Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama is not a Socialist... He's a Fascist

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 9:16:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First off, let us make clear that fascism is a statist ideology. There is nothing "right wing" about it. In fact, it has been a fairly left wing movement supported by traditional left wing coalitions and interests and pursued left wing policies. Left wing and progressive thinkers and publications were quite positive on fascism, seeing it as "progress". It was a sister of the progressive movement and elements of fascism can be seen in the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. If you want more information on this, read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

Okay, so now let us look at Barack Obama. First, he has all the qualities of a fascist leader. He is insanely arrogant with a messianic complex. He likes to depict himself of being on the side of the "masses". He always calls for people to fight for some national purpose... the purpose always happens to involve a larger state.

His policies are fascist as well. Obamacare didn't socialize health care. It did, however, destroy any remnants of a free market that might have existed in health care. It gave insurance corporations lots of power while crushing small business. It is all about control.
Ditto for Dodd Frank, not nationalization but more state power that really benefits the incumbant corporations.

Barack Obama is more hostile to capitalism than any president we have ever had. However, he has seeked to replace it not with socialism but with fascism.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:26:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:12:50 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
He's not a fascist.

He governs like one and seems to share the belief system. But, since you make a baseless claim to the contrary, I guess it is not true.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:26:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:12:50 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
He's not a fascist.

He governs like one and seems to share the belief system. But, since you make a baseless claim to the contrary, I guess it is not true.

Well, to be fair, you've given no justification for your claims beyond assertion, either.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:37:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:36:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:26:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:12:50 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
He's not a fascist.

He governs like one and seems to share the belief system. But, since you make a baseless claim to the contrary, I guess it is not true.

Well, to be fair, you've given no justification for your claims beyond assertion, either.

Except for the opening post where I explained exactly why I thought Obama was a fascist. But, feel free to ignore that.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 9:16:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
First off, let us make clear that fascism is a statist ideology.

Well duh.

There is nothing "right wing" about it.

What.

In fact, it has been a fairly left wing movement supported by traditional left wing coalitions and interests and pursued left wing policies.

I'm sure that's why various left wing figures have at various times gone into conflict against fascism and denounced it strongly, eh?

I'm sure that's why Mussolini declared that fascism was in opposition to liberalism (http://www.hnn.us...).

Left wing and progressive thinkers and publications were quite positive on fascism, seeing it as "progress".

It was a sister of the progressive movement and elements of fascism can be seen in the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. If you want more information on this, read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

If you want more information on the various stupidities in the book, check these links:

http://www.hnn.us...
http://www.hnn.us...
http://www.hnn.us...

Okay, so now let us look at Barack Obama. First, he has all the qualities of a fascist leader. He is insanely arrogant with a messianic complex. He likes to depict himself of being on the side of the "masses". He always calls for people to fight for some national purpose... the purpose always happens to involve a larger state.

So populism equals fascism?

His policies are fascist as well. Obamacare didn't socialize health care. It did, however, destroy any remnants of a free market that might have existed in health care. It gave insurance corporations lots of power while crushing small business. It is all about control.

That's not fascism.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:43:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/10/2013 9:16:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
First off, let us make clear that fascism is a statist ideology.

Well duh.

There is nothing "right wing" about it.

What.

In fact, it has been a fairly left wing movement supported by traditional left wing coalitions and interests and pursued left wing policies.

I'm sure that's why various left wing figures have at various times gone into conflict against fascism and denounced it strongly, eh?

I'm sure that's why Mussolini declared that fascism was in opposition to liberalism (http://www.hnn.us...).

Actually, the American left was quite fond of fascism at the time.

And, in Mussolini's time in Italy, liberalism was more market friendly. Fascists opposed it, in part, because it was too market oriented and they were very anticapitalist.


Left wing and progressive thinkers and publications were quite positive on fascism, seeing it as "progress".

It was a sister of the progressive movement and elements of fascism can be seen in the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. If you want more information on this, read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

If you want more information on the various stupidities in the book, check these links:

http://www.hnn.us...
http://www.hnn.us...
http://www.hnn.us...

Those articles were pathetic. There all wrong. Goldberg looks much better if that is the best his critics can do.


Okay, so now let us look at Barack Obama. First, he has all the qualities of a fascist leader. He is insanely arrogant with a messianic complex. He likes to depict himself of being on the side of the "masses". He always calls for people to fight for some national purpose... the purpose always happens to involve a larger state.

So populism equals fascism?

They are often related.


His policies are fascist as well. Obamacare didn't socialize health care. It did, however, destroy any remnants of a free market that might have existed in health care. It gave insurance corporations lots of power while crushing small business. It is all about control.

That's not fascism.

Opposition to free markets is a trait of fascism.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 11:28:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 9:16:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
First off, let us make clear that fascism is a statist ideology. There is nothing "right wing" about it. In fact, it has been a fairly left wing movement supported by traditional left wing coalitions and interests and pursued left wing policies. Left wing and progressive thinkers and publications were quite positive on fascism, seeing it as "progress". It was a sister of the progressive movement and elements of fascism can be seen in the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. If you want more information on this, read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

Okay, so now let us look at Barack Obama. First, he has all the qualities of a fascist leader. He is insanely arrogant with a messianic complex. He likes to depict himself of being on the side of the "masses". He always calls for people to fight for some national purpose... the purpose always happens to involve a larger state.

His policies are fascist as well. Obamacare didn't socialize health care. It did, however, destroy any remnants of a free market that might have existed in health care. It gave insurance corporations lots of power while crushing small business. It is all about control.
Ditto for Dodd Frank, not nationalization but more state power that really benefits the incumbant corporations.

Barack Obama is more hostile to capitalism than any president we have ever had. However, he has seeked to replace it not with socialism but with fascism.

I think this is more then enough evidence to conclude that youre a dumba**.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 11:29:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:37:53 PM, BigRat wrote:

Except for the opening post where I explained exactly why I thought Obama was a fascist. But, feel free to ignore that.

Except you did it through unsupported assertion.

Let's break it down, kids!

At 4/10/2013 9:16:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
First off, let us make clear that fascism is a statist ideology. There is nothing "right wing" about it.

Assertion.

In fact, it has been a fairly left wing movement supported by traditional left wing coalitions and interests and pursued left wing policies.

Assertion.

Left wing and progressive thinkers and publications were quite positive on fascism, seeing it as "progress".

Assertion.

It was a sister of the progressive movement and elements of fascism can be seen in the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Assertion.

If you want more information on this, read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

Not an assertion, but a reference to a general source that you haven't correlated specifically.

Okay, so now let us look at Barack Obama. First, he has all the qualities of a fascist leader.

Assertion.

He is insanely arrogant with a messianic complex.
Two assertions that you haven't explained why they are inherently or necessarily "fascist". Also: messianic complex? Really?

He likes to depict himself of being on the side of the "masses".

Assertion.

He always calls for people to fight for some national purpose... the purpose always happens to involve a larger state.

Assertion.

His policies are fascist as well.

Assertion.

Obamacare didn't socialize health care. It did, however, destroy any remnants of a free market that might have existed in health care.

Assertion that ignores the broader reasoning for the actions.

It gave insurance corporations lots of power while crushing small business. It is all about control.

Three assertions in a row!

Ditto for Dodd Frank, not nationalization but more state power that really benefits the incumbant corporations.

Assertion.


Barack Obama is more hostile to capitalism than any president we have ever had. However, he has seeked to replace it not with socialism but with fascism.

Assertion.

See how you made a whole lot of assertions with no support?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Lizard
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 11:38:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Doesn't fascism have some sort of racial aspect to it? What race is Obama fighting for? Mulattoes? Kenyans? Gimme me a break.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:25:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 11:38:17 PM, Lizard wrote:
Doesn't fascism have some sort of racial aspect to it? What race is Obama fighting for? Mulattoes? Kenyans? Gimme me a break.

No, not necessarily. Fascism is corporatism which is a form of National Syndicalism. Fascists advocate a centralized government, and a collectivist society. Fascism tends to attract racists because fascism group people into categories.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:26:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Socialism and Fascism are not mutually exclusive.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:32:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:36:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:26:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:12:50 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
He's not a fascist.

He governs like one and seems to share the belief system. But, since you make a baseless claim to the contrary, I guess it is not true.

Well, to be fair, you've given no justification for your claims beyond assertion, either.

Exactly. Nothing you've said is evidence its all opinion. Its also all bullsh!t. You people keep claiming the man is fascist. I don't think you know what it means.
#BlackLivesMatter
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 7:57:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:51:14 PM, BigRat wrote:
Actually, the American left was quite fond of fascism at the time.

Proof?

And, in Mussolini's time in Italy, liberalism was more market friendly. Fascists opposed it, in part, because it was too market oriented and they were very anticapitalist.

Liberalism is pretty market friendly.

Those articles were pathetic. There all wrong. Goldberg looks much better if that is the best his critics can do.

Are these bald assertions without any supporting evidence the best you can do?

They are often related.

Related does not equal is.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 9:23:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 7:57:16 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:51:14 PM, BigRat wrote:
Actually, the American left was quite fond of fascism at the time.

proof?
Charles A. Beard
Rexford G. Tugwell
George Soule
Wallace Stevens
S.S. McClure
W. E. B. DuBois
Will Rogers
Ida Tarbell
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:35:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 9:23:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:57:16 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:51:14 PM, BigRat wrote:
Actually, the American left was quite fond of fascism at the time.

proof?
Charles A. Beard
Rexford G. Tugwell
George Soule
Wallace Stevens
S.S. McClure
W. E. B. DuBois
Will Rogers
Ida Tarbell

Beard was not a fascist. He was an isolationist. Both are foolish, but there is a difference.

Tagwell does not appear to be a fascist.

George Soule was a random dude who signed the Mayflower Compact. I can find nothing on his political philosophy; nevertheless I find it difficult to believe that he is particularly relevant here.

Wallace was a conservative (http://wps.ablongman.com...).

S.S. McClure was a magazine publisher. The only thing I can find regarding him relating to fascism was that he studied it in Italy for a period, which is hardly the same thing as thinking it's a good idea.

DuBois opposed American entry into World War II because he felt that Japan (and China) was emerging out of imperialism. While foolish, that is not fascism, nor is it regarding fascism as a good idea, nor was Japan fascist during World War II. He also felt that the Nazis managed to restore the economy--which they did; the German depression made the Great Depression look like a vacation.

Will Rogers was commenting on a few specific things Mussolini did. That isn't support for fascism, it is support for a very few specific policies that are associated with fascists.

Ida Tarbell's sole positive point about Mussolini was that he did some things with labor that she liked. Not exactly high praise for fascism.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:49:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem with calling someone a fascist is that the term has such strong connotations that the burden of proof on the person asserting the claim will be immeasurably higher than most other propositional claims in regards to politis. That being said, a case can be made imo that Obama presents certain fascist-lending tendencies. But you haven't really argued well for even that at all.

Bringing up his persona is irrelevant given that such a thing (while present in fascist leaders) isn't itself sufficient to evince the trait. It's a necessary though not sufficient condition if you will. You mentioned the pro-corporatist themes inerrant in "Obamacare" but didn't do anything but surfacely claim that it was so and likewise with Dodd Frank and his treatment of "capitalism".

At least realize that the scrutiny on this claim will be higher than on others and that the presumption always seems to be against viewing the political leaders of this country in such a light (hell even calling FDR a social fascist is a big no no here). Basically, put out an actual argument.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 1:15:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obama is a politician. To further sub-categorize him based on his ideals, or even his performance, risks losing sight of the fact that he is no different than any other politician - a man who is highly ambitious and will say and do anything to achieve his goal of rising to power. His job is to anticipate our desires and use them to his advantage. He's chosen the Liberal Democrat vehicle for this purpose.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:24:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, if anyone doubts that progressivism and liberalism are more similar to fascism than conservatism or that progressives who were around at the time of fascism were quite fond of it, you need to read Goldberg's book. A book that, by the way, is very well researched.

Somebody claimed that liberalism is market friendly. If you are talking about modern liberalism, the kind of liberalism Barack Obama espouses, then you are flatly wrong. Modern liberalism is extremely anti market, as is Barack Obama. Other variants of liberalism, like neoliberalism or classical liberalism, are more market friendly. So, Mussolini criticizing "liberalism" is meaningless unless the variant of liberalism is specified.

Now, as to Barack Obama. First, he is vehemently anti free market in both belief and practice, a key tenet of fascism. There is no doubt Barack Obama is determined to get rid of any remnants of free enterprise we have left. However, unlike socialists, he seems determined to replace the free market with a sort of corporatist, statist economic system. It is a system where large unions and corporations along with the state essentially control people and their choices. He gives out subsidies to corporations. He also increases barriers to entry which hurt small businesses but help big ones by shielding them from competition.

This, my friends, is fascism.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:44:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In just the past year Obama tried to:

- Attach GPSs to a citizen's vehicle to monitor his movements, without having any cause to believe that a person has committed a crime (United States v. Jones);

- Deprive landowners of the right to challenge potential government fines as high as $75,000 per day and take away their ability have a hearing to challenge those fines (Sackett v. EPA);

- Interfere with a church's selection of its own ministers. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC);

- Override state law whenever the President desires. (Arizona v. United States);

- Dramatically extend statutes of limitations to impose penalties for acts committed decades ago. (Gabelli v. SEC); and

- Destroy private property without paying just compensation. (Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States).

And the Supreme Court unanimously rejected every one of these Federal power grab attempts.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:02:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 11:49:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
The problem with calling someone a fascist is that the term has such strong connotations that the burden of proof on the person asserting the claim will be immeasurably higher than most other propositional claims in regards to politis.

To the extent that calling someone a "fascist" is both a description and a judgement, yes.

That being said, a case can be made imo that Obama presents certain fascist-lending tendencies. But you haven't really argued well for even that at all.

That would depend on how fascism is defined/philosophically outlined. I think a case could be made that what constitutes "fascism" in 21st century modern (or postmodern) America is conceptually divergent from its 20th century precursor -simply because of the difference in popular usage.

Bringing up his persona is irrelevant given that such a thing (while present in fascist leaders) isn't itself sufficient to evince the trait. It's a necessary though not sufficient condition if you will. You mentioned the pro-corporatist themes inerrant in "Obamacare" but didn't do anything but surfacely claim that it was so and likewise with Dodd Frank and his treatment of "capitalism".

This is correct.

At least realize that the scrutiny on this claim will be higher than on others and that the presumption always seems to be against viewing the political leaders of this country in such a light (hell even calling FDR a social fascist is a big no no here). Basically, put out an actual argument.

Well, the claim itself is suspect (insomuch as it is a claim, lol), and the degree of scrutiny applied to it will vary by audience. If I hate Obama and you hate Obama too, we might be able to concoct some grand fairy tale of nonsense about what traits Obama's presidency reflect -that seems to be the case with Republican commentators, at least. But yes, one way or another, an actual argument would be nice.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:08:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:24:10 PM, BigRat wrote:
Okay, if anyone doubts that progressivism and liberalism are more similar to fascism than conservatism or that progressives who were around at the time of fascism were quite fond of it, you need to read Goldberg's book.

Goldberg's book... rofl.

A book that, by the way, is very well researched.

Being well researched doesn't mean that it's true.

Somebody claimed that liberalism is market friendly. If you are talking about modern liberalism, the kind of liberalism Barack Obama espouses, then you are flatly wrong. Modern liberalism is extremely anti market, as is Barack Obama.

OMGz rofl.

Other variants of liberalism, like neoliberalism or classical liberalism, are more market friendly. So, Mussolini criticizing "liberalism" is meaningless unless the variant of liberalism is specified.

This just get's better and better.

Now, as to Barack Obama. First, he is vehemently anti free market in both belief and practice, a key tenet of fascism.

That's rather bold.

There is no doubt Barack Obama is determined to get rid of any remnants of free enterprise we have left.

That's quite a bit bolder.

However, unlike socialists, he seems determined to replace the free market with a sort of corporatist, statist economic system.

That's just nonsense.

It is a system where large unions and corporations along with the state essentially control people and their choices.

More nonsense.

He gives out subsidies to corporations.

Behold, he is so in favor of the free market, he'll subsidize it! See what I did there? I interjected a normative interpretation to a statement of fact. rofl. This is like listening to Rush on talk radio.

He also increases barriers to entry which hurt small businesses but help big ones by shielding them from competition.

Nonsense.

This, my friends, is fascism.

(1) No it's not.
(2) I'll be happy to explain why you are wrong, if you can accept the possibility that you're wrong. I will wait to do so, however, before I know if my efforts will be in vain or not.
Tsar of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:28:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 11:35:16 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/11/2013 9:23:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:57:16 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:51:14 PM, BigRat wrote:
Actually, the American left was quite fond of fascism at the time.

proof?
Charles A. Beard
Rexford G. Tugwell
George Soule
Wallace Stevens
S.S. McClure
W. E. B. DuBois
Will Rogers
Ida Tarbell

Beard was not a fascist. He was an isolationist. Both are foolish, but there is a difference.

"[Fascism is] beyond question an amazing experiment... an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism, politics and technology.... This is far from the frozen dictatorship of Russian Tsardom.... It is more like the American checks and balance system; and it may work out in a new democratic direction...." ~ Charles Beard, The New Republic, 1929

Beard's Career was destroyed because he blamed America for WWII, and supported the Germans and Japanese.

"Many leading American intellectuals and political figures from the progressive generation were drawn to fascism in the 1920's. The famous progressive muckrakers Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell visited Italy and wrote glowing accounts of the Blackshirt regime. One of the most enthusiastic supporters of both the early New Deal and the Italian fascism was Charles Beard, a Columbia University professor and the leading member of the school of "progressive historians."
books.google.com/books?isbn=1416576134

Tagwell does not appear to be a fascist.

"It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious." ~ FDR's Advisor Rexford Guy Tugwell On Mussolini's Fascist Rule

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

George Soule was a random dude who signed the Mayflower Compact. I can find nothing on his political philosophy; nevertheless I find it difficult to believe that he is particularly relevant here.

George Soule of the The New Republic magazine
Wallace was a conservative (http://wps.ablongman.com...).

", Stevens' next collection of poems, received mixed critics, with accusations of indifference to political and social tensions of the day from the Marxist journal New Masses. However, according to Joan Richardson's biography from 1988, Stevens was a closet socialist during the 1930's, but did not make his views a public issue "
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi...

S.S. McClure was a magazine publisher. The only thing I can find regarding him relating to fascism was that he studied it in Italy for a period, which is hardly the same thing as thinking it's a good idea.

He also called it "a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic."
http://catdir.loc.gov...
DuBois opposed American entry into World War II because he felt that Japan (and China) was emerging out of imperialism. While foolish, that is not fascism, nor is it regarding fascism as a good idea, nor was Japan fascist during World War II. He also felt that the Nazis managed to restore the economy--which they did; the German depression made the Great Depression look like a vacation.

DuBois was so captivated by the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on his magazine covers, despite numerous complaints.
Dubois also claimed that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."
Will Rogers was commenting on a few specific things Mussolini did. That isn't support for fascism, it is support for a very few specific policies that are associated with fascists.

Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is, if you have the right Dictator. ~ Will Rogers regarding his interview with Mussolini
Ida Tarbell's sole positive point about Mussolini was that he did some things with labor that she liked. Not exactly high praise for fascism.

Any quote I provide you will brush off as not supporting fascism. One of the biggest attributes of Fascism was National Syndicalism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:37:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Spam
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
debateroftheyear1400
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 4:14:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 9:16:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
First off, let us make clear that fascism is a statist ideology. There is nothing "right wing" about it. In fact, it has been a fairly left wing movement supported by traditional left wing coalitions and interests and pursued left wing policies. Left wing and progressive thinkers and publications were quite positive on fascism, seeing it as "progress". It was a sister of the progressive movement and elements of fascism can be seen in the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. If you want more information on this, read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

Okay, so now let us look at Barack Obama. First, he has all the qualities of a fascist leader. He is insanely arrogant with a messianic complex. He likes to depict himself of being on the side of the "masses". He always calls for people to fight for some national purpose... the purpose always happens to involve a larger state.

His policies are fascist as well. Obamacare didn't socialize health care. It did, however, destroy any remnants of a free market that might have existed in health care. It gave insurance corporations lots of power while crushing small business. It is all about control.
Ditto for Dodd Frank, not nationalization but more state power that really benefits the incumbant corporations.

Barack Obama is more hostile to capitalism than any president we have ever had. However, he has seeked to replace it not with socialism but with fascism.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 5:53:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:38:16 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:24:10 PM, BigRat wrote:
This, my friends, is fascism.

How about you read some actual definitions of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org...)?

Why don't you read them.

Under Mussolini;
1. "If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

2. "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State"a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values"interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."
3. "..everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."
4. "Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought."

under John T. Flynn (based on an analysis of Mussolini's Italy:);
"1. Anti-capitalist, but with capitalist features;
2. Economic demand management...
3. ...through budget deficits
4. Direct economic planning, reconciled with partial economic autonomy through corporatism;
5. Militarism and imperialism;
6. Suspension of rule of law."

Under Charles Maurras;
"What in fact is Fascism? A socialism emancipated from democracy. A trade unionism free of the chains of the class struggle had imposed on Italian labour. A methodical and successful will to bring together in a same fascio all the human factors of national production...A determination to approach, to threat, to resolve the worker question in itself...and to unite unions in corporations, to coordinate them, to incorporate the proletariat into the hereditary and traditional activities of the historical State of the Fatherland."

Under Roger Griffin;
1. "[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the "people" into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence"

2. "Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:02:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:36:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:26:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/10/2013 10:12:50 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
He's not a fascist.

He governs like one and seems to share the belief system. But, since you make a baseless claim to the contrary, I guess it is not true.

Well, to be fair, you've given no justification for your claims beyond assertion, either.

^ This

See the problem is, we could call GW Bush a coked up warmonger, not interested in capturing terrorists, but invading other country's for their oil. Now would we be right because we said it? No, yes some feel that way, but that is opinion, does not make it fact. The same can be said here, and if you think about it, and look back at our history, what did our founding fathers do? revolutionary War, Civil War, these our leaders told us had to be fought for the good of the country.

I'm sorry but you lack evidence to prove your case, and the facts are not on your side i'm afraid. now there is also a difference in acting as if he is the messiah, and being humble, or would you bring the same charges on Lincoln for what he did and viewed? because no matter what people think of Obama, Lincoln would be the person i would liken him too.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:04:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 5:53:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:38:16 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:24:10 PM, BigRat wrote:
This, my friends, is fascism.

How about you read some actual definitions of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org...)?

Why don't you read them.

Under Mussolini;
1. "If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

2. "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State"a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values"interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."
3. "..everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."
4. "Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought."

under John T. Flynn (based on an analysis of Mussolini's Italy:);
"1. Anti-capitalist, but with capitalist features;
2. Economic demand management...
3. ...through budget deficits
4. Direct economic planning, reconciled with partial economic autonomy through corporatism;
5. Militarism and imperialism;
6. Suspension of rule of law."

Under Charles Maurras;
"What in fact is Fascism? A socialism emancipated from democracy. A trade unionism free of the chains of the class struggle had imposed on Italian labour. A methodical and successful will to bring together in a same fascio all the human factors of national production...A determination to approach, to threat, to resolve the worker question in itself...and to unite unions in corporations, to coordinate them, to incorporate the proletariat into the hereditary and traditional activities of the historical State of the Fatherland."

Under Roger Griffin;
1. "[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the "people" into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence"

2. "Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism"

Yes, I read them. Here are some things that don't match up with progressivism:

1. "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value." You will note that progressivism states that human and spiritual values can exist outside the state/government. For instance, many progressives are members of spiritual/religious organizations but still support separation of church and state.
2. "5. Militarism and imperialism; 6. Suspension of rule of law." Neither of these criteria apply to progressivism or liberalism, one could I suppose argue that the sixth applies in some manners to Obama but not anywhere to the degree that it did to Mussolini and Hitler.
3. "[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism" Progressivism is not nationalistic; many progressives have anti-nationalistic beliefs. Barack Obama is probably best qualified as a liberal nationalist, which is to say that he "defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures". It is not xenophobic, and fascism as a rule is.
4. "What in fact is Fascism? A socialism emancipated from democracy." You may like progressives, but do you really think that we're eliminating democracy?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 1:56:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:08:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:24:10 PM, BigRat wrote:
Okay, if anyone doubts that progressivism and liberalism are more similar to fascism than conservatism or that progressives who were around at the time of fascism were quite fond of it, you need to read Goldberg's book.

Goldberg's book... rofl.

A book that, by the way, is very well researched.

Being well researched doesn't mean that it's true.

Somebody claimed that liberalism is market friendly. If you are talking about modern liberalism, the kind of liberalism Barack Obama espouses, then you are flatly wrong. Modern liberalism is extremely anti market, as is Barack Obama.

OMGz rofl.

Other variants of liberalism, like neoliberalism or classical liberalism, are more market friendly. So, Mussolini criticizing "liberalism" is meaningless unless the variant of liberalism is specified.

This just get's better and better.

Now, as to Barack Obama. First, he is vehemently anti free market in both belief and practice, a key tenet of fascism.

That's rather bold.

There is no doubt Barack Obama is determined to get rid of any remnants of free enterprise we have left.

That's quite a bit bolder.

However, unlike socialists, he seems determined to replace the free market with a sort of corporatist, statist economic system.

That's just nonsense.

It is a system where large unions and corporations along with the state essentially control people and their choices.

More nonsense.

He gives out subsidies to corporations.

Behold, he is so in favor of the free market, he'll subsidize it! See what I did there? I interjected a normative interpretation to a statement of fact. rofl. This is like listening to Rush on talk radio.

He also increases barriers to entry which hurt small businesses but help big ones by shielding them from competition.

Nonsense.

This, my friends, is fascism.

(1) No it's not.
(2) I'll be happy to explain why you are wrong, if you can accept the possibility that you're wrong. I will wait to do so, however, before I know if my efforts will be in vain or not.

Are you open to the possibility that you may be wrong?

Anyways, everything I said here is correct... that is true even if you throw in meaningless comments.