TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Actual Facism... Actually Happening
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss As I've explained several times... I have only been posting on here for less than a year and a half. I was not around during all of the rampant bush denunciations that went on prior to that. However, I have said on many occasions and explained that I absolutely detested the direction Bush took the party, from about 2005 on. He abandoned the conservative principles he ran on, and incresed spending and government size beyond the acceptable pale... this is something I hated, and I still hate to this day, and have mentioned on here many times when people wrongly accuse me of being in lock step with Bush's policies, which seems to always be the default argument against me or other conservatives when we show dissent for Obama's decisions. I am aware that Lebez has brought this to my attention... I just wonder, how many times am I going to have to reiterate my answer? Lebez: go ahead and crack on 47 czars... that was a total over 8 years. Obama has 36 so far in 8 months, and I don't expect that number to decrease... plus when you compare it to his 15 or so cabinet appointees who actually have to show accountability and go through a confirmation process, it's a problem. Thank god we actually have some Democrats pushing back against this now too, like Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Robert Byrd (which is the last time I'll be in agreement with a former Klansman). |
| quote: |
Take a look at the facts below � the truth about "czars": Rhetoric: Critics have claimed the Obama Administration is filled with new and unchecked czars. Glenn Beck Claimed There Were 32 "Czars" In The Obama Administration. "The Brainroom counts 32 czars in the Obama administration, based on media reports from reputable sources that have identified the official in question as a czar." [Glenn Beck Website, 8/21/09] In Sunday�s Washington Post, Sen. Hutchison Claimed There Were An "Unprecedented 32 Czar Posts." "A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as "czars.� They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a �car czar,� a �pay czar� and an �information czar.�" [Washington Post, 9/13/09] Reality: Many of the arbitrarily labeled "czars" on Beck�s list are Senate-confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from previous administrations. Others are advisors to the President�s Cabinet Secretaries. Beck himself says on his own website, "Since czar isn't an official job title, the number is somewhat in the eye of the beholder." Republicans have supported these positions in the past. When asked on Fox News if he had opposed any of President Bush�s "czars," Rep. Darrell Issa admitted "No we didn�t." In fact, the Bush administration had many of the same officials and advisors now described as "czars," including Afghanistan czar, AIDS czar, Drug czar, Faith-based czar, Intelligence czar, Mideast Peace Czar, Regulatory Czar, Science Czar, Sudan Czar, TARP/Bailout Czar, Terrorism Czar, and Weapons Czar. Of the 32 "czars" on Beck�s list, nine were confirmed by the Senate: Deputy Interior Secretary David J. Hayes ("California Water Czar") Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske ("Drug Czar") OMB Deputy Director Jeff Zients ("Government Performance Czar") Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair ("Intelligence Czar") OMB Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein ("Regulatory Czar") Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and OSTP Director John Holdren ("Science Czar") Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Herb Allison ("TARP Czar") Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter ("Weapons Czar") OSTP Associate Director Aneesh Chopra ("Technology Czar") Many of the same critics who are decrying these roles have applauded or even pushed for them in the past. Sen. Robert Bennett has criticized czars as "undermining the Constitution," but reportedly prodded President Clinton to appoint a Y2K Czar. In a 1999 CNN appearance, Sen. Bennett said "I think John Koskinen has been superb. I wrote the president six months before John was appointed, recommending that he appoint a Y2K czar." At a 1999 National Press Club luncheon, Bennett told reporters the Koskinen was "there to help, prod, give information, and make analyses and reports" and said he spoke with the czar to ensure "we maintain the kind of bipartisan and across-the-government sort of communication that this never becomes a political issue." Senator Lamar Alexander has also criticized President Obama�s "czars," calling them "an affront to the Constitution." But during remarks delivered on the Senate floor in 2003, Sen. Alexander said "I would welcome" President Bush�s "manufacturing job czar." That same day in the Senate, he also expressed support for President Bush�s AIDS czar Randall Tobias. When asked on Fox News if he had opposed any of President Bush�s "czars," Rep. Darrell Issa responded "No we didn�t," despite previously claiming that czars "undermine" transparency and accountability. In fact, last year, 176 House Republicans, including Issa, voted for a bill that would create an "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" that would advise the President and serve in the White House. By the time the bill passed the Senate, it was co-sponsored by 20 additional senators, including Sen. Alexander. Anita Dunn is Director of Communications for the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Truth-About-Czars/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You really need to take a look at all of the czars Bush Jr. had - it's quite an impressive list: This falls completely in line with the double standard of your Republican party. It's perfectly alright for a Republican to hold so many czar positions, but get a Democrat in the Executive, then we all have to yell "HOLY SHIT" because he's going to be just like Hitler and take over our country!!!!! |
Jesus, who gives a fuck?
Do you guys have anything of substance to whinge about? Because im getting seriously fucking bored.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Jesus, who gives a fuck? Do you guys have anything of substance to whinge about? Because im getting seriously fucking bored. |
Wait, so special envoys are czars now? Glad to know George Mitchell wields unlimited power in his conflict resolution attempts in the Middle East. Half the rest of them are staffers in the White House if you look at their actual title. God this topic is dumb.
Never have straws been grasped at, so hard.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov God this topic is dumb. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka And PKC, I usually don't like to respond to you because I think it's a waste of breath, but I have to agree--your MO seems to be to call an argument stupid because it fails to meet your intellectually superior precise definitions of particular terminology, which is to sidestep the real debate, imho, which is that the U.S. government is slowly bleeding away more and more individual liberties under the guise of making the populace more secure. Until one day we wake up and we have forfeited our greatest gifts to the all powerful government. That's the slope I worry about. I don't think we're anywhere close to that, but I think we are dangerously close to starting to meander down that path. |
Gotta love this video Drudge pointed out today. Frankly, I wouldn't really give a shit, but I particularly don't like the bit about "equal work for equal pay."
un-embeddable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU
Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
segue to
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)
Well, that was reasonably interesting, a bit less clueless than the usual libertarian rants but I stopped reading once I heard about the whole czars business again 
Lets see, to understand what people mean I think it's necassary to understand different types of government. I might be a little off but I'm definitely a lot more on track than half the posters of this thread let alone the original thing posted.
Democratic(usually fairly right wing): Private and public sectors, with the right wing generally taxing less(and spending less) and waging more wars.
And the left wing taxing more but spending more on infrastructure and important projects as well as ongoing stuff like healthcare
Socialism: A left wing government that spends a lot of ongoing costs as well as infrastructure, and taxes the rich a bit more harshly than otherwise. A significant public sector along with a heavily regulated private sector. For the most part the idea of co ordinating things together for the greater good and not to oppress workers.
Communism: A state that is run by democratically elected people who run in their local worker councils but which then elect them etc.
Vast majority of businesses are run by their employees (with bureaucracy doing a bit of coordinating) but with public sector running a bit of things and controlling resources. Where internationalism and the struggles of workers is paramount regardless of what country they are in. Being based on the workings of marx and that there should be no descrimination of any kind, it also heavily promotes women's, ethnic minority's and to a much less extent religous minority's rights. Communism also generally spends a lot on infrastructure and especially on things like healthcare and things that benefit the average person.
Anarcho syndicalism: A movement for the abolition of the state and private property (but not personal property) rights. I.e. you can own a house etc just not a billion miles of farmland or a factory (communism is also for the abolition of private but not personal property). Also advocates businesses being run by their employees. This I believe is somewhat utopian and the movement is pretty much dead anyway.
Other types of anarchists: Mostly just people who are rebels without a cause. Or the whole green intellectual kind who think that people are too stupid to elect anyone good and the world is fucked so obviously fail to achieve anything useful whatsoever.
Fascism(or national syndicalism): First and foremost the idea that the glory/prosperity of the nation is paramount and should be achieved by key leaders organising the economy/military and bringing the nation forward. These leaders have the support of the private sector because the private sector often stands to profit a fair bit from it, including lowering workers wages and treating them poorly in order to distribute labour (or money essentially) elsewhere instead of consumer spending. Private industry is however under the power of the government and they generally are forced to make things relevent to the war effort. Although I'm sure excessive nationalising of the private industry that supports said fascist government is unlikely as the power base would turn against them. Fascist governments typically also take a lot of their power base from the clergy.
Things like healthcare and infrastructure spending are also focused on as ultimately fascist governments typically want to make their countries into as much of an economic/military powerhouse as they can. Yes hitler spent money on healthcare but for pretty different reasons than the democrats (and ultimately any nation wants a more effeciant system for itself if it doesn't particlarly harm any power groups they care about).
National syndicalism/Fascism is the logical extension of extreme nationalism and or militarism. In more extreme examples fascism also wants social unity and hates things like free thought and abstract art (hitler banned jazz music for instance). This authoritarian nature also regards contempt for civil liberties.
Stalinism: Removal of worker councils and everything being run by a state planning bureaucracy.
"An island of socialism cannot survive in a sea of capitalism"
"In order for socialism to survive we must do 100 years of industrialisation in 10"
NOTE that the definition of socialism is somewhat disputed, and when he refers to socialism above he means revolutionary communism not reformist social democratism (which is what I mean by socialism above).
Basically, Stalinism was Stalin's conclusion on what the Soviet Union should do to survive in the world and to increase it's military(and industrial capacity for that military) to a level where the soviet union won't just easily be invaded and replaced by a regime that bourgeoisie countries find more acceptable.
And effectively combines some elements of communism and socialism with fascism. For instance the idea that a country's people should be prosperous and your country should have as high a population as possible taken to an extreme can mean the banning of homosexuality. Which is also seen as a social nuisance. With the focus on nationalism and militarism, things like social cohesion and hating gays, free thought and abstract art and even ethnic minorities started to pop up in Stalin's line of thinking. Since Stalinism effectively creates the state bureaucracy and then everyone else it is not communism(a state with only one class, which suffice to say is quite complicated to achieve).
Almost all of the "communist" countries are based on Stalin's teachings and policy. (Including china, cuba etc) with possibly the notable exceptions of Vietnam, and Albania to a lesser extent.
Anyway, fascism has some of the same policies as socialism (i.e. like healthcare) but for totally different reasons so to compare two on such a basis is idoitic. The rampant militarism of Bush was far more fascist than anything the democrats have done. Let alone his war on terror and wearing down of civil liberties.
This thread is funny.
First, I think Dr. Zero does well to try and seperate fascism from Nazism; however, he has largely misrepresented the corporatist economic structure as a command system, which it is not. Second, the argument that the US is slipping into a fascist structure is jumping the shark just a wee bit as we have yet to see any of the real trappings of a corporatist structure introduced; nor is it probable we ever would as many such structures would be inconsistant with the US constitution. Third, while trying to seperate fascism as an ideology from Nazism as a practice Dr. Zero then goes on to argue against fascism using arguments that actually relate more to the practice of Nazism then ideology of fascism. Four, the idea of fascism is only frightening if one focuses on the historical experience, if one looks only at the ideology then it is actually quite sound... unfortunately it suffers from the same practical critical flaw as communism; in order to work there must be a very strong concentration of power amongst a small group (albeit this is in theory only temporary for communism). The reality of human nature is that when few people have tremendous power they very rarely yeild their power entirely benevelently.
For an example of modern fascism the EU is probably a much better example then the US.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.