AOC calls on the government to ban Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts

Diesel said:
She didn't say anyone should be banned. She said incitement of violence should have consequences. That might include banning, but the better question is why you disagree.
Click to expand...

Simple; because these Marxist morons think they should define what is incitement and acceptable speech. Is Biden inciting lunatics when he claims MAGA voters are the greatest threat to the Republic?

A better question is why would anyone with a brain agree with AOC?
 
Diesel said:
They're mostly full time gaslighters at this point. They will say whatever they think will annoy a lib even if their claim is obvious, verifiable bullshit. It's not worth talking to the alt right anymore.
Click to expand...

Yes, Democrats are uber gaslighters. They do say whatever they think will annoy Trump supporters and normal Americans. Yes, your posts typically are verifiable bullshit and laughably moronic.
 
Guille said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Okay Guillermo, please explain to the reading audience EXACTLY what was untrue about ANY of the links I provided. Also, you simplistic personal definition leaves out a hell of a lot of detail....simpletons would readily accept it. Fortunately, we have REAL historians and Social scientist (they use to teach social studies in school...I wonder what they teach now?). I'll pick this up tomorrow.
Click to expand...

His problem with your link wasn't that it was "untrue", it was that it was information free.

Par for the course for you. I don't believe you know what fascism is.
Click to expand...

translation: Guillermo picks up the gauntlet for another poster, yet he CANNOT meet a simple request regarding his initial assertion ... of which he just regurgitates here his personal interpretation of what TAG was thinking....NOT what in my links he can logically & factually prove to be "complete shit".

That's the problem with right wing/MAGA wonks .... was put on the spot to logically and factually explain/prover their SPECIFIC assertions, they instead double down on generalities, dodges and then project their own short comings on others. They only convince themselves and the jokers they see in the mirror,

The chronology of the posts exposes TDG's errors. Guillermo just adds bluff & buster to that failure. Typical of him, of which he now embellish in up coming posts.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And there you have it, dear readers. Sheer willful ignorance in the rejection of definitions of a term that this MAGA mook incorrectly used. Now he trie to avoid conceding a point with this lame stall tactic. Let me just pull the rug out from under this:


What Is A Fascist Economy?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...t-economy.html


What Is Fascism?

https://world101.cfr.org/historical-...dual citizen.


Okay readers, brace yourself for a deluge of revisionist clap trap from one of our resident MAGA mooks.
Click to expand...


Okay. You wasted five minutes or so of my time with those links and I want that time back. There was not a single quantifiable thing in either. In fact, they both were so vague as to be nearly useless. Both were the usual blather using random examples with no comparative analysis. The articles were nearly worthless as a result.
Click to expand...

translation: TAG couldn't logically or factually refute the content of the links. So he makes various general claims (pure opinion) while avoiding ANY specific examples to support said claims (that would require comprehensive reading of the offered material). In short, TAG is doing a junior version of the Orange Oaf's "fake news" bleating.

Posts #190 and #223, for readers interested in an honest debate.
 
Taichiliberal said:
translation: TAG couldn't logically or factually refute the content of the links. So he makes various general claims (pure opinion) while avoiding ANY specific examples to support said claims (that would require comprehensive reading of the offered material). In short, TAG is doing a junior version of the Orange Oaf's "fake news" bleating.

Posts #190 and #223, for readers interested in an honest debate.
Click to expand...

In all cases, they didn't have anything quantitative or comparative in them. Instead, they used subjective data. How can I readily and accurately refute an opinion based on subjective values?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
translation: TAG couldn't logically or factually refute the content of the links. So he makes various general claims (pure opinion) while avoiding ANY specific examples to support said claims (that would require comprehensive reading of the offered material). In short, TAG is doing a junior version of the Orange Oaf's "fake news" bleating.

Posts #190 and #223, for readers interested in an honest debate.
Click to expand...


In all cases, they didn't have anything quantitative or comparative in them. Instead, they used subjective data. How can I readily and accurately refute an opinion based on subjective values?
Click to expand...

An intellectually impotent/dishonest MAGA mook doubling down on his own BS. :rolleyes:

My previous response stands. I leave this MAGA mook to be told by his reflection and fellow mooks of his "win" here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
An intellectually impotent/dishonest MAGA mook doubling down on his own BS. :rolleyes:

My previous response stands. I leave this MAGA mook to be told by his reflection and fellow mooks of his "win" here.
Click to expand...

Well, then, here's my take on your first link:

Let’s take one of two of Tachi’s links and examine it, in part, to show what I mean about their being vapid, opinion, based on drivel. Remember, Tachi claims they are objective and factual…

What Is Fascism?
Fascism is a governmental system based on authoritarian nationalism. Although there is no specific definition of fascism, its practice typically shares the same principle beliefs of anti-communism, anti-liberalism, and anti-conservatism. Its politics are often able to gain widespread support by proposing the idea of national rebirth. This idea suggests that the current society has reached moral decay and must be cleansed. Supporters of fascism believe that the government should function under a single party in order to become more efficient and effective in order to respond quickly to military threats or economic problems. The leader under fascism is often a dictator and public officials are often of military background. This type of government first became popular in Europe during the early 1900’s.
Click to expand...
From:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-a-fascist-economy.html

The first sentence is declarative. It also argues that Fascism is Leftist being authoritarian. Nationalism can be Left or Right, it isn’t a one-or-the-other proposition.
Nationalist Communism is as much a thing as Internationalist Communism, or even Fascist Communism (China today). They are both nationalist and totalitarian. The best example in existence is N. Korea.
The Murba Party (communists 1948 to about 1975) of Indonesia is another example.
The article then claims three specific beliefs.
Anti-communist. Mussolini and Stalin formed the formal and close Red-Black alliance in the 30’s. Explain that. Mussolini, for example had Italian naval engineers designing battleships for Stalin’s grandiose naval fleet.
https://ia801305.us.archive.org/11/...ck Alliance Fascist-Communist Cooperation.pdf
Hitler and Stalin had considerable trade and other friendly interactions until Hitler decided to invade Russia scheming to get more power. Hardly the first time one dictator turned on another. Hitler’s invasion was about a land grab, not ending communism, so this idea by the article is a definite fail.

Next, it is supposed anti-liberal and anti-conservative. I can’t figure out how a fascist government can be against both the Left AND Right at the same time, but…

Yet, Fascist governments have supported numerous liberal / leftist ideas including:

Anti-tobacco
Pro abortion
Pro gun control
Pro public transit, particularly trains
In favor of taxing the rich and wealth confiscation
Loves to build grandiose public works and public work programs
Practices statist capitalism, a form of Socialism
The rest of the paragraph is just blather.

The article, intended or not, shows Fascism is LEFTIST in nature.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, then, here's my take on your first link:

Let’s take one of two of Tachi’s links and examine it, in part, to show what I mean about their being vapid, opinion, based on drivel. Remember, Tachi claims they are objective and factual…


From:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-a-fascist-economy.html

The first sentence is declarative. It also argues that Fascism is Leftist being authoritarian. Nationalism can be Left or Right, it isn’t a one-or-the-other proposition.
Nationalist Communism is as much a thing as Internationalist Communism, or even Fascist Communism (China today). They are both nationalist and totalitarian. The best example in existence is N. Korea.
The Murba Party (communists 1948 to about 1975) of Indonesia is another example.
The article then claims three specific beliefs.
Anti-communist. Mussolini and Stalin formed the formal and close Red-Black alliance in the 30’s. Explain that. Mussolini, for example had Italian naval engineers designing battleships for Stalin’s grandiose naval fleet.
https://ia801305.us.archive.org/11/...ck Alliance Fascist-Communist Cooperation.pdf
Hitler and Stalin had considerable trade and other friendly interactions until Hitler decided to invade Russia scheming to get more power. Hardly the first time one dictator turned on another. Hitler’s invasion was about a land grab, not ending communism, so this idea by the article is a definite fail.

Next, it is supposed anti-liberal and anti-conservative. I can’t figure out how a fascist government can be against both the Left AND Right at the same time, but…

Yet, Fascist governments have supported numerous liberal / leftist ideas including:

Anti-tobacco
Pro abortion
Pro gun control
Pro public transit, particularly trains
In favor of taxing the rich and wealth confiscation
Loves to build grandiose public works and public work programs
Practices statist capitalism, a form of Socialism
The rest of the paragraph is just blather.

The article, intended or not, shows Fascism is LEFTIST in nature.
Click to expand...

:whoa: :palm: YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE FIRST SENTENCE (a moot point). The rest of your screed is pure revisionist "logic" on your part, as there is no "argument" based on the FACTS that Hitler and Stalin were buddies doing trade and such. Perhaps you should avail yourself to the history of WWI, then you would understand why there was a "non-aggression" pact signed by the 2 countries (that Hitler latter broke) by WW2. A similar situation with Mussolini (diplomatic relations by chancellors) that went out the window when Mussolini hooked up with Hitler by WWII.

Had you done your homework (paid attention in school), you would have noted that communist were on the hit list of fascist Germany and Italy. And what's truly laughable is your attempt to paint fascism as a "liberal" by pointing to such things as "public transportation" (it wasn't for free, don't cha know). Or public works programs (necessary for an economy near depression, similar to the latter WPA program in America), anti-tobacco (get educated on America's discovery of the tobacco industry lying about health hazards, the FDA & Nader).

Hell, our constitution is liberal at it's base....rights for all, freedom for all, on par legal protections, right to bear arms, etc. Yet we are a die hard DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, not fascist or communist or even socialist to a large degree. Capitalism is America's supporting strut.

As for Hitler's & Mussolini's fascism: https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/6/2/article-p127_127.xml?language=en

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism .... they all share some rudimentary trait necessary to maintain a functioning society....HOW THEY DO SO in their entirety is a whole other smoke.

So bottom line: Capitalism does not automatically equal fascism or totalitarianism. Socialism does not automatically equal communism. Communism does not automatically equal totalitarianism per se, as there are various degrees of such that can be applied to "strong man" gov't like Libya under Ghaddafi as opposed to China's former "gang of four". Capice'?
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:whoa: :palm: YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE FIRST SENTENCE (a moot point). The rest of your screed is pure revisionist "logic" on your part, as there is no "argument" based on the FACTS that Hitler and Stalin were buddies doing trade and such. Perhaps you should avail yourself to the history of WWI, then you would understand why there was a "non-aggression" pact signed by the 2 countries (that Hitler latter broke) by WW2. A similar situation with Mussolini (diplomatic relations by chancellors) that went out the window when Mussolini hooked up with Hitler by WWII.

Had you done your homework (paid attention in school), you would have noted that communist were on the hit list of fascist Germany and Italy. And what's truly laughable is your attempt to paint fascism as a "liberal" by pointing to such things as "public transportation" (it wasn't for free, don't cha know). Or public works programs (necessary for an economy near depression, similar to the latter WPA program in America), anti-tobacco (get educated on America's discovery of the tobacco industry lying about health hazards, the FDA & Nader).

Hell, our constitution is liberal at it's base....rights for all, freedom for all, on par legal protections, right to bear arms, etc. Yet we are a die hard DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, not fascist or communist or even socialist to a large degree. Capitalism is America's supporting strut.

As for Hitler's & Mussolini's fascism: https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/6/2/article-p127_127.xml?language=en

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism .... they all share some rudimentary trait necessary to maintain a functioning society....HOW THEY DO SO in their entirety is a whole other smoke.

So bottom line: Capitalism does not automatically equal fascism or totalitarianism. Socialism does not automatically equal communism. Communism does not automatically equal totalitarianism per se, as there are various degrees of such that can be applied to "strong man" gov't like Libya under Ghaddafi as opposed to China's former "gang of four". Capice'?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should actually READ the links you post. That one on Brill, is all about German-Italian relations in the Hitler-Mussolini period with a discussion about racism tossed in. It has nothing to do with Italian-Russian (Soviet) relations.

As for the rest of your screed, it is nothing but a factless rehash of the same talking points you've previously made with no supporting evidence. It is nothing but a Definist fallacy where you expect everyone to simply agree that you are correct because that's the 'common wisdom' or some other nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top