APP - Defend Citizens United

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Dixie, you are old enough to know times change, power changes, everything changes and sometimes not for the best.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist... We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?36906-Free-the-Corporations

When they send corporations to jail for criminal behavior I'll reconsider the dumb idea that a group can become a single thing. Groups are great things, in groups there is often no single person at fault.

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy'

If our body politic is truly "free and inalienable" as we proclaim it to be, how can we define group designations and discriminate against those groups based on stereotypical perceptions? You want to depict "corporations" as some monolithic evil force or entity, naturally inclined to destroy man, and thus, not worthy of political consideration in any way. How is that different from our ancestors who argued that slaves weren't people and didn't deserve constitutional consideration? How is that different from our ancestors denying women the right to vote, based on the "group" we've put them in, and defined by stereotype? And finally.... what about all the thriving 'corporations' out there, devoted to liberal causes and concerns, supportive of unions and special interests? Do you REALLY think they shouldn't have ANY influence or voice in politics? I find that very difficult to believe.

What you want, is to vilify 'corporations' and brainwash the masses into seeing them as you do, lumbering juggernauts of destruction, trampling the spirit of humankind, as they were programmed to do by the evil capitalists. Certainly, THEIR viewpoint would be self-serving, corporations are greedy, cold and ruthless, they have no regard for humanity whatsoever. By dehumanizing them, you can destroy the rights of those who advocate for them, and thus... destroy the corporation itself. In the process, you establish that our rights are not, in fact, inalienable, but indeed, very alienable, depending on group classification and stereotyped perception. That's a dangerous viewpoint to entertain.
 
I think somebody is confusing totalitarianism and dictator with fascism.

Fascism is a fusion of business and government.

Totalitarianism is what Dixie is talking about, where a leader or a group decides by fiat without regard to rights, to courts, or constitution.

A dictator is when the government power is wholly in the hands of one person.
 
I think somebody is confusing totalitarianism and dictator with fascism.

Fascism is a fusion of business and government.

Totalitarianism is what Dixie is talking about, where a leader or a group decides by fiat without regard to rights, to courts, or constitution.

A dictator is when the government power is wholly in the hands of one person.

I think somebody has a seriously narrow and shallow interpretation of Fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek elevation 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 and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.[3][4] Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.[5]
Fascists have commonly presented themselves as politically syncretic—opposing firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs,[6][7] though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior has been noted as being a prominent far-right stance.[8] Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and the two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy.[9] To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[10] Fascism promotes political violence and war as forms of direct action that promote national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.[3][11] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations to commit or threaten violence against their opponents.[12]
The fascist party is a vanguard party designed to initiate a revolution from above and to organize the nation upon fascist principles.[13] The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions.[14] Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy.[15][16] Fascists claim that their ideology is a trans-class movement, advocating resolution to domestic class conflict within a nation to secure national solidarity.[17] It claims that its goal of cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into proletarian national culture.[17] While fascism opposes domestic class conflict, fascism believes that bourgeois-proletarian conflict primarily exists in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations; fascism declares its opposition to bourgeois nations and declares its support for the victory of proletarian nations.[18]
Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy, the principle economic goal of fascism is to achieve national autarky to secure national independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[19] It promotes the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation, but where private enterprise and private property are failing, inefficient, or unable to fulfill fascist goals, it supports the use of state enterprise and state property in those circumstances.[19] At the same time, fascists are hostile to financial capital, plutocracy, and "the power of money".[19] It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial to the national community.[20]


.....Wow..... That's a whole lot more than just "fusion of business and government."
 
Or for a more concise definition;

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.
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.
If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography;


The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)
Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.
Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:
The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)
Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.
Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.
In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.
It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
 
Dixie, et al, you do something I find fascinating, you take liberal argument and twist it to defend your own orthodoxy. The rhetorical transformation of arguments for civil rights, voting rights, and women's rights now comes to defend corporations and big money - among other things. I would be interested in tracing this change, but I hear it frequently today in right wing and conservative argument. You think maybe a little welfare would help them? Was the bailout enough? Or maybe food stamps for the CEOs? These poor souls need more respect. Gosh, my liberal heart cries for these poor corporations - not.

No one is demonizing corporations, no one hates corporations, corporations are simply abstractions for organizations that have one goal today: to make money. Nothing wrong with that. I happen to work for one and it has provided a lifestyle that few Americans can approach. But I am lucky I started long ago when corporations respected the rights of workers, supported the nation, and provided benefits for all, oh, and didn't outsource jobs only to pad their own pockets with additional lucre. Nor did they have so much influence over our representatives and our courts. Defend them if you like, use liberal arguments to make them personal, but realize in doing so you often defend policies that are often immoral and sometimes illegal.

Conservatives are an odd bunch, you proclaim to be pro life but do nothing for the living, you proclaim to be pro individual but worship corporations, you proclaim to be religious but support policies that are the opposite of the Christian values I grew up with. In your fight against a fair wage, justice, equality, respect, and dignity for all Americans, you take sides with power because power supports your side. The ideas of conservative think tanks have so managed the idea environment of the right that today abstractions become people and are then defended regardless of what they are or what they do.


http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?35351-Republican-Ideology-through-History
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?41846-America-s-Religious-Terrorists
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?27455-Rich-And-Poor-Jobs-And-Wages


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home -but not for housing. They are strong for labor - but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage - the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all - but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine - for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing - but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing - so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it." Harry S. Truman
 
Or for a more concise definition;

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.
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.
If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography;


The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)
Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.
Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:
The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)
Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.
Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.
In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.
It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

.....Wow..... That's a whole lot more than just "fusion of business and government." :D
 
Dixie, et al, you do something I find fascinating, you take liberal argument and twist it to defend your own orthodoxy. The rhetorical transformation of arguments for civil rights, voting rights, and women's rights now comes to defend corporations and big money - among other things. I would be interested in tracing this change, but I hear it frequently today in right wing and conservative argument. You think maybe a little welfare would help them? Was the bailout enough? Or maybe food stamps for the CEOs? These poor souls need more respect. Gosh, my liberal heart cries for these poor corporations - not.

No one is demonizing corporations, no one hates corporations, corporations are simply abstractions for organizations that have one goal today: to make money. Nothing wrong with that. I happen to work for one and it has provided a lifestyle that few Americans can approach. But I am lucky I started long ago when corporations respected the rights of workers, supported the nation, and provided benefits for all, oh, and didn't outsource jobs only to pad their own pockets with additional lucre. Nor did they have so much influence over our representatives and our courts. Defend them if you like, use liberal arguments to make them personal, but realize in doing so you often defend policies that are often immoral and sometimes illegal.

Conservatives are an odd bunch, you proclaim to be pro life but do nothing for the living, you proclaim to be pro individual but worship corporations, you proclaim to be religious but support policies that are the opposite of the Christian values I grew up with. In your fight against a fair wage, justice, equality, respect, and dignity for all Americans, you take sides with power because power supports your side. The ideas of conservative think tanks have so managed the idea environment of the right that today abstractions become people and are then defended regardless of what they are or what they do.


http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?35351-Republican-Ideology-through-History
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?41846-America-s-Religious-Terrorists
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?27455-Rich-And-Poor-Jobs-And-Wages


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home -but not for housing. They are strong for labor - but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage - the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all - but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine - for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing - but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing - so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it." Harry S. Truman

Aww.. good old predictable midcan. Whenever he is pwned in debate, we get the typical emo-cynical rant about the hopelessness of humanity.
 
.....Wow..... That's a whole lot more than just "fusion of business and government." :D

Let us distill it to the comments of the primary architects:

Mussolini;The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Hitler;
The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

See any kind of commonality Dix?
 
Aww.. good old predictable midcan. Whenever he is pwned in debate, we get the typical emo-cynical rant about the hopelessness of humanity.

Did you read the post? Its' basically a bunch of really awesome slams against the republican mindset.
 
Let us distill it to the comments of the primary architects:

Mussolini;The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Hitler;
The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

See any kind of commonality Dix?

You mean with Obama? Sure, lots of commonality there... was that the argument?
 
You mean with Obama? Sure, lots of commonality there... was that the argument?

No. The comments by Hitler and Mussolini prove Asshat and Damo are correct. To be clear, fascism is a totalitarian form of government, but the US has not been facist for 200 years, as you claim, but rather is moving that way now.

CU is a giant step on the road to true facism, which is why liberals vehemently oppose it.
 
Did you read the post? Its' basically a bunch of really awesome slams against the republican mindset.

Yes, I always read midcan's posts. Like I said, it is typical midcan... whenever he is defeated in debate, he reels off an emotive 'woe is us' rant in typical cynical fashion, and then disappears. He'll probably be back, with Chapter 2, at a later time. This is why midcan is such a pleasure to debate, you know exactly when he has conceded the argument, because the trademark emo-rant begins [edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. The comments by Hitler and Mussolini prove Asshat and Damo are correct. To be clear, fascism is a totalitarian form of government, but the US has not been facist for 200 years, as you claim, but rather is moving that way now.

CU is a giant step on the road to true facism, which is why liberals vehemently oppose it.

I never claimed the US was fascist, that was AssHate's argument...and apparently yours as well.

Again--- The Citizens United case was brought against a law passed in 2002, before that, what they did wasn't against the law. So, if we are fascists now, we were fascists before 2002 as well. I personally don't believe we were fascists then, and we aren't fascist now, and we're not moving any closer to fascism than we were in 2002, before the challenged law was passed.

Rune: Hitler and Mussolini prove Asshat and Damo are correct--- nice company you keep there, Damo! How does it feel to be on the same page as Rune and AssHat? As my wiki link shows (and Rune's description as well), Fascism comprises a LOT more than mere government connection to business. To be such a shallow-minded twit, you have to completely ignore about two pages of intricate definition. But hey... look who all agrees with you, Damo!
 
I never claimed the US was fascist, that was AssHate's argument...and apparently yours as well.

Again--- The Citizens United case was brought against a law passed in 2002, before that, what they did wasn't against the law. So, if we are fascists now, we were fascists before 2002 as well. I personally don't believe we were fascists then, and we aren't fascist now, and we're not moving any closer to fascism than we were in 2002, before the challenged law was passed.

Rune: Hitler and Mussolini prove Asshat and Damo are correct--- nice company you keep there, Damo! How does it feel to be on the same page as Rune and AssHat? As my wiki link shows (and Rune's description as well), Fascism comprises a LOT more than mere government connection to business. To be such a shallow-minded twit, you have to completely ignore about two pages of intricate definition. But hey... look who all agrees with you, Damo!

It's definitely in a fascist direction. And it's what I would call Internationalist Fascism, because the corporations and trade policies don't center around unifying and strengthening the country in any conceivable way, but rahter, corporations are incented to destroy the country, based on globalist thinking which forces free people to compete econonomically with overseas slaves in state subsidized workcamps, thus destroying our middle class.
 
It's definitely in a fascist direction. And it's what I would call Internationalist Fascism, because the corporations and trade policies don't center around unifying and strengthening the country in any conceivable way, but rahter, corporations are incented to destroy the country, based on globalist thinking which forces free people to compete econonomically with overseas slaves in state subsidized workcamps, thus destroying our middle class.

It wasn't a fascist decision, and doesn't move us any closer to fascism than we might have been before 2002. Corporations are comprised of individuals, and the court found they had the inalienable right to speak freely, regardless of their affiliation as a corporation. The counter-argument is more fascist, in that it maintains the state authorities can limit the rights of these groups to have a political voice (see Totalitarian Fascism).

And you can have whatever paranoid thinking you like about corporations, but it makes no logical sense. If a corporation is concerned at all with making a profit for itself and it's shareholders, you'd think they wouldn't want to destroy the consumers who they depend upon to buy their products, wouldn't you? I mean, a reasonable and rational person might think, a corporation would benefit from the people prospering and doing economically well, perhaps? But you say, they exist solely to destroy the middle class and drive everyone into poverty? Well then, who are to be their customers in the future? Obviously, if they have destroyed us all, and ruined us financially, we can't possibly afford to buy whatever they have to sell as a corporation... so what was the point of them destroying us? Do you see how what you are saying makes no logical sense whatsoever?
 
It wasn't a fascist decision, and doesn't move us any closer to fascism than we might have been before 2002. Corporations are comprised of individuals, and the court found they had the inalienable right to speak freely, regardless of their affiliation as a corporation. The counter-argument is more fascist, in that it maintains the state authorities can limit the rights of these groups to have a political voice (see Totalitarian Fascism).

And you can have whatever paranoid thinking you like about corporations, but it makes no logical sense. If a corporation is concerned at all with making a profit for itself and it's shareholders, you'd think they wouldn't want to destroy the consumers who they depend upon to buy their products, wouldn't you? I mean, a reasonable and rational person might think, a corporation would benefit from the people prospering and doing economically well, perhaps? But you say, they exist solely to destroy the middle class and drive everyone into poverty? Well then, who are to be their customers in the future? Obviously, if they have destroyed us all, and ruined us financially, we can't possibly afford to buy whatever they have to sell as a corporation... so what was the point of them destroying us? Do you see how what you are saying makes no logical sense whatsoever?

Facism is corporate rule of government. CU gives corps more controll of government. That is all.
 
Facism is corporate rule of government. CU gives corps more controll of government. That is all.

Do you remember way back on post #172, where I posted a page-long description of Fascism, and then, you followed in #173 with another page-long description of Fascism? And then, for good measure, you summarized and condensed your definition down to a mere two paragraphs? Did it somehow manage to never enter your brain, that Fascism just might be so complicated and complex, that it can't really be defined by a simple sentence?

And if we are going to refine and distill Fascism down to one sentence, it certainly wouldn't be "corporate rule of government." An intelligent person might deduce, from my page-long description, and your different page-long description, that Fascism really can't be simplistically defined. A lesser-intelligent person might attempt to condense and summarize the long definitions, and perhaps argue that government control of business, is Fascism.... I don't know what intelligence level it takes to deduce the total polar opposite of that.

CU gives corporations the same rights they had prior to 2002, when the challenged law was passed. We're now officially going in circles.
 
One could write a book about a tree, or describe it in a single sentence. That long descriptions have been written doesn't mean a short description can't suffice.
 
Back
Top