75 replies to this topic

[Pulptor]

Frankly the word "fascist" is best defined as follows:

In contemporary political discourse, the term 'fascist' is often used by people as a pejorative description of their opponents.

Any other definition is generally a bunch of bullshyte.

So let me just get rid of the bullshyte and say it more plainly:

Conservative nationalism and militarism in America are usually in complete opposition to the totalitarian government-media complex.

I agree that the term is often used pejoratively. That's not how I used it. You'll notice that I usually leave most of the emotion out of the discussion. Too much emotion -- especially hostility -- makes the argument brittle.

Here are the first two paragraphs of what Wikipedia says about Fascism:

Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and corporatist ideology.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} It is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation, promoting the territorial defense or expansion of a nation through a constant state of military preparedness and promotion of militarism as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.^{[11][12][13][14][15]}

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism (including national socialism, national syndicalism, economic nationalism, along with collectivism, and populism based on the nationalist values); corporatism (including class collaboration, economic planning, mixed economy, and third position); totalitarianism (including dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism); and militarism.^[16][17] Fascism opposes communism, conservatism, liberalism, and international socialism.^{[18][12][11][19][20][21][22][23]}

Fascism opposing conservatism makes sense. Conservatism seeks to preserve established tradition. A change from something to Fascism is not preserving the tradition. There is, though, a disturbing sharing of beliefs between fascists and staunch conservatives, just as there is a disturbing sharing of beliefs between staunch liberals and communists and socialists.

Edited by Pulptor, 16 October 2008 - 04:47 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Fascism opposing conservatism makes sense. Conservatism seeks to preserve established tradition. A change from something to Fascism is not preserving the tradition. There is, though, a disturbing sharing of beliefs between fascists and staunch conservatives, just as there is a disturbing sharing of beliefs between staunch liberals and communists and socialists.

Your definition of conservatism is incredibly superficial.

Everything you say here regarding 'fascism' is bullshytt*. The statement about liberals sharing beliefs with communists and socialists is dead on.

As defined in Neal Stephenson's Anathem, bullshytt is political speech that employs euphemism, convenient vagueness, numbing repition, and other such rhetorical subterfuge to create the impression that something has been said.

I contend that your usage of 'fascism' is so thoroughly bullshytt that indeed you are not saying anything of substance, but rather only making some vague connection between conservatives, nationalism, militarism, and nazis.

[RighteousReason]

If you look at Iran, which engages in activities incredibly comparable to Nazism in many ways- executing homosexuals, executing Jews and Christians and actively preaching another full blown Holocaust (while denying the previous one), and so on... if you call conservative "militarism" with respect to terrorists, mass murders, and other neo-Nazi throwbacks like these 'fascist' then I think you have things backwards.

Also statements like "promotion of militarism as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity" are not descriptive of the US military at all. Our military is incredibly open and tolerant. There isn't any major descrimination by political ideology, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or anything like that.

Edited by Savage, 16 October 2008 - 07:23 PM.

[Pulptor]

Fascism opposing conservatism makes sense. Conservatism seeks to preserve established tradition. A change from something to Fascism is not preserving the tradition. There is, though, a disturbing sharing of beliefs between fascists and staunch conservatives, just as there is a disturbing sharing of beliefs between staunch liberals and communists and socialists.

Your definition of conservatism is incredibly superficial.

Everything you say here regarding 'fascism' is bullshytt*. The statement about liberals sharing beliefs with communists and socialists is dead on.

As defined in Neal Stephenson's Anathem, bullshytt is political speech that employs euphemism, convenient vagueness, numbing repition, and other such rhetorical subterfuge to create the impression that something has been said.

I contend that your usage of 'fascism' is so thoroughly bullshytt that indeed you are not saying anything of substance, but rather only making some vague connection between conservatives, nationalism, militarism, and nazis.

Ha. That's awesome. Better than I expected. Thanks.

[eternaltraveler]

fascism has historically been linked to socialism (and nationalism and militarism)

NAZI = National Socialist German Workers' Party

Edited by elrond, 16 October 2008 - 09:13 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Your definition of conservatism is incredibly superficial.

Specifically, fiscal conservatism is libertarian in philosophy- the exact opposite of fiscal liberalism which is totalitarian in philosophy.

[Pulptor]

fascism has historically been linked to socialism (and nationalism and militarism)

NAZI = National Socialist German Workers' Party

You're right. The problem with my last statement seems to be in my thinking about political belief as a spectrum from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism. The extremes on either end do resemble each other in significant ways. Perhaps instead of a linear spectrum, the metaphor should be something that doesn't so drastically separate the two (or more) extreme groups.

Edited by Pulptor, 16 October 2008 - 11:42 PM.

[RighteousReason]

What is "extreme conservativism"?

That's an oxymoron.

[Pulptor]

Your definition of conservatism is incredibly superficial.

Specifically, fiscal conservatism is libertarian in philosophy- the exact opposite of fiscal liberalism which is totalitarian in philosophy.

That too proves erroneous my view of political belief as a simple linear spectrum.

If the highest goal is maximum freedom with the least harm, it seems fiscal conservatism is a vital part. With fiscal conservatism as a measure, what would you do with a kid born to lazy parents? That kid won't have the opportunities of a kid born to superior parents. And without those opportunities, his life won't only be different but will be less free. This is an ideological struggle I face with wanting to help people but not wanting to spend my money.

What is "extreme conservativism"?

That's an oxymoron.

I don't think so. As with anything, some people compromise more than others. Not saying that the compromising is inherently a good or bad thing. For instance, some people are so strict about saving that even with an average wage they end up millionaires in retirement. Others end up hundred-thousand-aires. Others end up with nothing.

Edited by Pulptor, 17 October 2008 - 12:06 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Your definition of conservatism is incredibly superficial.

Specifically, fiscal conservatism is libertarian in philosophy- the exact opposite of fiscal liberalism which is totalitarian in philosophy.

That too proves erroneous my view of political belief as a simple linear spectrum.

If the highest goal is maximum freedom with the least harm, it seems fiscal conservatism is a vital part. With fiscal conservatism as a measure, what would you do with a kid born to lazy parents? That kid won't have the opportunities of a kid born to superior parents. And without those opportunities, his life won't only be different but will be less free. This is an ideological struggle I face with wanting to help people but not wanting to spend my money.

What is "extreme conservativism"?

That's an oxymoron.

I don't think so. As with anything, some people compromise more than others. Not saying that the compromising is inherently a good or bad thing. For instance, some people are so strict about saving that even with an average wage they end up millionaires in retirement. Others end up hundred-thousand-aires. Others end up with nothing.

A person born to lazy parents isn't less free, they are less rich. Your ideological struggle is NOT the political ideological struggle. If you want to help people, contribute to charity. Don't try to steal from people through the tax system- aka. "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND". Besides all that, giving money to a poor person isn't the "CHANGE THEY NEED". They need a job.

You haven't provided any information regarding the definition of "extreme conservativism".

[eternaltraveler]

You haven't provided any information regarding the definition of "extreme conservativism".

how about the religious insanity and total lack of fiscal conservatism polluting the modern usage of the word.

[RighteousReason]

You haven't provided any information regarding the definition of "extreme conservativism".

how about the religious insanity and total lack of fiscal conservatism polluting the modern usage of the word.

Well, first of all, I don't see how a lack of fiscal conservatism is "extreme conservatism"... hahaha. It is a huge downfall of the repubs these days, though.

As for religious insanity... I suppose that make sense... However, come to think of it, all of the instances of actual religious insanity usually are so absurd as to not even count as conservative philosophy taken to the extreme. They are just total wack-jobs.

Intelligent design and creationism... I agree are "insanity" (I would be a lot more verbose and use a hell of a lot more profanity describing these views, personally, but sure let's go with 'insanity').

So I guess point conceded about religious insanity on those two issues (what others, though?). That's why I'm a libertarian conservative.

Of course when it comes to manipulating government education, the extreme liberals force a hell of a lot more quantity of BS than that, much more subtle, much more indoctrination, much more totalitarian, much more pervasive, etc.

So.. I would hardly call the small minority of wack-jobs pushing those two issues "extreme conservatism" in education compared to the much more substantive term "extreme liberalism" in education.

So maybe I take back that conceded point after all. What is "extreme conservativism"?

Edited by Savage, 17 October 2008 - 02:19 AM.

[niner]

No. You will get a much bigger tax cut under Obama than under McCain. Somebody posted a table of the tax cuts under both plans for various income levels not too long ago.

Niner, this is appearently not true. Obama wants everyone to think so though. The truth is starting to come out, just in time.

When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year

Obama’s Tax Cut is Actually a Spending Increase, Says Non-Partisan Group

http://www.cnsnews.c...px?RsrcID=37519

Biknut, cnsnews is so profoundly biased that I just don't believe this. If you can find some evidence of this from a source with credibility, I'd be willing to consider it, but everything I've seen and heard so far contradicts this report. They are probably playing games with definitions in order to make Obama's plan look as bad as possible. I wonder what McCain's plan does for "many households" between $30-50K.

[niner]

You haven't provided any information regarding the definition of "extreme conservativism".

how about the religious insanity and total lack of fiscal conservatism polluting the modern usage of the word.

Well, first of all, I don't see how a lack of fiscal conservatism is "extreme conservatism"... hahaha. It is a huge downfall of the repubs these days, though.

As for religious insanity... I suppose that make sense... However, come to think of it, all of the instances of actual religious insanity usually are so absurd as to not even count as conservative philosophy taken to the extreme. They are just total wack-jobs.

Intelligent design and creationism... I agree are "insanity" (I would be a lot more verbose and use a hell of a lot more profanity describing these views, personally, but sure let's go with 'insanity').

So I guess point conceded about religious insanity on those two issues (what others, though?). That's why I'm a libertarian conservative.

Of course when it comes to manipulating government education, the extreme liberals force a hell of a lot more quantity of BS than that, much more subtle, much more indoctrination, much more totalitarian, much more pervasive, etc.

So.. I would hardly call the small minority of wack-jobs pushing those two issues "extreme conservatism" in education compared to the much more substantive term "extreme liberalism" in education.

So maybe I take back that conceded point after all. What is "extreme conservativism"?

This is just a semantic argument. Confusion is caused by the Right's appropriation of the term "Conservative".

Savage, it's telling that you can't even recognize the existence of the extreme Right, but consider "extreme liberalism to be a "more substantive term". Republicans of the past 15 years or so have moved comically far from any sane definition of "conservative". They have become radical squanderers of our money and national standing, with totalitarian, fascist, and hegemonic leanings. The sober Conservatives of yesterday really don't have much of a place in the modern Republican party.

[RighteousReason]

You haven't provided any information regarding the definition of "extreme conservativism".

how about the religious insanity and total lack of fiscal conservatism polluting the modern usage of the word.

Well, first of all, I don't see how a lack of fiscal conservatism is "extreme conservatism"... hahaha. It is a huge downfall of the repubs these days, though.

As for religious insanity... I suppose that make sense... However, come to think of it, all of the instances of actual religious insanity usually are so absurd as to not even count as conservative philosophy taken to the extreme. They are just total wack-jobs.

Intelligent design and creationism... I agree are "insanity" (I would be a lot more verbose and use a hell of a lot more profanity describing these views, personally, but sure let's go with 'insanity').

So I guess point conceded about religious insanity on those two issues (what others, though?). That's why I'm a libertarian conservative.

Of course when it comes to manipulating government education, the extreme liberals force a hell of a lot more quantity of BS than that, much more subtle, much more indoctrination, much more totalitarian, much more pervasive, etc.

So.. I would hardly call the small minority of wack-jobs pushing those two issues "extreme conservatism" in education compared to the much more substantive term "extreme liberalism" in education.

So maybe I take back that conceded point after all. What is "extreme conservativism"?

This is just a semantic argument. Confusion is caused by the Right's appropriation of the term "Conservative".

Savage, it's telling that you can't even recognize the existence of the extreme Right, but consider "extreme liberalism to be a "more substantive term". Republicans of the past 15 years or so have moved comically far from any sane definition of "conservative". They have become radical squanderers of our money and national standing, with totalitarian, fascist, and hegemonic leanings. The sober Conservatives of yesterday really don't have much of a place in the modern Republican party.

"The government became a drug- providing temporary relief, but an addiction as well" - Ronald Reagan

Barry Goldwater - "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."


Yeah I agree niner, it's sad that conservatives have become more LIBERAL... o_O


Niner, I was referring to extreme liberalism is a more substantive term with respect to education- the tiny minority of extreme so-called "conservatives" pushing intelligent design and creationism versus the vast horde of teachers, 'reporters', and democrats with so, so, so much stuff.

Totalitarian how? Nothing, NOTHING like the liberal goverment-media-school complex. I have no idea what you mean.

Hegemony is a different issue... maybe start a new thread on that? could be interesting conversation. I think conservatives are unsure about how to feel about this issue. Probably gets really complex here...

I still contend that 'fascism' is a bullshytt term (see above).

Can you be more specific... I'm still wondering about "extreme conservativism"

Edited by Savage, 17 October 2008 - 04:25 AM.

[biknut]

Here's a summery of the McCain and Obama tax plans. When reading through both plans, I don't think either plan is worth a damn, but in a nut shell McCain's plan reduces taxes for everyone a little. Obama's plan reduces taxes on the poorest tax payers a little, and raises taxes on rich people a lot. Both plans increase the deficit a lot. That's why I don't think either plan is any good. Both plans are heavy on cutting taxes, and real light on cutting spending. Neither plan helps me very much, just like I thought.

Of the two plans I'd have to say McCains plan will be much better for the economy overall. Most of the tax savings go to rich people and corporations. That should stimulate growth. Obama's plan helps poor people by giving them about a $1000 a year refund. That will help these individuals buy gas and grocery's, but will probably do very little to stimulate growth. Remember we all just got $1000 government stimulus checks and look how great that turned out stimulating the economy. After you get past feeling good about giving some poor people a little extra money in order to get elected, taxing the hell out of rich people, and corporations isn't really going to stimulate the economy much me thinks.

And then on top of all that both plans still increase the deficit. McCain's plan might have the best chance of reducing the deficit by growing the economy like Reagan did, but we're still going to need a lot of spending cuts, so I doubt that's going to happen.

Obama's plan has about zero chance of growing the economy. If I'm wrong, please tell me how.

http://www.taxpolicy...ateTaxPlans.pdf

Also look here.

http://www.taxpolicy...r.org/index.cfm

Edited by biknut, 17 October 2008 - 07:29 AM.