has been pandering to these kind of unstable loonies, telling them that their paranoid fantasy is real, and that we are at war for our very culture and freedom. That has consequences.

Can you reference sources backing up this opinion? I like charts.

Not without doing a bunch of research I don't want to do right now. Sorry, but it's 1 AM here.

It seems reasonable enough to assume that both sides (if you really want to limit a discussion that way) have their fair share of whackos. Not so long ago the story of the day was 'liberals' running around with signs comparing G-dubya to Hitler and all of the above. Because that is just as rational as comparisons in the same vein against Obama. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG.

Except of course that Bush actually did promote an agenda of endless war against an unspecificed enemy ("The War of Terror"...a war declared against a tactic?), and Bush actually did promote secret prisons and the torture of supposed enemies, and Bush actually did initiate a massive program to spy on journalists, and Bush (through proxies) actually did accuse anyone who spoke out against him of being a traitor.

Gailbraithe wrote:Not without doing a bunch of research I don't want to do right now. Sorry, but it's 1 AM here.

No worries.

Except of course that Bush actually did promote an agenda of endless war against an unspecificed enemy ("The War of Terror"...a war declared against a tactic?), and Bush actually did promote secret prisons and the torture of supposed enemies, and Bush actually did initiate a massive program to spy on journalists, and Bush (through proxies) actually did accuse anyone who spoke out against him of being a traitor.

I still don't see what that has to do with Hitler on either count.

While I do not agree with many of the arguments made against Obama, it is no less ridiculous to have accused one president over the other, of being Hitler or Mussolini. On that same note, it is no less ridiculous to suggest the same in the case of lower level politicians. The scale we are talking about here does not span the conversations you are trying to tie together.

Count and report the number of terrorist acts from either 'side', I will entirely ignore the fact I do not agree that borders are so sharp.

It would not surprise me in the least if you simply cannot find supporting data for your opinion. I expect that to be the case. I'll add that I can most likely provide very convincing information that actual acts of terrorism have grown mainly from the left, as one would expect in the case of 8 years under Dubya.

sebster wrote:You can be a right wing loon without being a fascist. There's no-one in the GOP trying to sell a more powerful government building a new empire. Quite the opposite.

...please don't tell me you've already forgotten the neo-con plans to use bombs to turn the middle east into a series of client-state democracies to secure American power. I mean seriously, we still have troops over there engaged in "nation-building." That is the whole neo-con schtick.

Fear of government is not a fascist arguments. Fascism embraces a powerful state, it makes the individual feel empowered through the state having power.

I didn't say it was. But using fear of government to gain control of government, and then embracing a powerful state once in power, that's the GOP's actual gameplan. We saw that with Bush's expansion of executive powers, the GOP's talk of a "permanent Republican majority," etc.

Look, it's easy to nitpick this kind of argument, especially in this kind of forum, but you really have to make an effort to see the big picture. We all know that if the GOP gains power they won't conscientiously refuse to use it, and quietly strip the government of its powers. They do the exact opposite. We've seen them do it. And we saw their rhetoric change the moment they were in power. As soon as it was their president, the tune changed to "Support the president or you're anti-American."

You can't judge the conservative movement on their rhetoric alone, because (duh) they lie. They say one thing but do another. And what they say is they want limited government, but what they do is expand the power of government. They say they are for freedom and liberty, but what they do is chip away at our rights and take away our freedoms.

That would be theocracy, not fascism.

When the theocrats climb into bed with the anarcho-capitalists and the corporatists and the neo-conservatives, the end result is going to be fascism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Except of course that Bush actually did promote an agenda of endless war against an unspecificed enemy ("The War of Terror"...a war declared against a tactic?), and Bush actually did promote secret prisons and the torture of supposed enemies, and Bush actually did initiate a massive program to spy on journalists, and Bush (through proxies) actually did accuse anyone who spoke out against him of being a traitor.

I still don't see what that has to do with Hitler on either count.

Hitler = Fascist Leader
Fascist Leader = Policy of Endless War
Policy of Endless War = George W. Bush
George W. Bush = Hitler

Not saying I agree, but that was the "logic" behind the "Bush = Hitler" signs.

Meanwhile the Obama = Hitler argument seems to be:
Hitler = Fascist Leader
Fascist Leader = Policy of Universal Health Care
Policy of Universal Health Care = Obama
Obama = Hitler

Which makes absolutely no sense at all, since the only Nazi Germany had universal health care, and they didn't create the system -- they inherited it from the Widmar Republic.

Count and report the number of terrorist acts from either 'side', I will entirely ignore the fact I do not agree that borders are so sharp.

It would not surprise me in the least if you simply cannot find supporting data for your opinion. I expect that to be the case. I'll add that I can most likely provide very convincing information that actual acts of terrorism have grown mainly from the left, as one would expect in the case of 8 years under Dubya.

There hasn't been a single leftist terrorist attack since 1983, when former members of the Weather Underground bombed the Senate (and they had the decency to call in a warning so no one was hurt).

Political direction doesn't really matter when terrorism is concerned. I mean, the IRS guy was neither Right nor Left, and the Holocaust strike was definitively Right.

Gailbraithe wrote:Not saying I agree, but that was the "logic" behind the "Bush = Hitler" signs.

Fair enough.

...

Obama = Hitler

Which makes absolutely no sense at all, since the only Nazi Germany had universal health care, and they didn't create the system -- they inherited it from the Widmar Republic.

Neither point makes any sense, so my point is entirely clear.

There hasn't been a single leftist terrorist attack since 1983, when former members of the Weather Underground bombed the Senate (and they had the decency to call in a warning so no one was hurt).

According to what I assume is your definition of 'right-wing', there have been several terrorist acts since then. It depends on what you are trying to say, but as it appears, you've made your point clear already. The right-wing is composed of, etc... etc... etc...

Your brief references have flaws, at least concerning the context in which you are wielding the examples. Your point may be that the right wing is not a self-described white supremacist and neo-nazi, but I have a hard time interpreting that part of your opinion. I would quote your previous suggestion as to the base of the republican party; I won't.

dogma wrote:I mean, the IRS guy was neither Right nor Left, and the Holocaust strike was definitively Right.

By 'definitively right' I assume you mean extreme-right? As in the part that calls themselves Neo-nazis?

I have heard a great deal of things from the Tea Party on the whole. Calling themselves white supremacists is not one of those things.

Wrexasaur wrote:Neither point makes any sense, so my point is entirely clear.

No, calling Bush a fascist (the intent of equating him with Hitler) does make sense, because Eternal War is at the heart of fascism, and Bush supported a policy of Endless War.

There hasn't been a single leftist terrorist attack since 1983, when former members of the Weather Underground bombed the Senate (and they had the decency to call in a warning so no one was hurt).

According to what I assume is your definition of 'right-wing', there have been several terrorist acts since then. It depends on what you are trying to say, but as it appears, you've made your point clear already. The right-wing is composed of, etc... etc... etc...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

But in place of the typical portrait of a terrorist driven by ideology, Mr. Stack was described as generally easygoing, a talented amateur musician with marital troubles and a maddening grudge against the tax authorities.

“I knew Joe had a hang-up with the I.R.S. on account of them breaking him, taking his savings away,” said Jack Cook, the stepfather of Mr. Stack’s wife, in a telephone interview from his home in Oklahoma. “And that’s undoubtedly the reason he flew the airplane against that building. Not to kill people, but just to damage the I.R.S.”

Enjoy yourself. I'll check back in later to ask how that supportive data has come along on your part.

NO U!

Gailbraithe wrote:...please don't tell me you've already forgotten the neo-con plans to use bombs to turn the middle east into a series of client-state democracies to secure American power. I mean seriously, we still have troops over there engaged in "nation-building." That is the whole neo-con schtick.

Yeah, and while fascists will invade other countries while talking about their historic right to this land or that... invading a country with a simultaneously foolish and cyincal worldview about making some distant land better off is something all sorts of governments of all kinds have blundered into at one time or another. It didn't make any of them fascist.

I didn't say it was. But using fear of government to gain control of government, and then embracing a powerful state once in power, that's the GOP's actual gameplan.

Which is a gameplan that has nothing to do with fascism at all. Nothing at all. Fascism plays on the feelings of weakness in the individual, and offers him a power fantasy where he is a part of a powerful state.

There is a fantasy at the core of the most extreme, ideological elements of the US right wing, but it is a fantasy that is wholly unlike the fascist one.

We saw that with Bush's expansion of executive powers, the GOP's talk of a "permanent Republican majority," etc.

Democrat pundits made all kinds of claims about the death of Republicans in the wake of 2008. It didn't make them fascist.

Look, it's easy to nitpick this kind of argument, especially in this kind of forum, but you really have to make an effort to see the big picture.

I'm not nitpicking. I'm asking you to use words with their real meanings.

We all know that if the GOP gains power they won't conscientiously refuse to use it, and quietly strip the government of its powers. They do the exact opposite. We've seen them do it. And we saw their rhetoric change the moment they were in power. As soon as it was their president, the tune changed to "Support the president or you're anti-American."

Maintaining or increasing government power isn't fascism.

You can't judge the conservative movement on their rhetoric alone, because (duh) they lie.

While I disagree with both the rhetoric and the realities of the Republicans, neither are fascism.

When the theocrats climb into bed with the anarcho-capitalists and the corporatists and the neo-conservatives, the end result is going to be fascism.

No, it isn't.

Fascism is a collectivist movement, that puts the state first and foremost, deeming the best action to be that which strengthens the nation. This is absolutely nowhere near the Republican belief set.

sebster wrote:Yeah, and while fascists will invade other countries while talking about their historic right to this land or that... invading a country with a simultaneously foolish and cyincal worldview about making some distant land better off is something all sorts of governments of all kinds have blundered into at one time or another. It didn't make any of them fascist.

But that's not why we invaded Iraq. It was never about making Iraq better, it was always about maintaining American supremacy and power. Read the Project For A New American Century.

And again, you are nitpicking. You are picking apart at each element, pointing out how it's not exactly the same as Nazi Germany, which misses the point. You have to look at the totality of what the right is doing. The Big Picture.

I didn't say it was. But using fear of government to gain control of government, and then embracing a powerful state once in power, that's the GOP's actual gameplan.

Which is a gameplan that has nothing to do with fascism at all. Nothing at all. Fascism plays on the feelings of weakness in the individual, and offers him a power fantasy where he is a part of a powerful state.

There is a fantasy at the core of the most extreme, ideological elements of the US right wing, but it is a fantasy that is wholly unlike the fascist one.

Wrexasaur wrote:
By 'definitively right' I assume you mean extreme-right? As in the part that calls themselves Neo-nazis?

Yep.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I have heard a great deal of things from the Tea Party on the whole. Calling themselves white supremacists is not one of those things.

Some of them do, but it seems more like opportunism than anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote: The Republicans use the tactics of fascism to achieve the goals of fascism. That means they are fascists.

Circular.

Republicans -> Fascist tactics -> Fascist goals -> Republicans are fascist

Gailbraithe wrote:I don't consider the Tea Party to be separate from the Republican party. The Tea Party is the GOP's base. When I say the Republicans are fascists, I am mostly referring to the Tea Party. My contention is basically that the GOP has been flirting with fascism since Reagan, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

No amount of cliches and saying "yes they are" is going to convince anyone that knows what they're talking about that Republicans are fascist. Also, it's patently silly to lump them all into one group as there are quite a few factions within the party.

Since you're so upset about the Gays Educate yourself. Truly this group is ready to go kick some homosexual's head in, yeah?

So long as we're on the subject,

Gailbraithe wrote:Name one leftist terrorist attack since 1983. Just one.

And no, actions by the ELF and ALF do not count, since neither group is leftist. Only Glenn Beck fans and dittoheads think that animal rights and environmentalism are leftist causes (both issues straddle traditional political divides).

No True Scotsman. And Poisoning the Well.

All political issues straddle traditional political divides to some degree, insofar as the divides are commonly defined. Nevertheless, extreme environmentalism and animal rights are considered to be leftist qualities by most of the population. ELF and ALF are leftist terrorist organizations.

Orkeosaurus wrote:So long as we're on the subject,

Gailbraithe wrote:Name one leftist terrorist attack since 1983. Just one.

And no, actions by the ELF and ALF do not count, since neither group is leftist. Only Glenn Beck fans and dittoheads think that animal rights and environmentalism are leftist causes (both issues straddle traditional political divides).

No True Scotsman. And Poisoning the Well.

Also a Negative Proof Fallacy.

In fairness, I have reservations about a few of the definitions dogma's been using recently as well. (Not that I want to get into another "is space cold?" argument, mind you.)

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote: The Republicans use the tactics of fascism to achieve the goals of fascism. That means they are fascists.

Circular.

Republicans -> Fascist tactics -> Fascist goals -> Republicans are fascist

The argument that Republicans use fascist tactics to achieve fascist goals and are thus fascist is in no way a circular argument.

With your every post, I become more and more convinced that your claims to have a degree in philosophy and to have studied these issues at a college level more and more facile. I think you're lying. Because seriously, your arguments are just dumb. 40% is a majority. Not listening is censorship. And now this.

Orkeosaurus wrote:No True Scotsman. And Poisoning the Well.

I was going to argue this point, but I did some quick research, and I have concluded that environmentalism can be considered a leftist position. So it may in fact be fair to describe the actions of the ELF/ALF as leftist terrorism.

However, I still maintain that this is fundamentally different than the issue of right-wing terrorism that I raised, as the mainstream liberal establishment does not embrace these radical fringes, does not preach to them, and does nothing to encourage them, unlike the mainstream conservative establishment.

Gailbraithe wrote:However, I still maintain that this is fundamentally different than the issue of right-wing terrorism that I raised, as the mainstream liberal establishment does not embrace these radical fringes, does not preach to them, and does nothing to encourage them, unlike the mainstream conservative establishment.

That would depend upon your definition of Radical Fringe.

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, calling Bush a fascist (the intent of equating him with Hitler) does make sense, because Eternal War is at the heart of fascism, and Bush supported a policy of Endless War.

No, not at all. Fascism has nothing to do with eternal war. Neither does neoconservatism.

Fascism is about securing a certain degree of power the for the nation, as opposed to the state. That was its major departure from the political ideologies that preceded it. It does glorify war, but it doesn't consider it to be an eternal condition.

Neoconservatism is about securing hegemony for the state in which it has taken hold. In that sense it is akin to aggressive realism; differing only in that it accepts cultural hegemony as a valid form of power bloc. It doesn't glorify war in the sense that fascism does, but it does consider war to be a useful method of political force. Its Clausewitzian.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The argument that Republicans use fascist tactics to achieve fascist goals and are thus fascist is in no way a circular argument.

A circular argument is not the same thing as begging the question. In a circular argument the speaker assumes a condition in the initial definition which is required to realize the second definition. In this instance you have defined what constitutes a Republican is his fascist nature, because you haven't provided a definition of 'Republican' except that which is 'fascist'

I'm not commenting on an argument you're making, I'm commenting on your usage of the word Republican.

Now, if you can come up with a consensus definition of fascism that doesn't rely on an aesthetic comparison, then it won't be circular.

Gailbraithe wrote:
With your every post, I become more and more convinced that your claims to have a degree in philosophy and to have studied these issues at a college level more and more facile. I think you're lying. Because seriously, your arguments are just dumb. 40% is a majority. Not listening is censorship. And now this.

40% is a majority if it is the largest segment of the group in question. The idea that the greatest segment of a group implies 51% because it 51% is the greatest possible segment of a group is nonsensical as the greatest possible segment of a group 99%.

Not listening is not censorship, but you're not simply refusing to listen if you have me on ignore. If you have me on ignore you are literally censoring me from your view by removing my words. Not necessarily bad, or even improper, but still censorship.

Please investigate the terms you're using instead of assuming you have a perfect handle on them, and subsequently insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

Gailbraithe wrote:
However, I still maintain that this is fundamentally different than the issue of right-wing terrorism that I raised, as the mainstream liberal establishment does not embrace these radical fringes, does not preach to them, and does nothing to encourage them, unlike the mainstream conservative establishment.

The mainstream Conservative movement doesn't impel people to fly planes into buildings. It may advocated the things that cause people to do so, but that's the same relationship that the liberal establishment has with groups like ALF/ELF.

G-bizness: Let me start off by saying that saying things more aggressively, or with more insults, is not the most effective way to convince people of your viewpoint. It really makes it seem like you're just here to listen to yourself talk. If somebody says "I don't know, that's a very extreme viewpoint" they just gave you a hint as to what you might say in response. They think it's too extreme. So you might try saying it in a more moderated way. But you never do. Instead, you break out even more big adjectives, and then when they're even more unimpressed, you throw up your hands and call them an idiot.

It's pretty clear you want to convert people to the "right" way of thinking. You're going to do nothing but drive people away until you learn some tact, some guile and some subtlety.

It wouldn't hurt your writing career, either, to have even a TINY amount of understanding of how people actually think.

ANYWAY...

I find this whole fascist thing very curious. I'm trying to figure out if you came up with it on your own, or if somebody you respect/admire programmed you with it.

Obviously, as has been pointed out by numerous posters, it's completely wrong. The Republicans/conservatives are not fascists, nor are they really anything like fascists. And don't get me wrong, there are LOTS of ways to be evil/bad/wrong. Fascism is just one of many. I'm sure there are plenty of valid criticisms of the right that you could make. But they're still not fascists.

To me, the only reason to make such a parently false assertion is because you realize the rhetorical value of associating something with fascism/Nazis/Hitler.

What I'm wondering about is if you actually believe that lie, or if you're knowingly lying in order to fight the good fight "by any means necessary?