G. Beck had an interesting point on his show.

[California Girl]

Easier said than done, but it should be the agreed upon goal.

Nor was going to the moon, but we did it. What was it Kennedy said about not doing things because they are easy, but because they are hard?

 

[kwc57]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

sigh!

Here we go again.

The opposite of Fascist isn't Democrat

The opposite of Republican isn't Communist.

The scale of oppressive government ranges for zero (anachy) to 100%absolute totalitarianism.(slavery)

Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, have nothing to do with it.

Despite the very different economic systems Fascist Germany and Satalinist USSR had, they were both very far up the TOTALITARIAN scale.

Hitler used a command capitalist economy. He wasn't a conservative

Stalin used a command socialist economy. He wasn't a liberal.

Indeed!!!!

If we could get past the ridiculous bitching about the liberal and conservative shit and recognize that:

There is TOTALITARIANISM (whether it be socialist, marxist, communist or whatever) - Both of these are closer to our current Democrats AND Republicans that we should be.

The opposite is ANARCHY - a totally lawless society. No one wants that.

The Founders wrote the Constitution et al to put us as close to Anarchy as possible WITHOUT descending into chaos. That, my friends, is FREEDOM. And that is where we are supposed to be.

Totalitarianism is state control. Taken to it's limits, you get Soviet Russia, China, Venuzuela, etc. We are not those countries.

It is not a good thing to live in a lawless place - as we all recognize.

So what is so bad with living to the Constitution?

Great question. We had one single solitary candidate in the last presidential election who took this stance and his party and punditry wrote him off as a senile kook. Go figure.

 

[uscitizen]

Easier said than done, but it should be the agreed upon goal.

Nor was going to the moon, but we did it. What was it Kennedy said about not doing things because they are easy, but because they are hard?

We are too lazy and spoiled now though.

Can we do that in a Wii game?

 

[mudwhistle]

When I was offline for a few weeks moving house and getting my ISP sorted out, I had to keep my right wingnut habit so I watched Fox News. I watched Beck. Shallow. Very shallow. That was the most disappointing aspect. Not loud and boofheaded like Hannity, just shallow.

Beck's claim that fascism and communism are both the same relative to the issue of individualism is simply wrong. Fascism is, to fascists, a complete and final stage in social development. The state incorporates everything into itself, including corporations, the military and individuals. Communism is a complex political and social theory that argues that humans are constantly in transition and that transition is to a stateless society, that's the nirvana of communism, where the state no longer exists. So I think Beck is wrong. And shallow.

I can remember plenty of folks back home that have never been in transition.

You can't apply one set rule to everyone.

 

[uscitizen]

Everyone dies.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

sigh!

Here we go again.

The opposite of Fascist isn't Democrat

The opposite of Republican isn't Communist.

The scale of oppressive government ranges for zero (anachy) to 100%absolute totalitarianism.(slavery)

Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, have nothing to do with it.

Despite the very different economic systems Fascist Germany and Satalinist USSR had, they were both very far up the TOTALITARIAN scale.

Hitler used a command capitalist economy. He wasn't a conservative

Stalin used a command socialist economy. He wasn't a liberal.

The point being the end result of progressivism is communism .
The point being the end result of progressivism is fascism .

Once the political body is infected by progressivism it moves away from the constitution .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

When I was offline for a few weeks moving house and getting my ISP sorted out, I had to keep my right wingnut habit so I watched Fox News. I watched Beck. Shallow. Very shallow. That was the most disappointing aspect. Not loud and boofheaded like Hannity, just shallow.

Beck's claim that fascism and communism are both the same relative to the issue of individualism is simply wrong. Fascism is, to fascists, a complete and final stage in social development. The state incorporates everything into itself, including corporations, the military and individuals. Communism is a complex political and social theory that argues that humans are constantly in transition and that transition is to a stateless society, that's the nirvana of communism, where the state no longer exists. So I think Beck is wrong. And shallow.

That's not what Beck said.

His point is, and you just mentioned it, that both racing to the same goal, total government control under social justice umbrella. Only question is who's selling it better and who's going to get there first.

Okay, theoretical differences aside. Total government control is totalitarian. I would hope that any of us, regardless of political persuasion, would be implacably opposed to that concept. Now, did Beck say how it could be opposed?

Education and courage to face the truth.

 

[blu]

When I was offline for a few weeks moving house and getting my ISP sorted out, I had to keep my right wingnut habit so I watched Fox News. I watched Beck. Shallow. Very shallow. That was the most disappointing aspect. Not loud and boofheaded like Hannity, just shallow.

Beck's claim that fascism and communism are both the same relative to the issue of individualism is simply wrong. Fascism is, to fascists, a complete and final stage in social development. The state incorporates everything into itself, including corporations, the military and individuals. Communism is a complex political and social theory that argues that humans are constantly in transition and that transition is to a stateless society, that's the nirvana of communism, where the state no longer exists. So I think Beck is wrong. And shallow.

beck just throws around a bunch of words he barely understands to his audience that generally has a 9th grade education and left school to work on a farm

 

[editec]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

sigh!

Here we go again.

The opposite of Fascist isn't Democrat

The opposite of Republican isn't Communist.

The scale of oppressive government ranges for zero (anachy) to 100%absolute totalitarianism.(slavery)

Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, have nothing to do with it.

Despite the very different economic systems Fascist Germany and Satalinist USSR had, they were both very far up the TOTALITARIAN scale.

Hitler used a command capitalist economy. He wasn't a conservative

Stalin used a command socialist economy. He wasn't a liberal.

The point being the end result of progressivism is communism .
The point being the end result of progressivism is fascism .

Once the political body is infected by progressivism it moves away from the constitution .

Define progressivism, please.

And no circular logic, please.

Be specific.

What is progressivism?

Incidently, progressivism was an invention of the Republican Party, Fitnah.

Do you know who the first Progressive Republican president was?

Here's a hint......national parks

Here's another .....anti-monopolist

Here's another "Bully!"

Do go read some books, Lad.

My well being and the well being of this nation depends on you ignoramouses actually understanding what is going on.

Those talking heads you partisans are listening to are making your ingnorance even worse.

Now not only do you not know much, what little you is mostly WRONG.

 

[California Girl]

sigh!

Here we go again.

The opposite of Fascist isn't Democrat

The opposite of Republican isn't Communist.

The scale of oppressive government ranges for zero (anachy) to 100%absolute totalitarianism.(slavery)

Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, have nothing to do with it.

Despite the very different economic systems Fascist Germany and Satalinist USSR had, they were both very far up the TOTALITARIAN scale.

Hitler used a command capitalist economy. He wasn't a conservative

Stalin used a command socialist economy. He wasn't a liberal.

Indeed!!!!

If we could get past the ridiculous bitching about the liberal and conservative shit and recognize that:

There is TOTALITARIANISM (whether it be socialist, marxist, communist or whatever) - Both of these are closer to our current Democrats AND Republicans that we should be.

The opposite is ANARCHY - a totally lawless society. No one wants that.

The Founders wrote the Constitution et al to put us as close to Anarchy as possible WITHOUT descending into chaos. That, my friends, is FREEDOM. And that is where we are supposed to be.

Totalitarianism is state control. Taken to it's limits, you get Soviet Russia, China, Venuzuela, etc. We are not those countries.

It is not a good thing to live in a lawless place - as we all recognize.

So what is so bad with living to the Constitution?

Great question. We had one single solitary candidate in the last presidential election who took this stance and his party and punditry wrote him off as a senile kook. Go figure.

Well, maybe they should put someone up who isn't a senile old kook.

 

[kwc57]

Indeed!!!!

If we could get past the ridiculous bitching about the liberal and conservative shit and recognize that:

There is TOTALITARIANISM (whether it be socialist, marxist, communist or whatever) - Both of these are closer to our current Democrats AND Republicans that we should be.

The opposite is ANARCHY - a totally lawless society. No one wants that.

The Founders wrote the Constitution et al to put us as close to Anarchy as possible WITHOUT descending into chaos. That, my friends, is FREEDOM. And that is where we are supposed to be.

Totalitarianism is state control. Taken to it's limits, you get Soviet Russia, China, Venuzuela, etc. We are not those countries.

It is not a good thing to live in a lawless place - as we all recognize.

So what is so bad with living to the Constitution?

Great question. We had one single solitary candidate in the last presidential election who took this stance and his party and punditry wrote him off as a senile kook. Go figure.

Well, maybe they should put someone up who isn't a senile old kook.

The issue is, he isn't a senile old kook, they just dismissed him as such because his views threatened the status quo of the two party entitlement system. It is easy for the talking heads on radio to beat the drum for small government, low taxes, liberty, etc., but for some reason they couldn't back the one candidate who actually believes in those things and wants to do something to restore them. In other words, talk radio conservatives and their followers like to talk the talk, but won't walk the walk because all they REALLY care about is partisan power and point scoring. They are all steam and smoke, but no energy or movement. Ron Paul was the original Tea Partier, yet even those folks reject him. Their grassroots movement has been co-opted by the establishment they claim to dislike and they don't even realize it.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FAIRTAX? - Nealz Nuze on boortz.com

 

[ihopehefails]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals.

clearly


not

He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way.

The problem we have is corporatism

The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

civil rights
OSHA
women's suffrage...

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

Conservatism's not an ideology, rendering your question stupid.

Corportism was invented by a fascist in order to control industries for the state's purpose. Its kind of like what Obama is doing now with GM and the banks. Progressives were not friendly to individualism and individual liberty.

 

[ihopehefails]

And what happens when someone wants to break away from this nirvana and be their own person who chooses to go in an opposite direction of the 'nirvanized society'?

They leave. They need not physically move, but they break the bond, neither contributing to nor benefiting from the social effort. This is contrary to the current system, where any such attempt results in the IRS and the FBI raiding your house

The thing that holds that nirvanized society together is the collective will which is almost like a psuedo-government of itself.

Not government. Ideology. A common ideology and a strong social bond are necessary. That's why most successful communes have been comprised of religious people.

This is why Marx believed their must be a religiosity about politics.

Marx was adamantly anti-theistic.

He wanted to recreate that nirvanization within the state which is not much different from what fascist attempted to do the only difference is that they wanted to maintain the nation while communist did not. Its the reason why they called in National Socialism vs International Socialism.

Marx was involved with the International, actually. First for sure, and I think he was also involved with the second, before the major split. He had some issue going on with someone, but I forget what it was all about.

Marx was anti-theistic but that means not believing in a deity. It does not mean he was not anti-religioius.

Thank you for repeating the fascist concept that nations were ideas "They leave. They need not physically move, but they break the bond, neither contributing to nor benefiting from the social effort", "A common ideology and a strong social bond are necessary".

Both communism and fascism attempts to do the same thing and that is to create tribes out of the masses. It hates civil society where people are composed of smaller independent social groups that have their own character and identity. It attempts the create a single group out of society and on paper this is great but it violates your freedom of association because government has to create this. It is why, I suspect, why Marx said that there will be a dictatorship at first then it will melt away. It is probably why deciphles of this thinking always seek to create dictatorships such as NAZI, Italian Fascist, Communist, and even American progressivism. They see it as a way to create the 'nirvana' that will unite humanity into one or a single group with a single identity. Does this not sound like totalitarianism.

 

[ihopehefails]

When I was offline for a few weeks moving house and getting my ISP sorted out, I had to keep my right wingnut habit so I watched Fox News. I watched Beck. Shallow. Very shallow. That was the most disappointing aspect. Not loud and boofheaded like Hannity, just shallow.

Beck's claim that fascism and communism are both the same relative to the issue of individualism is simply wrong. Fascism is, to fascists, a complete and final stage in social development. The state incorporates everything into itself, including corporations, the military and individuals. Communism is a complex political and social theory that argues that humans are constantly in transition and that transition is to a stateless society, that's the nirvana of communism, where the state no longer exists. So I think Beck is wrong. And shallow.

That's not what Beck said.

His point is, and you just mentioned it, that both racing to the same goal, total government control under social justice umbrella. Only question is who's selling it better and who's going to get there first.

Please change you Avatar. Its really disturbing.

 

[ihopehefails]

Essentially was fascism and communism attempts to do is to create tribes out of the masses.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There is TOTALITARIANISM (whether it be socialist, marxist, communist or whatever)

If you're going to babble about communism, you should learn what it is.
Totalitarianism is state control. Taken to it's limits, you get Soviet Russia, China, Venuzuela, etc.

Historical England, France, Japan...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The point being the end result of progressivism is communism .
The point being the end result of progressivism is fascism .
.

The end result of one thing is two different things?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Progressives were not friendly to individualism and individual liberty.

Hence civil rights and women's suffrage

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Marx was anti-theistic but that means not believing in a deity. It does not mean he was not anti-religioius.

:quote:


Are you retarded?

Both communism and fascism attempts to do the same thing and that is to create tribes out of the masses

Communism focuses on small, local governance. Hence the the existence of communes as the primary form of communist living and loose confederations as the primary form of cooperation between groups.

. It hates civil society where people are composed of smaller independent social groups that have their own character and identity.

Have you tried learning facts instead of just repeating what a dry alcoholic tells you?

. It is why, I suspect, why Marx said that there will be a dictatorship at first then it will melt away.

Marx was not the only communist. Nor was he the first. Nor did or do all communists agree with his line of thought. Look up the dissolution of the First International. The antagonism between the revolutionary and the reformist lines of thought were a major factor.

 

[California Girl]

There is TOTALITARIANISM (whether it be socialist, marxist, communist or whatever)

If you're going to babble about communism, you should learn what it is.
Totalitarianism is state control. Taken to it's limits, you get Soviet Russia, China, Venuzuela, etc.

Historical England, France, Japan...

England, France and Japan are not Totalitarian states...... yet. Read what I said 'taken to it's limits'.

The United States was not designed to copy others, it was set up to be a new way. A truly free Republic.