Socialists believe in government ownership of the means of production. Fascists believed in government control of privately owned businesses, which is much more the style of this government. That way, politicians can intervene whenever they feel like it and then, when their interventions turn out badly, summon executives from the private sector before Congress and denounce them on nationwide television.
Thomas Sowell
The Aurora has been saying for a few months now that the Obama administration is a fascist regime. Great minds and all that........
8 comments:
We have had in the past not so much government control of corporations as corporate control of government. I believe in regulation rather than control, although if a corporation accepts government money they obviously open themselves up to more control.
The last administration weakened habeus corpus and posse comitatus, practiced torture, illegal wiretaps, ghost detainees in secret prisons, and on and on. But Obama is a fascist because, I guess, he pressured GM to fire their CEO. GM didn't have to ask the government for billions of bail-out dollars. Free market, remember?
If we actually had a fascist regime in this country, you would probably support it.
yup. free markets and all that. let them FAIL! Don't use my $ to prop up a failing business model.
And we HAVE a fascist regime now and you DO support it.
1. do some homework and see what fascism is.
2. wake the fuck up!
Let them fail. OK, but if they do accept money then they accept some government say.
In 8 years I never once called Bush a fascist, for all my criticisms of him.
We do not have a fascist governent. Read Naomi Wolfe's "The End of America" where she describes the 10 signs of a fascist shift. We moved to varying degrees on all 10 of them during the Bush years, but not far enough that one could say we had a fascist government.
It's not fascism if you disagree with an administration's economic policy. There's a good deal more to fascism than government regulation of corporations.
Has Obama declared any American citizens "illegal enemy combatants" and tortured them, as Bush did? Has he argued that the President has virtually unlimited power in his role as Commander in Chief? Has he imprisoned dissenters or cancelled any elections? (Neither did Bush, thus proving that he was not a fascist.)
If we are indeed living under a fascist dictatorship, then you would be justified in taking up arms against the government. Go for it.
Has Obama declared any citizens enemy combatants? Hmmmm...well not yet, but we found out today that if you're against abortion,if you're in favor of states rights(otherwise known as the constitution by the way), if you're a returning veteran,if you're anti illegal immigration,etc. you're about to be looked into by the Obama administrations department of homeland security.
Naomi Wolfe by the way is half a retard. She lost an argument to a dead guy! Of course Milton Friedman could beat anyone in an argument on economics, but that's why only an idiot would challenge him.
Finally, i didn't say Obama was a dictator, but how far will he go? FDR imprisoned American Citizens under the guise of them being a danger to the country. What if Obama's DHS decides his political enemies are a danger to the country? I'm anti illegal immigration, and I believe in states rights. Should i be worried? Finally, if the government gives you money they should have a say? Didn't you say you're on unemployment? Hmmmmm...I wonder if Bush was still in office would you be ok with that? Maybe he says if you want your unemployment check you have to go to church every sunday?....????
Not that i want to pile on to your ignorance but if it's just about taking $, then what about just paying it back? If the aim is not CONTROL? then why won't Obama let the banks pay the money back? Clearly it's about control, not protecting the tax payer dollar.
I still can't understand how this is not a HUGE story by the way. I mean i know the media is in the bag for Obama, i expect it, i understand it. But what does the guy have to do to be scrutinized?
On the Homeland Security report: check out what conservative blog Little Green Footballs had to say about it. The report was in the works for a year and was put out by the same people as in the Bush administration. I read the report and all the wingut talk about it, is just crazy. Just like your "fascist regime" comment.
You didn't call Obama a dictator? OK, good. But then maybe it's you who doesn't understand what fascism is. Hint: it's not liberal democracy.
Hmmmm..... So you agree with everything at little green footballs? Or just the stuff that suits you?
It's funny to me that a president who was anti abortion thought that people who believed the same way he did should be targeted by local law enforcement for possible investigation........idiot.
Anyway, do some homework before you address me. I'm tired of educating you for free. Just because we don't have a single dictator doesn't mean we can't have a fascist regime, and it's EARLY. He has used the power of the bully pulpit to intimidate even those in his own party who disagree with him already. The guy's only been in office for a few months and already his political enemies are under investigation by his DHS secretary and he's taking control of the auto industry and the banking industry/economy BY FORCE.
I noticed once again that you ignored my question because you're a pussy, but I'll ask it again. Since you're taking bailout(unemployment) money don't you think the government has a say in how you should live your life?
This does get tiresome but OK, here goes. I disagree with LGF on most things involving politics and they are not as crazy and prone to paranoid nonfactual fantasies as many on the Right. The DHS is not targeting anti-abortion or anti-immigrant people. Did you actually read the report? Back in the 60's some anti-war people got involved in terrorism and were properly investigated and tried. OK, there was also some improper surveillance as well.
The President speaking from the bully pulpit is not the same as outlawing dissent. Fascism really does mean dictatorship. I mean there's more to it than that, but really.
As for unemployment benefits, most people have taken them at one time or another. And the government does have a right to insist that I look for a job, and even to require me to list the places that I have applied, if they wish. I believe that the corporations were free to turn down the federal money. They want the money without any regulation or control. Let them fail is a legitimate argument. Because you conservatives are right, once the government gets involved then the government wants more control. This troubles you, as it does me. But it's the taxpayers money and we should, through our elective representatives, have some say in how it is spent.
You may have the last word if you like
Post a Comment