CDZ Which Party are fascists?

[Wry Catcher]

Let's drop the term fascist and describe the behavior:

Who supports equal rights and equal opportunities for all citizens?

Who supports preventative health care for all citizens cradle to grave?

Who supports Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP?

Who supports universal suffrage?

Who supports progressive taxation?

Who supports Social Security?

Who supports targeted tax credits for those at or below the poverty line?

Who supports a regional minimum wage based on the CPI?

Who supports the EPA?

Who supports government support for green and renewable energy R&D?

 

[toobfreak]

centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Right there you are proving the long-mistaken idea that fascism is a right wing thing. Centralized government, autocratic, dictatorial, regimentation, these are all the mantra of the Big Government Lefties! Look at the kids at UC Berkeley that won't let anyone speak there whom they disagree with--- ---fascists! What is the point if you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear? Where is the leaning?

forcible suppression of opposition

Are you not describing the Obama Administration? The weaponized IRS that suppressed Romney organizations so Obama could steal a second term? Lois Lerner? The unveiling of a hundred names to try to unmask Trump campaign people by Obama to help Hillary steal the election against the Espionage Act?

The Hard Left Wing of today ARE your modern NeoFascists:

 

[Fenton Lum]

We have not functionally speaking had two parties for quite some time now, merely bickering factions of a ruling aristocracy.

---- Which is the very situation that Liberalism rose up to resist. Demonstrating once again that Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

We have neither liberals nor conservatives now. We have neocons and neolibs who both foment societal division amongst the unsubstantial people while both pursue neoliberal economic policies that cannibalize american society to chase empire and redistribute wealth to the substantial people. The "good guys" and the "bad guys" are all riding on the same train running down the same tracks, merely in differnt cars.

 

[Fenton Lum]

centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Right there you are proving the long-mistaken idea that fascism is a right wing thing. Centralized government, autocratic, dictatorial, regimentation, these are all the mantra of the Big Government Lefties! Look at the kids at UC Berkeley that won't let anyone speak there whom they disagree with--- ---fascists! What is the point if you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear? Where is the leaning?

forcible suppression of opposition

Are you not describing the Obama Administration? The weaponized IRS that suppressed Romney organizations so Obama could steal a second term? Lois Lerner? The unveiling of a hundred names to try to unmask Trump campaign people by Obama to help Hillary steal the election against the Espionage Act?

The Hard Left Wing of today ARE your modern NeoFascists:


View attachment 143271

Another poor fool caught in the mind crippling grips of partisanshitheadism.

 

[Lastamender]

What party is trying to pass hate speech laws? Those are your fascists.

Earlier this year, though, Markey sponsored a bill to monitor so-called hate speech on television, radio and the Internet. The bill, if passed, would lead to a congressional report. And though Markey has said his proposal would not lead to censorship of constitutionally protected speech, he should know better than to let the government stick its nose under the First Amendment tent.

From 2014. This kind of legislation is backed by Democrats and is still being discussed.

Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Ed Markey's Hate-Speech Bill Earns Him Top Spot in 2014 New England Muzzle Awards | HuffPost
Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Without even reading the links, given the OP title this is a Composition Fallacy.

The topic asks about "political parties", not "Ed Markey".

What party is he in?

 

[Pogo]

What party is trying to pass hate speech laws? Those are your fascists.

Earlier this year, though, Markey sponsored a bill to monitor so-called hate speech on television, radio and the Internet. The bill, if passed, would lead to a congressional report. And though Markey has said his proposal would not lead to censorship of constitutionally protected speech, he should know better than to let the government stick its nose under the First Amendment tent.

From 2014. This kind of legislation is backed by Democrats and is still being discussed.

Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Ed Markey's Hate-Speech Bill Earns Him Top Spot in 2014 New England Muzzle Awards | HuffPost
Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Without even reading the links, given the OP title this is a Composition Fallacy.

The topic asks about "political parties", not "Ed Markey".

What party is he in?

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, the answer is obvious:

THE OTHER GUYS!


.

Yep. See also "the Nazis", "the traitors", and "those who must be eliminated".

Always immediately following

Or this guy.

Former Sanders aide: 'We don't need white people leading the Democratic Party right now' - CNNPolitics

It really is stunning to me that such a thought would even enter someone's head.

They're just consumed by that stuff.
.

 

[Lastamender]

What party is trying to pass hate speech laws? Those are your fascists.

Earlier this year, though, Markey sponsored a bill to monitor so-called hate speech on television, radio and the Internet. The bill, if passed, would lead to a congressional report. And though Markey has said his proposal would not lead to censorship of constitutionally protected speech, he should know better than to let the government stick its nose under the First Amendment tent.

From 2014. This kind of legislation is backed by Democrats and is still being discussed.

Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Ed Markey's Hate-Speech Bill Earns Him Top Spot in 2014 New England Muzzle Awards | HuffPost
Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Without even reading the links, given the OP title this is a Composition Fallacy.

The topic asks about "political parties", not "Ed Markey".

What party is he in?

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

 

[Pogo]

What party is trying to pass hate speech laws? Those are your fascists.

Earlier this year, though, Markey sponsored a bill to monitor so-called hate speech on television, radio and the Internet. The bill, if passed, would lead to a congressional report. And though Markey has said his proposal would not lead to censorship of constitutionally protected speech, he should know better than to let the government stick its nose under the First Amendment tent.

From 2014. This kind of legislation is backed by Democrats and is still being discussed.

Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Ed Markey's Hate-Speech Bill Earns Him Top Spot in 2014 New England Muzzle Awards | HuffPost
Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Without even reading the links, given the OP title this is a Composition Fallacy.

The topic asks about "political parties", not "Ed Markey".

What party is he in?

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's a Composition Fallacy.
Nor does it fail to introduce a new one. The Congressional Black Caucus is nonpartisan and has included Republicans including Allen West and Mia Love.

And as far as speech laws ---- Reince Priebus Admits Rump Administration Looking Into Changing First Amendment

Again, it would be the same Composition Fallacy to suggest "therefore all Republicans are looking into changing the First Amendment, right after they found their own Klan chapter".

Just so you know.

 

[Lastamender]

What party is trying to pass hate speech laws? Those are your fascists.
From 2014. This kind of legislation is backed by Democrats and is still being discussed.

Ed Markey's Hate-Speech Bill Earns Him Top Spot in 2014 New England Muzzle Awards | HuffPost
Howard Dean doubles down on ‘hate speech isn’t protected’ claims — then it backfires big time

Without even reading the links, given the OP title this is a Composition Fallacy.

The topic asks about "political parties", not "Ed Markey".

What party is he in?

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's a Composition Fallacy.
Nor does it fail to introduce a new one. The Congressional Black Caucus is nonpartisan and has included Republicans including Allen West and Mia Love.

And as far as speech laws ---- Reince Priebus Admits Rump Administration Looking Into Changing First Amendment

Again, it would be the same Composition Fallacy to suggest "therefore all Republicans are looking into changing the First Amendment, right after they found their own Klan chapter".

Just so you know.

RINO's don't count.

 

[Pogo]

Without even reading the links, given the OP title this is a Composition Fallacy.

The topic asks about "political parties", not "Ed Markey".

What party is he in?

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's a Composition Fallacy.
Nor does it fail to introduce a new one. The Congressional Black Caucus is nonpartisan and has included Republicans including Allen West and Mia Love.

And as far as speech laws ---- Reince Priebus Admits Rump Administration Looking Into Changing First Amendment

Again, it would be the same Composition Fallacy to suggest "therefore all Republicans are looking into changing the First Amendment, right after they found their own Klan chapter".

Just so you know.

RINO's don't count.

Excellent. A nice slice of Composition Fallacy with a heaping dollop of No True Scotsman on top. Yum.

I luv me some low hangin' fruit.

 

[RodISHI]

Without even reading the links, given the OP title this is a Composition Fallacy.

The topic asks about "political parties", not "Ed Markey".

What party is he in?

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's a Composition Fallacy.
Nor does it fail to introduce a new one. The Congressional Black Caucus is nonpartisan and has included Republicans including Allen West and Mia Love.

And as far as speech laws ---- Reince Priebus Admits Rump Administration Looking Into Changing First Amendment

Again, it would be the same Composition Fallacy to suggest "therefore all Republicans are looking into changing the First Amendment, right after they found their own Klan chapter".

Just so you know.

RINO's don't count.

They have to if they are in that party affiliation as the party still embraces them as their own.

 

[Lastamender]

What party is he in?

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's a Composition Fallacy.
Nor does it fail to introduce a new one. The Congressional Black Caucus is nonpartisan and has included Republicans including Allen West and Mia Love.

And as far as speech laws ---- Reince Priebus Admits Rump Administration Looking Into Changing First Amendment

Again, it would be the same Composition Fallacy to suggest "therefore all Republicans are looking into changing the First Amendment, right after they found their own Klan chapter".

Just so you know.

RINO's don't count.

Excellent. A nice slice of Composition Fallacy with a heaping dollop of No True Scotsman on top. Yum.

I luv me some low hangin' fruit.

Take your scotsman somewhere else and your fallacy. These are just diversions because the Democrats are controlling the media narrative. And everyone knows it.

 

[Peach]

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's a Composition Fallacy.
Nor does it fail to introduce a new one. The Congressional Black Caucus is nonpartisan and has included Republicans including Allen West and Mia Love.

And as far as speech laws ---- Reince Priebus Admits Rump Administration Looking Into Changing First Amendment

Again, it would be the same Composition Fallacy to suggest "therefore all Republicans are looking into changing the First Amendment, right after they found their own Klan chapter".

Just so you know.

RINO's don't count.

Excellent. A nice slice of Composition Fallacy with a heaping dollop of No True Scotsman on top. Yum.

I luv me some low hangin' fruit.

Take your scotsman somewhere else and your fallacy. These are just diversions because the Democrats are controlling the media narrative. And everyone knows it.

Neither large party(.) See National Vanguard* and Identity: EVROPA.
(National Vanguard asserted theirNazi sheilds were given to anyone; the killer yesterday carried one before he decided to use his deadly weapon.)

 

[konradv]

Both have fascist in them in their own ways.

Both have libertarian in them in their own ways.

 

[Pogo]

It's stupefying that those whose entire posting careers depend on the Composition Fallacy --- nevertheless need continuous education on how it works.

Quick easy example --

"David Duke founded his own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
David Duke is a Republican.
Therefore, all Republicans have founded their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan".​

Obviously not all Republicans have founded their own Klan chapter. The conclusion does not follow. This is a Composition Fallacy --- ass-uming a trait of a single entity is by extension true of any group he affiliates with.

"Ed Markey is IMO a fascist. Ed Markey wears grey suits. Therefore all men who wear grey suits are fascists".

Does not follow. FALLACY. Causation is not demonstrated.

Not rocket surgery.

That doesn't change the fact hate speech laws are a step, a big step, toward fascism. And if you look his support comes from other Democrats. Conyers in Michigan is one of them, and a member of the Black caucus, which are Democrats.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's a Composition Fallacy.
Nor does it fail to introduce a new one. The Congressional Black Caucus is nonpartisan and has included Republicans including Allen West and Mia Love.

And as far as speech laws ---- Reince Priebus Admits Rump Administration Looking Into Changing First Amendment

Again, it would be the same Composition Fallacy to suggest "therefore all Republicans are looking into changing the First Amendment, right after they found their own Klan chapter".

Just so you know.

RINO's don't count.

Excellent. A nice slice of Composition Fallacy with a heaping dollop of No True Scotsman on top. Yum.

I luv me some low hangin' fruit.

Take your scotsman somewhere else and your fallacy. These are just diversions because the Democrats are controlling the media narrative. And everyone knows it.

Excellent. A nice slice of Composition Fallacy with a dollop of No True Scotsman ----- is itself followed by a dessert-dessert heapin' helpin' of the ol' Argumentum ad Populum on a nice bed of Ipse Dixit. Yum YUM, the old "Everybody Knows, because I said so".

Can Affirming the Consequent be far behind?
PLACE yer bets........

 

[2aguy]

The word gets tossed around here a ton from both sides, neither side really knows what a "fascist is, so I present the definition according to Webster. Now, which of our two corrupt parties actually ARE fascists by definition?


Definition of FASCISM


Definition of fascism

1. 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
   
   
2. 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial controlearly instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge

fascist
play\ˈfa-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective, often capitalized
fascistic
play\fa-ˈshi-stik also -ˈsi-\ adjective, often capitalized
fascistically
play\fa-ˈshi-sti-k(ə-)lē also -ˈsi-\ adverb, often capitalized

This is the more accurate definition.......democrats fit the bill...

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Let's drop the term fascist and describe the behavior:

Who supports equal rights and equal opportunities for all citizens?

Anybody who wants to get rid of the institutionalized system of racial privilege called "affirmative action" for starters.

.....which, of course leaves out most of the left, especially the so-called "progressives". .

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's drop the term fascist and describe the behavior:

Who supports equal rights and equal opportunities for all citizens?

Anybody who wants to get rid of the institutionalized system of racial privilege called "affirmative action" for starters.

.....which, of course leaves out most of the left, especially the so-called "progressives". .

Before there was Affirmative Action and Consent Decrees most local police and fire depts employed all white males.

Today most such agencies and most government jobs employ a diverse population of men and women of every color, ethnicity, gender and gender Identity. Please explain how that provides "racial privilege" when every person must meet the MQ's and no quotas exist?