It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Today's Conservatives Are Fascists

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I'm pretty tired of "these guys are bad" and "these ideas suck" kind of topics. Let's get to the heart of the post and say that the Libertarians are in prime striking position when the conservatives figure out what is going on (which is in PART true).

It's impossible to say that this or that person is evil, or wants to corrupt American politics with theocratic ideals with a democratic sheath without some real hard proof (which is hard to come by because money can do some unbelievable things in America).

The conservatives voted for few reasons same as the liberals, but those labels are lame and outdated, not to mention that there is simply too many ideas floating around to be covered by only two parties, so they end up disenfranchising more people every year and increasing the lowest common denominator campaigning and presentation of world politics.

Most people don't have the time or the inclination to dig through the oceans of information and propaganda to search for the truth, but rather serve as mouthpieces for the same sound bits we hear on TV or talk radio.

It all just gets pretty old. Let's talk about what will get anything done.




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Kidfinger
ITS WORKING! ITS WORKING!

One down, a whole poopload to go


And he doesn't even sense it.... Muahahahahahaha!


Nnnever!
heh heh. By the way, ECK, are you male or female? In the chatroom, some people were saying you were a female.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Kidfinger
ITS WORKING! ITS WORKING!

One down, a whole poopload to go


And he doesn't even sense it.... Muahahahahahaha!


Nnnever!
heh heh. By the way, ECK, are you male or female? In the chatroom, some people were saying you were a female.


Just you wait, kiddo.. We'll make a true believer of you yet..


Who said that? Was it little "BEcky?" (Jsobecky) She's one spurned little lady..


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Take the Quiz. Find out where you stand.

www.csmonitor.com...

Me..well...I am sure you can guess! lol

www.csmonitor.com...

*edit to add 2nd link*

[edit on 20-1-2005 by Imperium Americana]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan


I guess that pretty much sums me up aside from international pressure to oppose genocide, mass murder, etc.

Screw the global politics. We are sitting on the top of the jungle gym overseeing the other kids ignoring the fact that we have serious cancer.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Herman:

Neo Con:
en.wikipedia.org...
Strauss:
en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to read more Neo Con philosophy then you must start at the ideological "Godfather".
I would suggest Plato's The Republic :
www.constitution.org...

Additionally, I suggest you read Strauss, rather than taking opinions from people who have never read his work. Also try Hume, Locke, and Adam Smith.

The founder of the Neo Con movement was Irving Kristol not Leo Strauss. I do not believe anyone in this thread said such a thing, but I have heard it before and I wanted to "preempt" any such error. If you have ever watched Fox News you would have seen his son Bill Kristol.

Here is a short bio on Irving Kristol:
www.aei.org...

You would also do yourself a favor if your read Trotsky's works as well. Many of the early founders of the Neo Con movement were socialist of the Trotsky or Bolshevik persuasion. Marx is good too. So is Max Shachtman. While not necessary, I would further suggest reading every bit of early socialist writing as possible; A bit of "Know your enemy" never hurts.

So that is it. I have more but I fear I would bore this thread more than I already have. I love when leftist spew the dreaded “Neo-Con”. The hate in that term is ironic. We are simply the combination of both the left and right wing thought. “Fascist”…LOL we are anything but.

If you want a reading list just send me a U2U. I could give you a list that would immunize yourself from weak minds! LOL



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Kidfinger
ITS WORKING! ITS WORKING!

One down, a whole poopload to go


And he doesn't even sense it.... Muahahahahahaha!


Nnnever!
heh heh. By the way, ECK, are you male or female? In the chatroom, some people were saying you were a female.


Just you wait, kiddo.. We'll make a true believer of you yet..


Who said that? Was it little "BEcky?" (Jsobecky) She's one spurned little lady..


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]


Jsobecky is a woman!?!

I pictured that member as a man.....or are y'all joshin' !?

Herman - I think people don't regard your positions with any merit because of your deliberate & hard cast stances , where as all passed the age of 17 know that there is no logical reason to be so comitted. More pointedly, you show a lack of age appropriate wisdom by declaring such definitive positions - at 17, I knew there were scads I didn't know, and I had already been around the world and started working by that age.
To be fair, it's not lost on most that you are rightfully exercising or test driving the theories you put out....if you can't do it here, where can you?

On the thread:

Move passed the qualitative value of labels. I have been marking the path to Mussolini style fascism and the Bush administration's push towards it, since they began.
Fascism was and is a viable political force in this country ......far closer to the power core than communism could ever hope to get. It came within a breath of implementation in the 40's.
Again, fascism is not Nazism. We not a democracy or a republic in the pure sense. What we have now is the actuallity of all political models: a mutation of fascism. It's closest sister is the Mussolini era. But make no mistake, we are a fascist country currently.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Are we truly moving towards Fascism? Or rather are we moving away from socialism. I guess that would depend or your perspective. I would venture a guess that, given your statements, you would say moving towards.

You are correct in that we are neither a Democracy nor a Republic. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic.

But I contend that we are not a Fascist state.
dictionary.reference.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

America does not:
1. Exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
2. Uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
3. Engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
4. Engages in corporatism

But I do see where you are going with this and I ask you: "Is all forms of Socialism bad?" (i.e. from Trotsky-Titoism to Stalin-Leninism)



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium Americana

But I contend that we are not a Fascist state.

America does not:
1. Exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
2.
,
3. Engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
4. Engages in corporatism




Corporatism is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial, and professional groups.

--The average net worth of 15 of the top Bush cabinet officials, including the President and Vice President, in 2001 was between $9.9 and $28.9 million -- more than ten times the average net worth of the cabinet officials who were their immediate predecessors in the outgoing Clinton Administration.

--Overall, the average net worth of the top 100 members of the Bush administration was somewhere between $3.7 million and nearly $12 million.

--Overall, 22 of the top 100 Bush officials had significant holdings in 33 companies that lobbied their departments, agencies or offices.

--Overall, 20 of the top 100 officials in the Bush administration work in departments, agencies or offices that their former, private sector employers lobbied or from which they sought federal contracts in 2001.
Link:
www.public-i.org...

The Pharma industry alone could be studied ad infinitum to see the direct-from-board-room-to-Fed oversight-quid pro quo that has occured, with every weakened law.

Severe Economic & Social Regimentation
In a capitalistic society, access to wealth is the social asscension driver. If real wages have not risen since Bush took office, while the cost of living index has skyrocketed ( there are millions of American with a $50K household income that can no afford health insurance), and the number of those living below the poverty line have dramtically increased, we then have severe economic & social regimentation.

Uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition

Fenced off "Free Speech Zones". Massive arrests for bike riding. Incarceration for peaceful protest. Fed Law suits for TV commercials. Press room boycotts of reporters who print unflatering assessment ( i.e. Molly Ivins). Libertarian candidate qualifed on all 50 state ballots, but was blackballed from getting any press time by decree of the White House. The White House paying talk show hosts to promote them. A Dept. of Disinformation in the Pentagon - aimed at both International & Domestic.

1. Exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual

Those White Evangelicals are at the forefront of American society, thanks to the WH. The presidents lawyer, James Baker, defended Saudi Arabia against American 9/11 victims famalies. Thousands of permanent residents detained , along with CITIZENS, with out formal charge or due process of the law.

A key thing you missed: I stated mutation - it's not pure fascism & the avenues are not screamingly obvious.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Just wondering, this is a question that the vast banks of knowledge in my head cannot answer.

Why is it that all [American] neo-cons lead a terrible economy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a liberal to the core, but I have generally conceded in argument about politics that most conservatives lead a better economy than liberals. Take George W. Bush's economy for example, or Reagan's or even Nixon, all poor economy's. And do you think, that the term 'compassionate conservative' will come to mean neo-con.

Another question: You guys[everyone who agreed], seem to me like paleoconservatives, can we agree?

Also notes:
Most Neo-Cons were powerful speakers, and used to be liberal, or leftist.

The rise neo-conservatives usually mark the decline of a nation. I.E. Nazis, Stalin, Sea Treasury in Greece[led by neo-conservative, who used to be liberal], etc... there are a lot of notes throughtout history, just think about the meaning of NeoCon

Responses are appreciated



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Wow, I didn't even know I was still part of this thread
. I stopped looking at it a while ago! Anyway, I really don't give a crap if you guys disrespect me for my age anymore. I'm tired of it. I should have never told anyone I was 17, cause even if I'm right you just start saying "Oh poor 17 year old, so mis-guided". I don't care anymore, and I'm going to ignore any future disrespectful regards to my age.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
I'm going to ignore any future disrespectful regards to my age.



You don't know anything because you're only 17.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I kind of pushed through this test, but my results came back "Isolationist". I don't agree with these results exactly, but I'm ok with them. I don't like these kind of tests anyway; I don't believe your political alignment can be decided by a series of 10 questions, then narrowed down to only 4 different types of alignment. There's more to it than this. Thanks, Americana, for the links, but I don't think I'm a neo-conservative. I haven't read up on them all that much, but there views are slightly more extreme than mine. I'll read up more throughly, though, and consider it.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaxxofdeath
Just wondering, this is a question that the vast banks of knowledge in my head cannot answer.

Why is it that all [American] neo-cons lead a terrible economy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a liberal to the core, but I have generally conceded in argument about politics that most conservatives lead a better economy than liberals. Take George W. Bush's economy for example, or Reagan's or even Nixon, all poor economy's. And do you think, that the term 'compassionate conservative' will come to mean neo-con.

Another question: You guys[everyone who agreed], seem to me like paleoconservatives, can we agree?

All three of the Presidents you have listed, inherited a broken economy from a Democratic predecessor. Johnson, Carter, Clinton. Both Regan and G.W. Bush's economies were in the tank well before they were elected in to office. The real question is why should we Cons fix the economy if you socialists keep breaking it?
To be fair, I think the importance that people put on the Presidency, in regards to the economy, displays a general lack of comprehension in economics. While a bit of a factor, the Presidency has very little importance in the economic game.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

A key thing you missed: I stated mutation - it's not pure fascism & the avenues are not screamingly obvious.


Possible...I will give you that. But over the last 30 years far more advancement towards socialism has been made than Fascism.

You failed to address my question. I will restate it for you, just in case you missed it:
Is all forms of Socialism bad?" (i.e. from Trotsky-Titoism to Stalin-Leninism)



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
Possible...I will give you that. But over the last 30 years far more advancement towards socialism has been made than Fascism.

You failed to address my question. I will restate it for you, just in case you missed it:
Is all forms of Socialism bad?" (i.e. from Trotsky-Titoism to Stalin-Leninism)



All types of governance models are neither inherently good nor bad - it's the real world application of them that makes them so. In the 'on paper' theory, Trickle Down Economics Capitalism is stellar - in application, it's a nightmare. On paper, Socialism's unversal equality is stellar - in application, some are much more equal than others.
Moving towards an on paper pure form is a baby stepper if ever their was one; over the last 30 years, we've done nothing except enhance New Deal initiaitves....I wouldn't say we've moved towards socialism.
Towards Mussolini Fascism? I think the war propaganda-fear mongering has advanced us there tremendously.

A question for you:

Twin Towers = Reichstag Fire ? ( as a comparative of the after effects & cementing of power for those in control at the time? )



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I think one of the reasons I don't come here all that often is that most of the posts here are simply silly, and this thread is a true exemplar of silliness.

You people get so incredibly caught up in arguing over labels that you seem to miss the basic dividing point that separates people politically. And so you bark incessantly over definitions which makes as much sense a people arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how many Austrian-School economists can dance on the head of an IRS agent.

But the basic political difference is simply a matter of governance. Do you believe that the State (more on the definition of "State" in a minute) has the right to run your life -- or not?

Although you may consider it important to argue over which of your freedoms is is better to lose ('liberals' steal your freedom to keep your property and own your firearms, while "conservatives" steal your freedom to run your private life), the really important thing is that the Statists think stealing your properties and freedoms are acceptable -- and the Individualists believe it doesn't.

And, of course, you Statists argue over which of the thugs is better for us -- the Federal thugs who take our money and send our kids of to fight imperialist wars, or the United Nations thugs who take our money and send our kids to fight imperialist wars.

And meanwhile you argue over what a fascist or a communist or a neo-con is, as if it matters.

You'r just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I think one of the reasons I don't come here all that often is that most of the posts here are simply silly, and this thread is a true exemplar of silliness.


Interesting. Do you think the Jews look back so lightly on the rise of Fascism in Germany?

Perhaps if there had been more people truly aware and willing to stand up and call Fascism what it was/is - EVIL - the holocaust might not have happened.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I don't think that fascism per se has much to do with the murder of European Jews in the 1930's and 1940's.

Fascism is an economic system where there is close cooperation between the state and selected industries. Hitler and his thugs used the Jews as scapegoats for all that was wrong with the world, especially the economic troubles of the Weimar Republic, thinking (correctly, alas) that he could use the Jews -- along with the unfairness of the way Germany lost the first World War -- as a way to focus the energies of the volk.

A communist or even an anarcho-capitalist economic system could've implemented the same terrible things as the fascists did.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join