FOX: "Obama is a Fascist Socialist"

[Illuminatus Primus]

There are some legitimate arguments for conflating certain types of socialism with certain types of fascism (agreeing on a meaningful definition for the latter, aside from "something undesirable" is usually the biggest roadblock), but they're pretty technical and well-qualified, and definitely beyond the walnut-brain of Glentard.

[Coyote]

Well, if it means putting Glenn Beck in a concentration camp I'll consider letting it slide. Oh, he has to get the trains to run on time, too.

Poor Christian Conservatives, always getting picked on by mean ol' Blacks. Obama's such a bully.

[KrauserKrauser]

Oddly enough I never knew Glenn Beck rolled with the Mormons, I guess that explains the complete support of Romney.

Learn something new everyday.

[Coyote]

Oddly enough I never knew Glenn Beck rolled with the Mormons, I guess that explains the complete support of Romney.

Learn something new everyday.

Surpised me too, but then most of the Mormons I know are actually pretty laid-back, whereas Beck is very confrontational, aggressive, and in-your-face.

[Darth Wong]

Oddly enough I never knew Glenn Beck rolled with the Mormons, I guess that explains the complete support of Romney

Learn something new everyday.

Surpised me too, but then most of the Mormons I know are actually pretty laid-back, whereas Beck is very confrontational, aggressive, and in-your-face.

The guys who hit rock-bottom tend to be like that if/when they're lucky enough to come back. I wonder if it's their way of compensating for their insecurity over their own limitations. Perhaps he secretly knows that his success is an almost completely undeserved product of sheer luck, and so he credits God's grace for his astounding success despite his limitations and he secretly assumes that anyone who didn't receive such "grace" was deemed unworthy by God.

Christians love to say that everyone is equally unworthy but they're empty words. In my experience, they all say it but they all secretly "know" that they are less unworthy than you are.

[Feil]

Christians love to say that everyone is equally unworthy but they're empty words. In my experience, they all say it but they all secretly "know" that they are less unworthy than you are.

A quibble: in my experience, at least among born-agains, it's not that they're less unworthy than you are, it's that they sincerely hate themselves. I've spent far more time in evangelical churches than I would have liked, and the sheer weight of repeated self-denigration that goes on takes its toll. They think they're wiser than you, because they made the right decision and you didn't, and they know they're holier than you, but they still hate themselves.

[Elfdart]

I wish someone would call the bluff of these talking head retards when they throw the words socialist and communist around. The best way to handle it would be to paraphrase Douglas MacArthur.

When MacArthur was in charge of postwar Japan he instituted many reforms that were straight out of the New Deal, which the very right-wing General opposed when they were introduced in the US. Some of his labor laws were in fact far to the left of anything FDR proposed. When asked about his edicts, and if he was worried about passing so much liberal, left-wing and "socialist" reforms in Japan, MacArthur said (I can't find the exact quote) something to the tune of: "This country has lived under fascism for so long that a few decades of liberalism will be a good antidote for it."

[Tyralak]

Uhh... the fascists were innately opposed to the socialists. The communists didn't try to keep the market afloat with bailouts. Glenn? Do you not understand anything from history, you stupid bastard?

My first assumption was that rolling Fascists and Socialists together was a clumsy effort to evoke...National Socialists. You know, Nazis. Cuz Obama is just a great big mean ol' Nazi. Or some such silliness.

Honestly, is there really much difference in the long run? I mean, as far as the effect on people go. Any form of authoritarian statism, regardless of what brand, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, National Socialism, etc. has the same net effect on the people. Other than differences in economic structure, the only real difference is the method which the government is going to fuck the people over. All of those forms of government emphasize the State, or the "common good" depending on which one, (means the same thing in the end) over the good of the individual. Ayn Rand wrote: "When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." People get so hung up on weather something is a fascist ideal, a socialist ideal, etc instead of looking at the big picture: Is what they are trying to do going to fuck me and everyone else over to justify their ideology? Really, government exists to perpetuate and justify it's own existance. The sooner people realize that, the sooner they'll realize government is not their friend, is not "here to help", and will drop you a nickel just so it can fuck you in the ass when you bend over to pick it up.

[General Zod]

Honestly, is there really much difference in the long run? I mean, as far as the effect on people go. Any form of authoritarian statism, regardless of what brand, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, National Socialism, etc. has the same net effect on the people. Other than differences in economic structure, the only real difference is the method which the government is going to fuck the people over. All of those forms of government emphasize the State, or the "common good" depending on which one, (means the same thing in the end) over the good of the individual. Ayn Rand wrote: "When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." People get so hung up on weather something is a fascist ideal, a socialist ideal, etc instead of looking at the big picture: Is what they are trying to do going to fuck me and everyone else over to justify their ideology? Really, government exists to perpetuate and justify it's own existance. The sooner people realize that, the sooner they'll realize government is not their friend, is not "here to help", and will drop you a nickel just so it can fuck you in the ass when you bend over to pick it up.

Oh christ a randroid. Tell you what, if you think that you're really better off without a government I have several African countries you're more than welcome to visit that have zilch as far as legitimate government is concerned.

[Tyralak]

Oh christ a randroid. Tell you what, if you think that you're really better off without a government I have several African countries you're more than welcome to visit that have zilch as far as legitimate government is concerned.

Not really. Some of her ideas were extreme and kinda disturbing, but she was right about certain things. I'm actually just a realist. Some government is a necessary evil, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous. People just need to be careful what they wish for.

[K. A. Pital]

Honestly, is there really much difference in the long run? I mean, as far as the effect on people go. Any form of authoritarian statism, regardless of what brand, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, National Socialism, etc. has the same net effect on the people.

What is this "net effect" and why there is "no difference" in various forms of government? Do tell me.

All of those forms of government emphasize the State, or the "common good" depending on which one, (means the same thing in the end) over the good of the individual.

So does democracy and any form of government in fact. Does it mean democracy is fascist? I bet no. But then, you are a fan of Rand, so that might have something to do with your perception of the world.

Really, government exists to perpetuate and justify it's own existance.

I thought the people conjured it to control society and provide a legal environment and "public order". But perhaps I'm wrong. Government was brought by aliens from another world and we are all under a Cylon despoty.

Also, how does your Randian rambling refute the original point - that Obama is not any sort of Nazi? Care to explain how your rant is relevant to the subject at hand? Please do, because irrelevant rants will be split.

[Tyralak]

What is this "net effect" and why there is "no difference" in various forms of government? Do tell me.

I thought I made that plain. I suppose not. They generally hold significant power over the personal and financial lives of the individuals they govern. Tyranny, or at least oppression is usually the result.

All of those forms of government emphasize the State, or the "common good" depending on which one, (means the same thing in the end) over the good of the individual.

So does democracy and any form of government in fact.

Now you're catching on!

Does it mean democracy is fascist? I bet no.

Ah, spoke too soon. Re-read what I mentioned about the method of oppression being irrelevant to the fact that oppression is the result.

But then, you are a fan of Rand, so that might have something to do with your perception of the world.

And you missed it again. I find her interesting, but that's all. That particular quote came to mind, and it fit my argument. Since you've gotten sidetracked by that shiny object (Rand being mentioned) let me direct you back. Simply a quote to support an argument.

I thought the people conjured it to control society and provide a legal environment and "public order". But perhaps I'm wrong. Government was brought by aliens from another world and we are all under a Cylon despoty.

Your attempt at sarcasm is noted, and rejected. People CREATE government for the purpose you stated. Government unless reigned in, finds the allure of power and self preservation of it's bureaucracy of more importance than what it was originally intended for.

Also, how does your Randian rambling refute the original point - that Obama is not any sort of Nazi? Care to explain how your rant is relevant to the subject at hand? Please do, because irrelevant rants will be split.

The point should have been self evident, but I'll go ahead and walk you through it. The discussion was about Beck's talk of Obama being a fascist and a socialist. Other posters went on to nitpick about fascist being opposed to socialists, etc. My point was that regardless of the label, all of those forms of government had certain basic things in common, along with the result that their people suffered.

[Ryan Thunder]

Some government is a necessary evil, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous. People just need to be careful what they wish for.

You fucker. You nearly made me spill coffee on my new laptop.

[Stark]

I feel pretty repressed in my safe, secure, wealthy situation with various guaranteed rights and amenities. It's just like the Nazis!

Best part? This guy has a hilariously condescending attitude (fantastically common among these people) and the only other posts I've seen is where he failed and ran away from a vs thread he started. Watch out Stas; I'm sure he's far more familiar with poverty and tyranny than you are!

[Tyralak]

I feel pretty repressed in my safe, secure, wealthy situation with various guaranteed rights and amenities. It's just like the Nazis!

Best part? This guy has a hilariously condescending attitude (fantastically common among these people) and the only other posts I've seen is where he failed and ran away from a vs thread he started. Watch out Stas; I'm sure he's far more familiar with poverty and tyranny than you are!

It's a bit hard to reply to a thread that was locked before I could respond. Going to bed and coming back to find a locked thread doesn't constitute running away. And as for the condescending attitude, I'm an ASVSer, of COURSE I have a condescending attitude!

[Tyralak]

Some government is a necessary evil, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous. People just need to be careful what they wish for.

You fucker. You nearly made me spill coffee on my new laptop.

Happy to be of service.

[K. A. Pital]

What is this "net effect" and why there is "no difference" in various forms of government? Do tell me.

I thought I made that plain. I suppose not. They generally hold significant power over the personal and financial lives of the individuals they govern. Tyranny, or at least oppression is usually the result.

Yes, you haven't made it clear. What sort of tyranny exists in democratic socialist nations? You will undeniably admit that they emphazied the common good over the individual good. If you think that's tyranny, you're missing something I presume.

"Financial live"? What's that? You think without a government, people who have significant power over the personal and financial lives of other individuals would not exist? They would (and they do now), they would just exist in the form of mob rule, corporations and other entities which, sadly, unlike our imperfect governments, are not bound by even their own legal framework, which makes it hard to even apply the principles of legal order.

Re-read what I mentioned about the method of oppression being irrelevant to the fact that oppression is the result.

Method of opression is irrelevant? You're saying to me that taxation is as much as an opression as extrajudicial executions and say, lynchings? You should seriously clarify just what the hell you're talking about.

Simply a quote to support an argument.

You see, the authority of the quoted person is under severe scrutiny. In fact, the appeal to authority of a person whose major contribution was, um... writing fiction books, is kinda dubious. But then, what do I know about the relevancy of quotes, right?

Your attempt at sarcasm is noted, and rejected. People CREATE government for the purpose you stated. Government unless reigned in, finds the allure of power and self preservation of it's bureaucracy of more importance than what it was originally intended for.

Um... if it doesn't preserve itself, it cannot fulfill any functions because it would cease to exist. So you're saying the government starts caring about self-preservation as a key priority - well damn sure buddy, how else can you do your job if you no longer exist? Government is "reigned in" by the very fact that it creates a legal framework when it is rising; this legal framework, once in place, makes it necessary for the government to maintain it's legality; else, the loss of support and failure.

Other posters went on to nitpick about fascist being opposed to socialists, etc. My point was that regardless of the label, all of those forms of government had certain basic things in common, along with the result that their people suffered.

So your point was that all governments have certain "basic things" in common, instead of trying to wrap your head around the fact that fascism and socialism are different socio-economic policies, and different orders, so even if the end result is the same, you can't be a "fascist socialist"? It's like "he's a crocodile behemoth" - okay, both are beasts - both are governments - but you're either a behemoth or a crocodile. See?

[Darth Wong]

People who actually take Rand seriously don't realize that:

A) All of her complaints against government apply equally to human society itself.
B) The entire concept of individual rights was invented by society, and has no meaning outside of it.

The common Randian view of individual rights competing against government completely fails to account for the fact that government is not just a necessary evil; it is the only thing which differentiates civil society from chaos. It is the agent which creates and protects those rights, despite what some may view as imperfect performance of those jobs. Who else attempts to protect people from one another? Individuals themselves, working collectively and altruistically in some kind of utopian anarchist fantasy? Don't make me laugh.

To call government a "necessary evil" is to completely disregard all of the good that government does. This intellectual chicanery is typically achieved by complaining that government could do a better job, or do the same job more cheaply, which does not fall into the category of "necessary evil" so much as "pie-in-the-sky whining". It's like saying that treated safe drinking water is a "necessary evil" because it costs money and you know a lot of the people at the water treatment plant are stealing paper clips from the office supply closet.

[Tyralak]

People who actually take Rand seriously don't realize that:

A) All of her complaints against government apply equally to human society itself.
B) The entire concept of individual rights was invented by society, and has no meaning outside of it.

The common Randian view of individual rights competing against government completely fails to account for the fact that government is not just a necessary evil; it is the only thing which differentiates civil society from chaos. To call it a "necessary evil" is to completely disregard all of the good that government does. This intellectual chicanery is typically achieved by complaining that government could do a better job, or do the same job more cheaply, which does not fall into the category of "necessary evil" so much as "pie-in-the-sky whining".

Well, let me put it this way. Government has necessary functions. Providing for the common defense, maintaining infrastructure, and keeping people from killing each other and robbing each other blind. Going too far outside of that is asking for trouble. That's all.

[Darth Wong]

Well, let me put it this way. Government has necessary functions. Providing for the common defense, maintaining infrastructure, and keeping people from killing each other and robbing each other blind. Going too far outside of that is asking for trouble. That's all.

Let me put it this way. You are wrong. That is all.

[Tyralak]

Well, let me put it this way. Government has necessary functions. Providing for the common defense, maintaining infrastructure, and keeping people from killing each other and robbing each other blind. Going too far outside of that is asking for trouble. That's all.

Let me put it this way. You are wrong. That is all.

Care to elaborate?

[K. A. Pital]

The idea that the differences between fascism and socialism are nonexistent because of "opression" is ludicrous, because that's like saying there's no difference between a dictatorial empire and an anarchical warlord area in tribal Africa because opression exists in both. Considering that the innate principles of fascism - the adherence to social darwinism on a whole new level, and the protection of private property - have little to do with the innate principles of socialism it's even more preposterous to compare the two.

But then, eating too much medicine is as deadly as eating rat poison - ergo, medicine is equal to rat poison, because the outcome of both cases is a sick dying person - so both are the same and all other differences are irrelevant! That's the kind of crippled logic Tyralak uses.

[Stark]

Define 'too far', define 'trouble', and demonstrate it's not worth it.

It's ironic to me that all the people are generally Americans, where they have much less regulation and more crime etc than in other western nations, so they're already closer to the Randian result. You think the experience would sober them.

[Darth Wong]

Well, let me put it this way. Government has necessary functions. Providing for the common defense, maintaining infrastructure, and keeping people from killing each other and robbing each other blind. Going too far outside of that is asking for trouble. That's all.

Let me put it this way. You are wrong. That is all.

Care to elaborate?

No.

Your entire contribution to this thread has been Argument By Assertion. Why don't you back up some of your shit? Why should others do work to refute arguments that you have not bothered making, other than to state your truths as self-evident?

[Dark Hellion]

Do any Rand fans actually bother to read Hobbes? Does anyone who rails about the oppressiveness of government? It is almost boring to read the same old bullshit when some English thinker refuted it during the English Civil War.