The Fascist's Are Having A Bad Day...

Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Dragline said:
I find humor in the fact you post "essays" and "articles" to make your case at redefining words that need no redefining and you see no potential ideology conflicts with that. They seem like trustworthy guys, right.
Click to expand...
Yet I do not see you refuting one point therein.

The terms need defining. Proggies have already seen to the revisionist history 're-defining.'
Dragline said:
You mentioned I am right about one thing? Are you saying Im wrong about the Nazis and Socialism?
Click to expand...
We were talking about Fascism and Socialism. The Nazis were more extreme Fascists. But never mind.

National Socialist German Workers' Party. Or National Socialism for short.

That rings a bell, right?

I re-post for your benefit:
Johnnyorganic said:
Properly understood, fascism and communism were, as the Soviet and German labels openly declared, actually the same thing:, just two varieties of socialism. The fascist praises the free market, but secretly works to destroy it. The communist condemns the free market and openly works to destroy it. Both tactics are tools of a monopolistic type of parasitism known as socialism. The key goal in either case is the destruction of economic market competition so that certain ruthless individuals can acquire huge wealth and power. The wars between the fascists and the communists in the 20th century have simply been wars fought between competing monopolists.
Click to expand...
 
Dragline

Dragline

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Yet I do not see you refuting one point therein.

The terms need defining. Proggies have already seen to the revisionist history 're-defining.'

We were talking about Fascism and Socialism. The Nazis were more extreme Fascists. But never mind.

National Socialist German Workers' Party. Or National Socialism for short.

That rings a bell, right?

I re-post for your benefit:
Click to expand...
I don't refute it because it is a waste of my time and not to mention a buzz kill to go line by line down such a long essay and refute all the broad generalizations and vague comparisons simply to define a single word which itself doesn't need redefining. Which even if I felt like doing it, the typical Repug here would quickly dismiss it anyway. (No, Im not necessarily referring to you)

So congratulations, you win by giving a shit more than I do about the right wings use of a word they just started using a year ago. God I can't wait until Republicans get back in power so all can be right in the world again.

As for nazism. The S word in "National Socialist" was a complete misnomer. Hitler only touted support for workers while on his rise to power. All along he was privately gaining support of wealthy German businessmen and once in power actually abolished trade unions and the right to strike. The economy under Nazi Germany was a mix of aristocracy and capitalism. Private corporations were promised that those who keep prices low will be rewarded with lucrative government contracts. But that was the extent of government involvement in industry. Hitler actually despised both Socialism and Communism. His writings reflect this as he saw both as doctrines which would be used by Jews to take over the world. Nazism was simply a mix of Nationalism, Militarism, and Racism gone to ultra extremes. Hence why I said earlier actions speak louder than words. Hitler could call himself and his party whatever he wanted. It didn't change what he actually did.
 
Dragline

Dragline

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
[. What would you call an administration that would take partial ownership in the auto companies, the financial institutions and shoot for an entire take-over of insurance companies and the health care systems? [
Click to expand...
Is George Bush a Fascist? Or is it just the money banks got under Obama being the Fascism you speak of?

Next you mention an "entire government takeover of insurance companies and the healthcare system". Please show me where this has been attempted or even discussed. A "public option" was NOT a takeover of insurance companies. You could still buy all of the insurance you want. Even under the single payer medicare system people can and do buy supplemental insurance. Even in the UK which is under a completely Socialized healthcare system you can still purchase private insurance. NOTHING in ANY of the proposals would even come close to giving us a UK style system. At no time was it proposed that hospitals be government owned and that doctors and nurses be government employees. Your assertion of an "entire government takeover" is a crude and false representation of what was actually being proposed. Just one of the reasons why we can't have civil debate on the issue when one side completely misrepresents the issue itself.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Dragline said:
Is George Bush a Fascist? Or is it just the money banks got under Obama being the Fascism you speak of?

Next you mention an "entire government takeover of insurance companies and the healthcare system". Please show me where this has been attempted or even discussed. A "public option" was NOT a takeover of insurance companies. You could still buy all of the insurance you want. Even under the single payer medicare system people can and do buy supplemental insurance. Even in the UK which is under a completely Socialized healthcare system you can still purchase private insurance. NOTHING in ANY of the proposals would even come close to giving us a UK style system. At no time was it proposed that hospitals be government owned and that doctors and nurses be government employees. Your assertion of an "entire government takeover" is a crude and false representation of what was actually being proposed. Just one of the reasons why we can't have civil debate on the issue when one side completely misrepresents the issue itself.
Click to expand...
Civil debate, LOL. Who comes here for civil debate? We're right and you're wrong. How's that for civil?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Dragline said:
Is George Bush a Fascist? Or is it just the money banks got under Obama being the Fascism you speak of?

Next you mention an "entire government takeover of insurance companies and the healthcare system". Please show me where this has been attempted or even discussed. A "public option" was NOT a takeover of insurance companies. You could still buy all of the insurance you want. Even under the single payer medicare system people can and do buy supplemental insurance. Even in the UK which is under a completely Socialized healthcare system you can still purchase private insurance. NOTHING in ANY of the proposals would even come close to giving us a UK style system. At no time was it proposed that hospitals be government owned and that doctors and nurses be government employees. Your assertion of an "entire government takeover" is a crude and false representation of what was actually being proposed. Just one of the reasons why we can't have civil debate on the issue when one side completely misrepresents the issue itself.
Click to expand...
Regarding the "entire government takeover". I don't think that is a stretch. Here's why -

Presently people have the FREE CHOICE to purchase insurance or not.

Should government subsidized insurance be voted in, what will happen to that free choice ? Will we still have it? No, we won't. I believe to roughly paraphrase the edict is "everybody must have insurance".

Forcing somebody to buy something or penalizing them if they don't is not a proper function of a government that is supposed to protect liberty is it?

That is where the "takeover" part comes in. When a freedom of choice is removed calling it a "takeover" is appropriate.

I do not chastise anyone for wanting to help people, I do chastise those would employ methods that remove choice from free individuals and place them in the hands of bureaucrats.

What other choices that we presently have would you advocate losing ?
 
Dragline

Dragline

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Regarding the "entire government takeover". I don't think that is a stretch. Here's why -

Presently people have the FREE CHOICE to purchase insurance or not.

Should government subsidized insurance be voted in, what will happen to that free choice ? Will we still have it? No, we won't. I believe to roughly paraphrase the edict is "everybody must have insurance".

Forcing somebody to buy something or penalizing them if they don't is not a proper function of a government that is supposed to protect liberty is it?

That is where the "takeover" part comes in. When a freedom of choice is removed calling it a "takeover" is appropriate.

I do not chastise anyone for wanting to help people, I do chastise those would employ methods that remove choice from free individuals and place them in the hands of bureaucrats.

What other choices that we presently have would you advocate losing ?
Click to expand...
You and I interpret "entire government takeover" differently then. Presently I don't have FREE CHOICE to pay for all of the uninsured who use emergency rooms like their primary care physician either.

Im one of these people who would like to see a plan MORE LIBERAL and nobody would be forcing you to buy health insurance. I personally support a single payer system. Basically medicare without the age limit. I also support tort reform to make it even more cost eficient. If you want to purchase supplemental insurance just to be extra covered you could. But every citizen would have a basic coverage like medicare does now for those over 65. Were I to have my way I would gladly go line by line down the federal budget and eliminate other programs and government offices to pay for it. (Starting with the DEA) I think healthcare in this country is that important.

I have personally witnessed the health insurance nightmare with a family member. For years I watched my parents who are self employed and purchase their own insurance pay $1500 per month for health insurance praying they never lost it and would need to get more. My father is a cancer survivor and due to his age and "pre-existing condition" he would have never found more insurance to take him and even if they had $2,000+ per month just for him would have been more than they could afford.
Our current system works if you are really rich and it works if you are really poor. If you are in the middle you are fucked though. I think we can do better than a system which makes us rely on a third party for profit corporation which doesn't treat anybody. Who in fact would actually drop your coverage if they can find a reason to in order to make a bigger profit. In this economic climate, many are just a layoff away from losing health insurance coverage. Combine that with a sudden illness like Cancer where even if you survive you are ruined financially due to 6 or even 7 figure medical bills. That shouldn't have to happen in the richest country on earth. Call it "socialism" or whatever you want. We can do better.
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
Dragline said:
Yeah and the parts i just made bold sound exactly like the Bush administration. Was he a Fascist too? Another trait of Fascism is a belief in single party rule. So would that make Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity or any political pundit right or left a Fascist also?





The "ist" name calling going on in this country is simply stupid. It shows a real disregard and ignorance for world history in which REAL fascism, REAL socialism, REAL communism has taken place. I don't care how much you hate our current President. Calling Obama a Socialist only pisses off actual Socialists who don't see the current administration as in line with their principles at all!
Click to expand...
is that you in your avatar? :roll:
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Nestled within the area in which I live are a multitude of food markets. We have the ordinary ones like Ralph's, Albertson's and Vons. Then we have the high-end organic ones like Whole Foods. We also have Costco, Walmart and Target for price shoppers. Competing with the Whole Foods types are the local Farmer's Markets. Competing with all of these is the Internet for high-end coffees, steaks and other foods. We all, as consumers, benefit greatly by all of this competition. As a result, we get better food, higher quality, at the very best prices.

Now if only government would step out of the way and abolish the restrictions on insurance companies from selling policies across state lines, and institute tort reform to keep seedy lawyers (like John Edwards) from filing frivolous law suits against doctors, we could benefit from lower medical insurance costs as well. GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE ANSWER.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
True socialism has never existed in any government, in any country. Some forms of true socialism have been practiced by groups like hippies in communes, but the current state of man (I ego Id) will not allow that to exist. True socialism would require the masses to overcome the (I ego Id) and without some form of mass hypnotism or divine intervention, that is very unlikely. Not many want to share and always put down those with less as worthless or lazy. Working for the greater good is not at all possible with the way the world is leaning at present. Maybe with the "second coming", eh? Hey, I'll give rides in my hot rod to those without one, just checkout my site at dumbfuck.com. Want to do 10.50s in the 1/4 mile?, it's a real rush.
 

Attachments

smokinguns

smokinguns

Well-Known Member
This is going around the web.

True or not, makes one wonder.



AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the
Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,



Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter..

.
Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a
British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No.. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress,the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
smokinguns said:
This is going around the web.

True or not, makes one wonder.



AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the
Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,



Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter..

.
Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.

1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a
British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No.. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress,the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
Click to expand...
Birther Much???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top