Barack Obama a liberal fascist?

No. It's just another take on Goldbergs book, Liberal Fascism, which has been totally debunk as junk.

"Goldberg's reasoning has progressed from unconvincing to incoherent. Modern liberalism, he argues, is linked to Nazism because both contain a cult of the organic (Hitler was a vegetarian) and both embrace sexual freedom (Himmler ordered his men "to father as many children as possible without marrying" in order to achieve the Aryan ideal). Eventually, Goldberg backs himself into asserting, in effect, that any government that does more than prevent abortions and provide for the common defense is inherently fascist. Granted, he gives a wide berth to the common defense. In a token criticism of President George W. Bush, Goldberg cites as evidence of fascist influence not the de facto suspension of habeas corpus and refusal to follow the Geneva Conventions, which go unmentioned, but rather Bush's extension of Medicare to cover prescription drugs.

So, what's more fascist, liberalism or conservatism? It's a moronic question. The United States is not, nor has ever been, anything close to a fascist country.

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. - Slate Magazine

The government telling you that you MUST purchase something the day you are born and continue to pay for it until the die you die is a step in that diorection...ESPECIALLY since the government (or members of it) admittedly exempted itself from the same law.
 
No. It's just another take on Goldbergs book, Liberal Fascism, which has been totally debunk as junk.

"Goldberg's reasoning has progressed from unconvincing to incoherent. Modern liberalism, he argues, is linked to Nazism because both contain a cult of the organic (Hitler was a vegetarian) and both embrace sexual freedom (Himmler ordered his men "to father as many children as possible without marrying" in order to achieve the Aryan ideal). Eventually, Goldberg backs himself into asserting, in effect, that any government that does more than prevent abortions and provide for the common defense is inherently fascist. Granted, he gives a wide berth to the common defense. In a token criticism of President George W. Bush, Goldberg cites as evidence of fascist influence not the de facto suspension of habeas corpus and refusal to follow the Geneva Conventions, which go unmentioned, but rather Bush's extension of Medicare to cover prescription drugs.

So, what's more fascist, liberalism or conservatism? It's a moronic question. The United States is not, nor has ever been, anything close to a fascist country.

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. - Slate Magazine

The government telling you that you MUST purchase something the day you are born and continue to pay for it until the die you die is a step in that diorection...ESPECIALLY since the government (or members of it) admittedly exempted itself from the same law.

They are just asking us to ignore all of the totalitarian things the Progressives support and just kindly accept their esoteric definitions in lieu.
 
Economically, yes. He's quite fascist, but I see his takeover of GM, his practically making the CEO of GE a Cabinet position and over regulation of everything else, a means to his ultimate end, namely "transforming America as we know it.

No one took over GM.

You need to get better informed and better educated, then check back with us.

Thanks.
When the government took over GM, OOPS sorry, bailed them out, it split the company between itself and the UAW with Canada even getting 12.5%. Creditors got just 10%, a grievous affront to Constitutional contract protection. obama fired and replaced the GM CEO with his hand picked toady. That's not a takeover???
CNN
As General Motors emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009, the U.S. Treasury took a 60.8% stake in the company in return for a $50 billion bailout. A trust established to fund health care benefits for UAW retirees -- not the UAW itself -- took a 17.5% stake. The Canadian government took a 12.5% stake, and unsecured bondholders were given a 10% share.
Forbes
Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.
 
No. It's just another take on Goldbergs book, Liberal Fascism, which has been totally debunked as junk.

"Goldberg's reasoning has progressed from unconvincing to incoherent. Modern liberalism, he argues, is linked to Nazism because both contain a cult of the organic (Hitler was a vegetarian) and both embrace sexual freedom (Himmler ordered his men "to father as many children as possible without marrying" in order to achieve the Aryan ideal). Eventually, Goldberg backs himself into asserting, in effect, that any government that does more than prevent abortions and provide for the common defense is inherently fascist. Granted, he gives a wide berth to the common defense. In a token criticism of President George W. Bush, Goldberg cites as evidence of fascist influence not the de facto suspension of habeas corpus and refusal to follow the Geneva Conventions, which go unmentioned, but rather Bush's extension of Medicare to cover prescription drugs.

So, what's more fascist, liberalism or conservatism? It's a moronic question. The United States is not, nor has ever been, anything close to a fascist country.

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. - Slate Magazine

Timothy Noah? There's a name near and dear to Liberal Fascists the world over..
 
No. It's just another take on Goldbergs book, Liberal Fascism, which has been totally debunk as junk.

Right...because some liberal blogger says so.

Of course, the Washington Times called the book "a major contribution to understanding the history of political ideas and attitudes over the last two centuries..."

But hey, I'm sure YOU know best...:doubt:

Goldberg couldn't defend it with a straight face.
 
No. It's just another take on Goldbergs book, Liberal Fascism, which has been totally debunk as junk.

Right...because some liberal blogger says so.

Of course, the Washington Times called the book "a major contribution to understanding the history of political ideas and attitudes over the last two centuries..."

But hey, I'm sure YOU know best...:doubt:

Goldberg couldn't defend it with a straight face.

Oh well, if YOU say so. :cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top