Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama is no socialist More

Obama is no socialist

Comments Filter:

  • He's just owned by Fascists. Body and soul...

  • I'm severely disappointed, but then, really, what should I have expected?

    Fascism ( /fæzm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics.

    Obama is not a fucking Fascist, and neither was Bush II.

    • You have invoked the wrong definition of "fascism" for this discussion. You seem to have consulted a dictionary or other such reference work, when the only proper source for this definition when talking with a conservative comes from the most influential piece of conservative fiction since Ayn Rand [mckenziebooks.com].

      And of course, much like Rand's works, several people seem to have mistaken this piece of fiction for a guide to living.

      • You have invoked the wrong definition of "fascism" for this discussion.

        Oh yeah :( I completely forgot that political terms as insults are thrown around just because people disagree with ones position. "You don't agree with me? THEN YOU MUST BE A SECRET MUSLIM ADVANCING THE ATHEIST AGENDA!!!" ... wait, what?

        • Oh yeah :( I completely forgot that political terms as insults are thrown around just because people disagree with ones position. "You don't agree with me? THEN YOU MUST BE A SECRET MUSLIM ADVANCING THE ATHEIST AGENDA!!!" ... wait, what?

          You forgot to mention he's also a fascist anarchist, a Jewish member of the knight's templar, a Kenyan robot from Mars, and a Scientologist Illuminati. We may need to send you to the reeducation camp until you get that right.

          • You forgot to mention he's also a fascist anarchist, a Jewish member of the knight's templar, a Kenyan robot from Mars, and a Scientologist Illuminati. We may need to send you to the reeducation camp until you get that right.

            Damn... and I just got out.. I could have sworn I had it right this time. :(

            • You forgot to mention he's also a fascist anarchist, a Jewish member of the knight's templar, a Kenyan robot from Mars, and a Scientologist Illuminati. We may need to send you to the reeducation camp until you get that right.

              Damn... and I just got out.. I could have sworn I had it right this time. :(

              Being as slashdot is an official Glenn Beck re-education camp, you'll get your facts right eventually if you spend enough time here!

              • Being as slashdot is an official Glenn Beck re-education camp, you'll get your facts right eventually if you spend enough time here!

                Eh... I see a healthy population of lefties on slashdot as well. But yeah, some of the stories that get posted are just like "what the fuck reality is this coming from?"

                But then, I suppose, what should one expect? Pudge used to be involved with the actual running of slashdot so...

                • Eh... I see a healthy population of lefties on slashdot as well.

                  If we took a very loose definition of "lefties" - as in, anyone who is less conservative than Dick Cheney - I think there may be about a dozen of us here who regularly post on political matters. In contrast, there are several dozen ardent supporters of ron paul, and several dozens others who view the likes of Dick Cheney as a bleeding heart liberal. I'm not sure that one dozen "lefties" is much of a healthy population by comparison.

                  But yeah, some of the stories that get posted are just like "what the fuck reality is this coming from?"

                  That seems to be at least a weekly occurrence here.

                  But then, I suppose, what should one expect? Pudge used to be involved with the actual running of slashdot so...

                  He was far from the

                  • If we took a very loose definition of "lefties" - as in, anyone who is less conservative than Dick Cheney - I think there may be about a dozen of us here who regularly post on political matters. In contrast, there are several dozen ardent supporters of ron paul, and several dozens others who view the likes of Dick Cheney as a bleeding heart liberal. I'm not sure that one dozen "lefties" is much of a healthy population by comparison.

                    Oh, I don't consider Ron Paul supporters to be right-wingers... I usually consider them to be a completely different direction away from the left. In fact, there are a lot of lefties that support Ron Paul because they agree on his federal-level social policies... (his state-level social policies are hideously discriminatory though). In fact, I would say something like 80% of the Ron Paul fans only agree with 20% of his policies, and ignore the rest just because they want to see someone actually do something

                    • Oh, I don't consider Ron Paul supporters to be right-wingers.

                      I was thinking in particular of slashdotters who worship ron paul; they are almost without exception extreme right-wingers. Indeed there are some exceptions in the wild, but their population is pretty homogeneous here on slashdot.

                      Much like the Bible, the fastest way to convince a person not to support Ron Paul is to have them actually read what he says.

                      It is indeed rather astonishing how few of the paullowers realize that he actually strives to be a fascist dictator; to a degree never before seen or even attempted in the USA. Of course, when you spell it out for your average paullower, they tend to just ignore the facts becau

                    • It is indeed rather astonishing how few of the paullowers realize that he actually strives to be a fascist dictator; to a degree never before seen or even attempted in the USA.

                      Perhaps on the state-level... the only really principle reactionary belief that he holds that is so different from his peers is that he thinks the federal government should be so weak that it is incapable of doing anything, you know... such as enforcing the rights guaranteed to US citizens when they are violated by the state.

                      Of course, when you spell it out for your average paullower, they tend to just ignore the facts because they aren't as enjoyable as their fantasy about mr paul. I'm actually not sure I've ever seen a case where someone went from supporting paul to not just because they read what he actually says; they generally prefer the evangelical approach of taking their favorite bits of his scripture and ignoring the parts they disagree with.

                      But again, just like the evangelicals and the Bible, they're not truly LISTENING to what he and the Bible are actually saying. They totally just hear what they want to hear. So, I suppo

                    • It is indeed rather astonishing how few of the paullowers realize that he actually strives to be a fascist dictator; to a degree never before seen or even attempted in the USA.

                      Perhaps on the state-level.

                      Actually, ron paul is a fascist on all levels. He claims he wants a weak federal government, but then he shows no respect for voters or local politicians either. He wants to eliminate pretty much all of the federal government with the exception of the position he wants to place himself in (which would be better called emperor than president at that point) which would allow him unlimited power for unlimited time. Being as he feels he is properly enlightened to discard voters' wishes and local governmenta

                    • Ok... you've gone overboard here... this is like claiming that Obama is a secret muslim: completely inconsistent with reality.

                      Just because you do not like the guy, or agree with his policies does not mean that he's wants to do what you want him to do. Does he want to cut 5 departments right out of the gate? Yes, because he doesn't understand what they do, or why they do it. But that still leaves 10 other departments in place.

                      He also wants to cut the IRS, and eliminate all taxes. At that point, he won't be a

                    • Ok... you've gone overboard here... this is like claiming that Obama is a secret muslim: completely inconsistent with reality.

                      How is pointing out the outcomes of electing somreone who openly despises democracy inconsistent with reality?

                      Just because you do not like the guy, or agree with his policies does not mean that he's wants to do what you want him to do

                      I'm not changing his to-do list, I am going directly from what he has said himself.

                      Does he want to cut 5 departments right out of the gate? Yes, because he doesn't understand what they do, or why they do it. But that still leaves 10 other departments in place.

                      The first five will be formally destroyed. The other 10 will have their budgets cut to zero and experience destruction by the purse.

                      He wants to destabilize the federal government and watch it crumb. He doesn't want to become emperor, and you're an idiot for suggesting as such.

                      you've read enough of what ron paul says and stands for. He thoroughly distrusts democracy, and wants to dismantle the government from the top. If you're on top of an organization -

                    • I'm not changing his to-do list, I am going directly from what he has said himself.

                      Oh? Please find the quote where he says that he wants to be installed as emperor... no, go ahead, I'll wait.

                      The first five will be formally destroyed. The other 10 will have their budgets cut to zero and experience destruction by the purse.

                      As noted, because he will cut the IRS, and all taxes. This also means that HE WON'T GET A SALARY.

                      I think what he rather wishes to accomplish is to make the federal government truly incompetent, and then it can finally be killed, and (to paraphrase) the civil war will finally be won by the confederates, because states can secede, and he won't be able to lift a finger to stop it.

                      There's no power left fo

                    • Oh? Please find the quote where he says that he wants to be installed as emperor... no, go ahead, I'll wait.

                      He has said he wants to be president. He has said he wants to eliminate the rest of the federal government. He has shown that he does not respect the will of the people or democracy in general. Put all those together and you have an emperor. It's not difficult.

                      As noted, because he will cut the IRS, and all taxes. This also means that HE WON'T GET A SALARY.

                      He'll still get paid. He's smart enough to ensure that. Either paid by the corporations whose taxes he changes to negative numbers, or just by the funds from his cult. He just won't get the usual federal paycheck that the current POTUS receiv

                    • I think the only emperor-like thing I've heard him express was in one of the debates, where he indignantly basically said that as president he would be CINC and would immediately end all the wars no matter what his generals advised. As in, not get all the facts and weigh them and carefully decide, but act like an emperor ruling on fiat.

                      And I don't know if his supporters are so much pick-and-choosers or denialists as they are people who might be so starved for extremism on some thing(s) that to them it way o

                    • I think the only emperor-like thing I've heard him express was in one of the debates, where he indignantly basically said that as president he would be CINC and would immediately end all the wars no matter what his generals advised. As in, not get all the facts and weigh them and carefully decide, but act like an emperor ruling on fiat.

                      He has shown pretty well no respect for democracy or the will of the voter, he is fine with subjugating that to bring his will about even if the voting populace is opposed to it.

                      He also has numerous proposals as part of his "revolution" (as his super pac calls it) that require him to use powers that are not granted to the president - particularly with regards to the numbers of federal government departments that he wants to eliminate.

                      And I don't know if his supporters are so much pick-and-choosers or denialists as they are people who might be so starved for extremism on some thing(s) that to them it way outweighs his extremism on other things that is greatly disagreeable.

                      As snowgirl pointed out, a significant number of paullowers are extrem

                    • This "Emperor Paul" bullshit seriously needs to stop. It's irrational, and completely unhinged from reality.

                    • You keep saying along the lines that he's for thwarting democracy and subjugating the will of the people to his, yet I haven't seen you offer any support for it. And I've only heard him talk about limiting govt. power and respecting individual liberty. So I've only seen evidence against what you're saying and none for it, so I can only rule out what you're saying about this at this time, until you can provide examples of intended tyranny.

                      On the prez not having the power to eliminate the number of federal de

                    • I respect your right to speak your mind. I do not understand why you do not extend the same to me. I do not dismiss what you say as "bullshit", even if I disagree with it.

                    • I respect your right to speak your mind. I do not understand why you do not extend the same to me. I do not dismiss what you say as "bullshit", even if I disagree with it.

                      Because exaggerating claims and making straw man arguments in order to attack someone who doesn't need any straw to make him easy to attack only makes his rabid fanbase even more likely to reject everything you have to say on the matter.

                      There are plenty of dictators that come to power in a presidential system, and then use the enormous power of the executive to dismantle democratic freedoms. However, I do not suspect Ron Paul to have a desire to dismantle the legislature, or the courts (put severe restricti

                    • You have shown you do not want to have this conversation with me. When you openly declare someone else's argument to be bullshit, you plainly demonstrate you don't care what they have to say. It doesn't matter what I say in response to you from this point forward.
                    • There is no point in continuing this discussion, or any other discussion, with you Bill Dog. Ever since you have adopted the townhall.com style of monologue here on slashdot, your replies have become entirely formulaic. I can tell you that regardless of what I might write next, your reply would break down to some variation of "stupid young people" "stupid democrats" "stupid commies" "stupid socialists" "stupid non-conservatives" "stupid stupid stupid stupids". Ever since you decided that every problem th

                    • Presidente for Life is the normal title for Banana Republics, which the US is rapidly becoming. And which are usually extreme libertarian.

                    • Presidente for Life is the normal title for Banana Republics, which the US is rapidly becoming. And which are usually extreme libertarian.

                      President for Life is common in _ALL_ presidential systems. When nations switch to democracy, usually they have one of two choices: Presidential system, and Parliamentarian system.

                      Those that choose the Presidential system usually descend into a brand-new dictatorship.

                      Those that choose the Parliamentarian system usually descend into constant bickering and votes of no confidence that disassemble the government, and require them to hold new elections to replace the people who were just elected 6 months ago.

                    • So nothing works, basically?

                    • So nothing works, basically?

                      Eh... the US presidential system hasn't descended into dictatorship yet. And Germany got around the Parliamentarian system's problem, by requiring any binding vote of no confidence to be a constructive vote of no confidence (meaning, you have to put someone up to form a new government, if you're kicking out the old government. You can't just kick it back to the elections). As well, England doesn't typically use the vote of no confidence too often, and holds reasonably regular elections.

                      It tends to be a trad

                    • Well, since you've decided to go personal here [BTW, how not at all totally characteristic of the Left] instead of simply providing specifics on why you think RP wants to be as an emperor, I'll examine these:

                      * "townhall.com style of monologue" - I don't go to "townhall.com" so I'd need something a little more descriptive to be able to evaluate this. Obviously you know something more than I know here, so maybe you're right.

                      * "your replies have become entirely formulaic" - I would agree there's a lot of truth

                  • " others who view the likes of Dick Cheney as a bleeding heart liberal"

                    That's me. Strangely enough given my handle which is from college when I thought engineering could solve any problem, including economic problems. Actually, I still do, I've just modified my theories to take into account the idea that true Liberty can only be achieved by owning enough property to "free" it from social constraints of the neighbors.

    • You should only be half-disappointed, because the application of the term is only half wrong. Obama, and the Left in general, is fascist minus the nationalism:

      Radical authoritarian political ideology: Check
      Appeal to a (faux) united (Lefty) cultural identity: Check
      Towards a totalitarian, single-party state: Check
      Seeks the mass mobilization of a population through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics: Check

      The only difference is that the Left hates this nation, because of things like o

      • Radical authoritarian political ideology: Check
        Appeal to a (faux) united (Lefty) cultural identity: Check
        Towards a totalitarian, single-party state: Check
        Seeks the mass mobilization of a population through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics: Check

        Confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]... read about it. Your arguments are crap, but since you can seemingly ignore all the evidence AGAINST your argument, the only arguments that stand in your mind are arguments for.

        The only difference is that the Left hates this nation

        We don't hate this nation. We think it can be better. Now, unless you think that the US is perfection, then answer me this: what would you change? If you said anything, then you don't think the USA is perfect either, and you're advancing an agenda of change as well.

        Bush II was pretty fascist actually.

        Bush II happily ceded the government over to his

        • Okay, Bush II was pretty fascist for America. Howzat? :)

        • "We don't hate this nation. We think it can be better. Now, unless you think that the US is perfection, then answer me this: what would you change? If you said anything, then you don't think the USA is perfect either, and you're advancing an agenda of change as well."

          And that, is pretty much my definition of eugenics.

          • "We don't hate this nation. We think it can be better. Now, unless you think that the US is perfection, then answer me this: what would you change? If you said anything, then you don't think the USA is perfect either, and you're advancing an agenda of change as well."

            And that, is pretty much my definition of eugenics.

            WTF? How is advocating for better social programs eugenics? Do you need the definition of that as well?

            Eugenics is not "american government policy can be better" it's "american PEOPLE can be better if only we breed them appropriately".

            • How much different from eugenics is what the Left is trying for, like how much different is hate from how the Left feels about America.

              Certainly the Left is trying to control birthrates among non-whites. That is, among whites, the secular Left are already voluntarily opting to procreate less, and I haven't picked up on much criticism of the religious Right for (for some inexplicable reason) continuing to want to have families, except for a little of the usual derision of "family values" and what they choos

              • The Left is seeking to reduce the number of babies that are born to UNPREPARED families. That's also why the Left has voluntarily reduced their own birthrates, because they don't want to have more kids than they're prepared to handle.

                Now, guess which socio-economic group of people are more likely to be unprepared to have children? Teenagers, and the poor. Now, as it just so happens, due to economic disadvantages blacks, and other minorities are over-represented among the poor.

                And why is the Left supporting

              • I would point out that a certain group of left-wingers (based on the collectivist/individualist definition of left-right) also find such picking and choosing to be "scary as hell"- and therefore spend their time advocating for the disabled, and the lower IQ individuals to get *more* support (and not be killed in the womb as a matter of "compassionate health care").

            • Which is what many better social programs are aiming for. By picking and choosing who gets nutrition and who gets birth control instead, who gets merit based scholarships and who gets free abortions, there has been a subtle breeding program going on in America since the 1920s.

    • Could have fooled me- both are seeking one people in a national identity limited to two political parties and supraersonal connections- their two parties really look like one party from the outside- indoctrination in capitalism and feminism are central to both, physical education is a component of both, and whether you're talking elimination of welfare on the right or economics based abortion on the left, you're really talking class based eugenics.

      But I was going with Mussolini's definition of fascism: an

      • an alliance between business and government to oppress the people

        Sometimes the alliance is not specifically to oppress people, but that that's just a side effect of it. Take eminent domain abuses for example. It's not about screwing some old lady out of her house, it's about co-enriching developers and city council members.

        Sometimes it helps people. Like the Military-Industrial Complex. That alliance has created a lot of jobs, and ones that can often be much more stable than a pure private sector job. It's

        • Usually, the side effect of government messing around in the market place, is that *somebody* gets oppressed. I may not be convinced that a totally free, unregulated market will not oppress on it's own, and I may think we need to start planting more food species in national parks so that the basic needs of a human being can be met without employment and outside of the market (though not without work- somebody's got to do the foraging/harvesting), but certainly anytime the government gets into *finished goo

          • we've got to keep having these wars to use up the output of that sector.

            Nonsense -- newer tech obsoleting older tech is enough to keep it going without any bloodshed, and retains us our military edge. I think the new perpetual war paradigm is for no other reason than to wear down the American populace to become desensitized and docile to an overreaching central govt. At least that's the only reason I can think of for BHO to continue on and even expand what GW had wrought.

            And you should never be convinced th

            • newer tech obsoleting older tech is enough to keep it going without any bloodshed,

              THAT has it's natural limits, I believe. We haven't quite reached them yet, but it is coming. Just as an old DOS computer is fine if all you want to do is word processing and e-mail, eventually we'll hit the wall on "useful" tech to the subject of the battlefield as well. I'm not sure what that will be- some form of autonomous robotics/drones based 3D minefield, probably, but at some point our technology will be be

              • eventually we'll hit the wall on "useful" tech

                There may be diminishing returns, but there is no wall to be hit.

                isn't it the entire claim of the free market "Invisible hand" believers that [a totally free, unregulated market] wouldn't [oppress on its own]?

                I don't have a feel for what's a good generalization about free market "Invisible hand" believers wrt this. I don't know if a majority of people who generally side with American-style capitalism would rather instead have laissez-faire capitalism. It may be

Slashdot Top Deals

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Close