ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Written by congressional staffers, in conjunction with lobbyist, and overseen and approved by the fascists in the White House?
The people behind the Health Care Plan
- Thread starter Parker
- Start date
MexicanWarlord420
Active Member
I thought they were marxist, communist, socialist????
undertheice
Well-Known Member
i believe that writing convoluted, nonsensical bills for congress to consider is the day job of the underpants gnomes.
Attachments
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Obama is a Marxist...working as a member of the fascist cabal he supports. The majority of the participatory sheeple (citizenry) are socialists, commies and feminazis. They don't have the required erudition to be full blown Marxists, like their glorious leader.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
If you ask these people, it's all the same thing.
If you ask someone who knows the difference between these things, they'll tell you these people are dense.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
You're hopelessly confused about all the "isms" aren't you?Obama is a Marxist...working as a member of the fascist cabal he supports. The majority of the participatory sheeple (citizenry) are socialists, commies and feminazis. They don't have the required erudition to be full blown Marxists, like their glorious leader.
Poor thing.
Glenn Beck has really done a number on you.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
You got Beck on the brain. Let me help you get over it. I recommend some time away from the computer, followed by some intensive therapy and counseling. And stay away from the TV, at all costs. It's your mind that's at stake, after all.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I love that these guys think they're making a valid point on the whole marxism, communism, fascism, socialism argument by attacking the posters on their understanding of the terms. It makes little difference WHICH of these Obama and his underlings fall under, the fact is he/they are definitely one of the above and that alone makes them an enemy to the principles this country was founded on. Just as FDR and the ilk like him, that came after him were. Hell, most of them can't agree themselves on what they are, so how the hell are we supposed to pin them down exactly.
Instead of any of those terms, even if fascist hits it dead on the money, I will be using STF's from now on, Subversive Traitorous Fucks, then there won't be any question as to my meaning. But as you will point out, I've been channeling Glenn Beck for months now... proudly I might add.
I just received his new book as one of my Bday presents this month.... it's fantastic by the way.
Instead of any of those terms, even if fascist hits it dead on the money, I will be using STF's from now on, Subversive Traitorous Fucks, then there won't be any question as to my meaning. But as you will point out, I've been channeling Glenn Beck for months now... proudly I might add.
I just received his new book as one of my Bday presents this month.... it's fantastic by the way.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
mmhmm.. just like it doesn't matter if someone is African American or Mexican, they're not WHITE - so let's hate them all, right?
You can't call someone "fascist" "communist" "socialist", etc, if you DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. It's like a colorblind person insisting that the sky is green.
You can't call someone "fascist" "communist" "socialist", etc, if you DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. It's like a colorblind person insisting that the sky is green.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, your words not mine. But thanks for playing. I would point out that most of the people that are the targets of our collective ire, are by some strange anomaly to your ridiculous theory, white. So since we never mention race and the factoid I just stated is quite true, who has the racial issues. You do.
Not surprisingly you completely missed the point of my last post....OR what is more likely, you do what you always do... ignore a point that easily debunked your position and proceed with the previous argument as if it still has merit. Again, thanks for playing and I know you think your lib friends will support anything you say, but just for the record, the rest of us are laughing our asses off at you.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
There was a point to your post? It looked to me like you were just randomly typing words you thought might go together.
"easily debunked my position"? Really? So you debunked the common knowledge that fascism, communism, socialism, and botulism aren't the same thing?
You might want to try reading a book that ISN'T an adaptation of a television show.
monstermadman
Member
all of the conservative nuts REALLY are not going to get to far when they are led by Limbaugh, Beck, and O'reilly. Im pretty sure that by supporting these guys in these times, your party is digging itself much deeper than W even managed too.
Good luck...
Good luck...
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Nice try but again you resorted to a flaccid insult that neither addressed the "meat" of our discussion or my response. Brushing aside my post doesn't enhance or lend ANY more validity to your position at all, in fact, it only highlights the fact you have no credible response. But, we're all quite used to that from you doob. It is nice how you tried (and failed miserably) to mount yet another attack on Faux News and/or any conservative that wouldn't be applauded on the Keith Olberman show or the ilk like it.
And no, as usual, you try to change the actual discussion from what it is, to what you would like it to be. No one but YOU is saying they are the same... No one. The reality, regardless of how much you say or wish it wasn't, is that it doesn't matter WHICH of the ism's this administration is secretly (or not so secretly in many cases) trying to move towards, they are ALL CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED UPON AND MADE GREAT BECAUSE OF. Get it yet? We know it's one of them and we don't care which it is.
There ya go, that seems straightforward enough that even you can generate a response that actually addresses the position I put forth. Please stick to rebutting the portion of my post in BOLD, and ONLY the portion in BOLD. No squirming out of it like you usually do, no dodging or changing the subject... let's see if for once you can actually stay on topic.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
ROFLMAO!
You have no clue what's really going on in the world.
"We know it's one of them and we don't care which one it is"
Um.. okay, so you're against something you don't even bother to IDENTIFY - but somehow that makes you smarter than me?
You're like a child insisting you don't like broccoli, when you've never even HEARD OF IT - let alone, TASTED it.
If our founding fathers were still alive today, they'd put you AND Glenn Beck on the first boat back to Britian.
You have no clue what's really going on in the world.
"We know it's one of them and we don't care which one it is"
Um.. okay, so you're against something you don't even bother to IDENTIFY - but somehow that makes you smarter than me?
You're like a child insisting you don't like broccoli, when you've never even HEARD OF IT - let alone, TASTED it.
If our founding fathers were still alive today, they'd put you AND Glenn Beck on the first boat back to Britian.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
And there was the final failure on your part. Once again trying to attack me rather than address the point. You are beyond hope and far too stupid to be acknowledged any longer. My point was simple and unavoidable. Once again you try to dismiss it without answering or even trying to argue it's OBVIOUS meaning. It's like trying to debate a child that sticks his fingers in his ears and chants "Naa-Naa-Naa-Naa, Naa-Naa.
Your belief that YOU somehow are the sole owner of readily available knowledge in every argument is tiring and egotistical, not to mention how easy it is to tell you "think" you are more educated than most of the people who hold opposite views. You continue to make the same point over and over, regardless of it's abject failure to address the substance of our argument.
I've known douchebags like you for most of my life, you THINK you are in the majority, you THINK that most of the people in here support your philosophy and train of thought, thus allowing your mocking and dismissal of contrary arguments as the only weapons in your mental arsenal. Progressives, elitists have been doing it forever, wallowing in a blanket of their own self-congratulation. Thinking that because they parrot and disgorge the same naive drivel that their professors and the MSM put forth, they somehow have the superior position. I find your inability to rebut an argument without first acting (ineffectively of course) like you think you're our English instructor, completely laughable.
I guess you think by starting every response with some "educated" correction of the intended targets grammar or sentence structure etc, etc, it adds some credibility to your flaccid arguments. I've seen you do it over and over, most of the time you are out of your mind incorrect in your definitions and your perceived understanding of other people's comments. That's when you even bother to get that far, since you seem to spend most of your time "thinking" you are correcting errors that ONLY exist in your head. I might actually be interested in hearing your points of view if you could get off your high horse of "Word Police" long enough to actually make a point. However, you're inability to do so makes you boorish and far too tedious to continue to acknowledge any longer.
Douchebag Ignored.
Your belief that YOU somehow are the sole owner of readily available knowledge in every argument is tiring and egotistical, not to mention how easy it is to tell you "think" you are more educated than most of the people who hold opposite views. You continue to make the same point over and over, regardless of it's abject failure to address the substance of our argument.
I've known douchebags like you for most of my life, you THINK you are in the majority, you THINK that most of the people in here support your philosophy and train of thought, thus allowing your mocking and dismissal of contrary arguments as the only weapons in your mental arsenal. Progressives, elitists have been doing it forever, wallowing in a blanket of their own self-congratulation. Thinking that because they parrot and disgorge the same naive drivel that their professors and the MSM put forth, they somehow have the superior position. I find your inability to rebut an argument without first acting (ineffectively of course) like you think you're our English instructor, completely laughable.
I guess you think by starting every response with some "educated" correction of the intended targets grammar or sentence structure etc, etc, it adds some credibility to your flaccid arguments. I've seen you do it over and over, most of the time you are out of your mind incorrect in your definitions and your perceived understanding of other people's comments. That's when you even bother to get that far, since you seem to spend most of your time "thinking" you are correcting errors that ONLY exist in your head. I might actually be interested in hearing your points of view if you could get off your high horse of "Word Police" long enough to actually make a point. However, you're inability to do so makes you boorish and far too tedious to continue to acknowledge any longer.
Douchebag Ignored.
ViRedd
New Member
Hey, Doob ...
Here's a book that isn't revisionist history. In the spirit of cooperation, I suggest you read it:
Here's where to order:
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/
Here's a commentary by the author.
Closing Time
Well, it was a nice run. But I think it’s time to turn out the lights on the Liberal Fascism blog. Alas, turning out the lights on liberal fascism might take a bit longer.
As only the most loyal readers may have noticed, I haven’t been updating the blog much this summer. I fell out of the habit while I was on the NR Cruise and never got back into it. One reason for that might be that if you wanted to read about the themes of my book, all you had to do was open a newspaper.
Let’s see. Off the top of my head, in the first six months of Obama’s presidency we’ve seen corporatism and “state capitalism” run amok, in the government takeover of two car companies and numerous banks. Labor unions have become increasingly indistinguishable from the government and the party that controls it. Herbert Croly and the Progressives have once again been rehabilitated as founding fathers of the New Age. The entire liberal intellectual class is convinced that this the time for a new New Deal. Critics of statism are vilified by liberal elites as racists and fascists. (And those who refuse to get with the Gorian program are guilty of "treason against the planet"). When out of power, liberals lionized free speech and celebrated dissent as the highest form of patriotism. Now, they label dissent “un-American” and the president insists he doesn’t want to hear a lot of talking from anyone who disagrees with him. While the stench of eugenics and euthanasia do not quite sting the nostrils yet, the odor is detectable and the liberal impulse for controlling the lives of others has been re-exposed.
Indeed, our own messianic president, who insists that we can create a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, also apparently believes that “we are God's partners in matters of life and death” and that religious organizations that are true to their calling should rally behind a united front to expand the scope and role of government. When the head of state says such things, it is hard not to be reminded of the Progressive concept of the God State, a major theme of Liberal Fascism. The “State is the actually existing, realized moral life . . . The divine idea as it exists on earth,” Hegel declared in The Philosophy of History. The State, according to Hegel, was the “march of God on earth.” The progressives agreed. Richard Ely, the founding father of progressive economics, proclaimed “God works through the State in carrying out His purposes more universally than through any other institution.”
It’s revealing, to me at least, that I wrote the book with Hillary Clinton as the stand-in for the fascistic ideas lurking inside contemporary liberalism. Here’s how I put it in the new afterword for the paperback edition:
….And then something funny happened. A self-proclaimed “transformative” leader formed a self-declared “movement,” powered in large measure by a sense of historical destiny (“This is the moment!”
, yearning for national restoration (“We will make this nation great!”, demanding national unity at all costs, and glorifying itself for its own youthful energy. At times his most conspicuous followers were blindly devoted to a cult of personality with deeply racial undertones and often explicit appeals to messianic fervor. This new leader of men—who earned his credibility from his work as a street organizer and disciple of Saul Alinsky—vowed to restore the promise of American life in a vast new collaborative effort between business, government, churches, and labor. His platform included mandatory youth service, a new civilian security force, and spreading the wealth around.In short, Hillary Clinton, the indicted co-conspirator of this book’s original subtitle (“The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”
, was defeated by Barack Obama precisely because he was better able than any of his opponents to personify many of the themes discussed in this book.
Summing Up
The book’s success in every respect was more than I could have hoped. Long time followers of this project will recall that the book was attacked years before it even came out. The dismaying thing is that most of the attacks on the book from the left weren’t all that much more impressive or substantial even after the attackers had the opportunity to read it (many of whom did not avail themselves of that opportunity). In case you missed it in the print edition of National Review, I did write a brief response to some of the critics who did read the book. It will be familiar to many who’ve seen me talk about the book or who paid close attention to this blog. Regardless, I’ve pulled it from behind the firewall for those interested.
Also, in the current issue of NR I have a short item on the recent spate of “Obama as Hitler” epithets being thrown around by a few people on the Right (and a lot of idiot Larouchies). A link is unavailable but here’s the relevant passage:
The simple truth is that I do not think it is in the cards for America to go down a Nazi path. I never said otherwise in Liberal Fascism, either….
….Indeed, while I don't think it is remotely right or fair to call Obama
Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama a crypto-Nazi (if by that you mean to say he's a would-be Hitler), the real problem with all of this loose Nazi talk is that it slanders the American people. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen may have overstated his case in Hitler's Willing Executioners, but he was certainly right that the German people were Hitler's willing enablers. The overwhelming majority of the American people — in their history, culture, bones, hearts, souls, DNA, and carbon molecules — are not like that. That goes for American liberals and leftists too. The extent and depth of liberalism's obtuseness on the subject of fascism (and much else) stews my bowels, but American liberals are still Americans, and Americans will not goose-step behind a Hitler, period.
As I make clear in Liberal Fascism, the obvious and pressing threat is not from a Hitlerite-Orwellian dictatorship but from a Huxleyan namby-pamby mommy state. That sort of system could seduce Americans into becoming chestless subjects of the State in exchange for bottomless self-gratification and liberation from the necessity of adult decision-making. Yes, there's a danger that such a society could then be susceptible to some darker vision that lionizes the lost manhood of a half-forgotten past. But, by that point, this would be America in name only, if even that ("U.N. District 12" has a nice ring to it).
I should note that I am not quite agreeing with David Frum's recent broadside against conservatives who find relevance in fascism and Nazism. David writes "can we get a grip here" and I certainly agree that if people think Obama will become a Hitler, or even a Mussolini, they need to do some more thinking. But I think this bit from David is a sort of sleight-of-hand I've encountered many times before. He writes:
Contra Rush Limbaugh, history’s actual fascists were not primarily known for their anti-smoking policies or generous social welfare programs. Fascism celebrated violence, anti-rationalism and hysterical devotion to an authoritarian leader.
That's all true, but misses an important point. What the fascists were or are primarily known for is not necessarily dispositive to the question of what they actually were. Speaking for myself, the relevance of the generous social welfare programs and anti-smoking programs is to point out that the Nazis weren't exactly what we've been told they were. Sure, they were violent and hysterically devoted to an authoritarian leader, but they were also more than that and their popularity with the German people cannot be easily chalked up to those features either.
The Nazis did not rise to power on the promise of bringing war and violence. They just didn't. They rose to power by promising national restoration, peace, pride, dignity, unity and generous social welfare programs among other things including, of course, scapegoating Jews. People forget how Hitler successfully fashioned himself a champion of peace for quite a while. Limbaugh's counter-attack on liberals, specifically Pelosi, is exactly that, a counter-attack. He was saying that if liberals are going to call conservatives Nazis for opposing nationalized healthcare maybe they should at least account for the fact that Nazis agreed with them on the issue, not conservatives. If liberals want to have a fight over who is closer to fascism, I see no reason why conservatives should cower from that argument, particularly since the facts are on our side. But I reject entirely the idea that liberals today are literally Nazi-like, particularly if we are going to define Nazism by what "they were known for." Liberals don't want to invade Poland or round up Jews. As I've said many times, one naive hope I had for my book was that it would remove the word "fascist" from popular discourse, not expand its franchise. Alas, on that score the book is a complete failure.
The Scoreboard
But by other measures, it's done far better than I hoped. When the book came out, its critics assured the faithful that it didn’t matter, wasn’t important and would be an embarrassment. That is still the party line for many, but the party line is increasingly disconnected from reality. The book has been translated into numerous languages, the latest being Romanian. Reviews keep coming out on blogs and in scholarly journals. The Independent Review’s critique was only recently put online [PDF ] and I’m told that the journal Interpretation has a review in the latest issue. I’ve spoken to college and graduate seminars and the book or chapters from it have been included on numerous syllabi. I’m still receiving invitations to speak at college campuses about the book. Predictions that it wouldn’t sell as well major liberal books have proven unfounded. In both the US and UK it went into numerous printings. Aside from reaching #1 on the NYT and Amazon bestseller lists and being named the #1 history book by Amazon readers for 2008, it has sold (according to Bookscan) more than 135,000 copies in hardcover and, so far, over 35,000 in paperback. The paperback continues to sell at a rate of over 1,000 per week two months after its release. (FWIW, bookscan allegedly only captures about 70% of sales). It’s no Tom Clancy novel, but as far as intellectual histories go, that ain’t too shabby. I don’t know if it’s one of the most important books of the last quarter century, but I am confident it will have a lasting impact and my thesis will gain respect, even if I don’t always get credit.
My thanks to everyone at NR, Random House and most of all to my editor Adam Bellow for their support and help.
But, lastly, let me say how grateful I am to all of you who’ve supported the book, touted the book, used it in book clubs and sent it to relatives. Your encouragement has meant more than I can convey. Please keep sending me tidbits, insights and links to stories of the day that relate to Liberal Fascism (and if you have a time machine, please go back and send me some of that stuff when I was still working on the book!). Thanks so much for defending me and LF in the comments sections at blogs and elsewhere. Such efforts are not only appreciated but vital for the book’s long term success.
Oh, wait, sorry. If you made it this far I should let you know that I’m going to be starting an email newsletter in the Fall, at the Suits’ insistence. Expect book updates and arguments to appear there from time to time. Be on the lookout for announcements in September.
So that’s it. Thanks so much for everything and look for me in the Corner where the conversation will continue, amidst all the other conversations.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
No thanks, Vi. Unless I can find it at a public library, for FREE, as I won't contribute to lining the pockets of anyone who calls liberalism "totalitarian" while keeping a straight face and calls for the annihilation of a nation my ancestors came from.
Again, thanks, but no thanks. I prefer my history lessons to come from ACTUAL history books, and not from the mouths of conservative revisionist historians.
Again, thanks, but no thanks. I prefer my history lessons to come from ACTUAL history books, and not from the mouths of conservative revisionist historians.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Public libraries are not all "free" are they? Somebody was made to pay for them right?
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
For god's sake, shut up already.