bush=hitler?? cbs producer says so!!
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
Derek Ortt
-
the_master
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 6:30 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
Re: thats not true at all stephanie
rainstorm wrote:Stephanie wrote:rainstorm wrote:people need to realize that the threat to individual liberty comes from the fascist left. they desire govt control of all aspects of life and despise individual liberty
Actually, in the political spectrum, "facism" is the extreme right, while socialism/communism is the extreme left.
facism is state control but not ownership. communism is state ownersip of the economy. liberals desire the state to be predominant in our lives, conservatives want individual liberty. hitler was a left wing fascist. remember, his party was the national SOCIALIST party. facism has nothing to do with desiring individual liberty. left wing facism is the threat to our freedom. liberals are intolerant to any other point of veiw
A little political review course;
Conservative Viewpoints
Personal Responsibility: People have a responsibility to follow the rules/laws/norms set by society. Stern punishments should be given to those who break the rules/laws/norms.
Traditional Values: People should strive to live by the traditional moral codes that our grandparents followed. There are many dangerous moral trends in society today that we need to reverse. Religion should play a larger part of peoples lives and the government should reflect religious values.
Laize Faire and Decentralized Government: The federal government should not regulate business practices, but instead should let free market forces keep order in the business world. The federal government should be as small as possible, and most power should be vested in the state and local government.
Maximum Benefit: If every individual maximizes their own benefit, everyone will be better off.
Property Rights: The government should pass and enforce laws that protect personal property.
These beliefs manifest themselves more strongly as we move farther right in the spectrum. Recently in the United States, conservatives have supported laws that would:
cut taxes (especially taxes that mostly effect businesses and individuals with higher incomes);
build more prisons and provide harsher penalties for convicted criminals;
remove restrictions on how landowners can use their own property;
make it more difficult or illegal for women to have abortions;
prevent states from recognizing gay marriages;
reduce federal legislation of business;
permit prayer in schools.
On the extreme right of the spectrum, we usually associate fascist politicians with foreign dictatorships. Fascist states usually direct extreme force toward their citizens in order to enforce rules, laws, and norms.
Liberal Viewpoints
Group Responsibility: The government has a responsibility to help those who are disadvantaged or down on their luck. The government should work to equalize opportunities for everyone and also provide support for those who are unable to support themselves.
Personal Freedom: The personal freedoms of people must be protected. When rules/laws/norms infringe upon freedoms, they must be changed.
Non-Traditional Values: Many traditional values represent old-fashioned ideas that are unfair to women and minorities. These traditional values tend to concentrate and consecrate power held by wealthy white men.
Activist government: The government has a responsibility to regulate business to protect workers, the environment, and the public from abuse.
Use of Property for Public Good: The government has the right to tell people how to use their personal property in order to maximize the public good.
These beliefs manifest themselves more strongly as we move farther left in the spectrum. Recently in the United States, liberals have supported laws that would
raise some taxes to pay for specific programs, maintain current tax levels, or redistribute the tax burden from lower and middle class citizens to upper class and business tax payers;
provide drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for criminals and at-risk youth;
prevent landowners from harming endangered species or sensitive habitats on their own land;
protect women's ability to have abortions and provide federal funding for women seeking abortions who cannot afford them;
extend federal civil rights protections to gays;
regulate how businesses treat their employees, and how they dispose of hazardous waste;
reinforce our countries tradition of separation of church and state.
Socialist governments like those found in Scandinavian countries have large activist governments; citizens pay large taxes and in turn the government provides many of the services that private industry provides for a fee in the U.S. There are few communist governments left in the world, but they are usually marked by communal and government ownership of nearly all property. In practice, many communist governments look a lot like fascist governments.
...and a beg to defer as to liberals being intolerant!
0 likes
-
the_master
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 6:30 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
-
rainstorm
you dont understand what fascism is steph
here is the best definition i can give:
"The Italian "Corporatist" System
So-called "corporatism" as practiced by Mussolini and revered by so many intellectuals and policy makers had several key elements: The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." This stands in stark contrast to the classical liberal idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its "just powers" only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state"
at one time, "classic' liberals did indeed belive in individual liberty. not now. liberals now think just as this quote says.
"The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." the right wing and conservaties believe in individual liberty over statism. liberals now believe in "statism" they want the state to control our lives.
liberalism leads to fascism. dictatoships are inherently left wing. disregard for the individual always leads to dictators such as saddam.
one question? how is fascism right wing?
"The Italian "Corporatist" System
So-called "corporatism" as practiced by Mussolini and revered by so many intellectuals and policy makers had several key elements: The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." This stands in stark contrast to the classical liberal idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its "just powers" only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state"
at one time, "classic' liberals did indeed belive in individual liberty. not now. liberals now think just as this quote says.
"The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." the right wing and conservaties believe in individual liberty over statism. liberals now believe in "statism" they want the state to control our lives.
liberalism leads to fascism. dictatoships are inherently left wing. disregard for the individual always leads to dictators such as saddam.
one question? how is fascism right wing?
0 likes
-
rainstorm
this is another example of fascist statism
Published on Thursday, January 23, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Fast Food Fascism
by Joyce Marcel
McDonald's is under attack these days, but for all the wrong reasons. Yes, the fast food industry sells unhealthy food. Yes, it induces people to overeat for profit. Yes, ranchers cut down rain forests to supply it with cattle. Yes, that reduces the world's oxygen supply. But the real crime of McDonald's - supposedly the shining symbol of American capitalism - is that it is truly and deeply anti-American.
The fast food industry stands against the personal values that made this country great: rugged individualism, originality, creativity, a sense of adventure, non-conformity, and above all, all-around fearlessness.
In an effort to standardize products and maximize profits, the fast food industry has infected America with an insidious creeping fascism that was never political in itself, but which has had deeply political consequences.
Sit in a McDonald's for a half hour with a critical eye. The lights are glaring; there's no relaxation or goodwill to go along with the food. The chairs and tables are bolted to the ground. You can't draw up a chair to another table, for example, or join a larger group. Even if you're uncomfortably close to the table, there is nothing you can do except accept the discomfort. It's like a prison cafeteria; shut up and eat.
The foliage, furniture, plates, utensils and cups are plastic. You are completely disconnected from the natural world. All the decoration is advertisement. It's no wonder so many people wear corporate logos on their clothes and think it's right to put advertisements in schools; they're completely desensitized; life doesn't exist outside of commercials.
Fast food restaurants create a false sense of abundance. They offer access to a ready supply of condiments, sugar packets, straws, napkins and coffee cream - things that cost the restaurant almost nothing and have no real value.
They also offer a false sense of control. You appear to have many choices - a Big Mac, a cheeseburger, a quarter pounder, a double quarter pounder or a "Big 'N' Tasty" - but they're all pre-packaged, frozen, pre-cooked hamburger. If you want to be radical, have fried chicken, fried fish pieces, even flatbread sandwiches. But you have no control over portion size, or the way your meal is cooked.
One of the ways we learn who we are is by the choices we make. Being given free reign to make meaningless choices translates directly into the political arena, where we are asked to make empty choices between multi-millionaires and the almost identical political parties which own them.
The overworked and over-managed young food zombies in fast food restaurants are being trained to accept a lifetime of deadening and unfulfilling jobs. They learn early that making suggestions and demands will get you fired. Fear plays a large part in this kind of work; I once took out a notebook in McDonald's and the young manager looked panic-stricken. He was probably afraid of his own managers.
In order to navigate the world intelligently, we need our language to be clear and well-grounded. McDonald's corrupts language. What on earth is a "McSalad"? A "Happy Meal?" A "Mighty Kids Meal?"
Many books have been written about the frighteningly poor quality of fast food. Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" is a revelation. A new book by Greg Critser, "Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World," reveals how the fast food industry discovered that Americans are so ashamed of appearing gluttonous that they won't order two orders of fries. In response, the industry created "supersized" portions and along with it, a nation of supersized people.
Once you have accepted standardization in fast food restaurants, you may be unquestioning about it in other places. In my supermarket, all the pork is now pre-packaged by a company called Smithfield. The packaging offers a list of ingredients: pork broth, potassium lactate, salt, sodium phosphates, and natural flavorings; shouldn't the only ingredient in a pork roast be pork?
The fast food industry is now under attack from many sides. McDonald's stock has lost half its market value in the last two years; it has closed more than 100 restaurants and fired its CEO. Its arch enemy, Burger King, was on the market for two years without finding a taker; it recently sold at a discounted price that dropped from $2.3 billion to $1.5 billion in just six months.
Obese people are suing fast food restaurants here, while abroad, they are being attack for corporate imperialism. McDonald's, with 23,000 restaurants in about 121 countries, has been attacked in China, Denmark, France, Bangalore, Colombia, Russia, Argentina, Belgium, South Africa and Great Britain.
My own private rebellion against fast food restaurants dates back 30 years, as I watched juicy fresh hamburgers and fried chicken disappear all across the country, along with the small, quirky family-owned restaurants that served them.
Why, I wondered, as Americans grew wealthier, did they also grow so timid? Why did they reject the adventure of discovery, of making choices, of exploring the world? Why were they willing to sacrifice flavor, freshness, variety and a strong connection to the natural world for safe, predictable, boring and homogenized food? I can't blame the fast food industry for being so eager to oblige them.
I may be leaving myself open to a charge of elitism here, but no, I don't want to become a vegetarian, and no, I don't think that wanting restaurants to serve the kind of fresh, tasty, wholesome and inexpensive food that I remember from my childhood makes me a snob.
By unquestionably accepting the corruption of their food, Americans have come to accept the corruption of just about everything else - low pay, out-of-reach health care, corporate corruption, irrational wars, tax breaks for the rich, and McPresidents of the United States.
Today there are thousands of fast food restaurants and millions of people who actually believe this is the way food should be. Is it such a great step to thinking that Americans will also accept a degraded form of something as complex, difficult and demanding as real democracy? "
it is todays liberals, not conservatives who want the govt to tell us what we can eat
Fast Food Fascism
by Joyce Marcel
McDonald's is under attack these days, but for all the wrong reasons. Yes, the fast food industry sells unhealthy food. Yes, it induces people to overeat for profit. Yes, ranchers cut down rain forests to supply it with cattle. Yes, that reduces the world's oxygen supply. But the real crime of McDonald's - supposedly the shining symbol of American capitalism - is that it is truly and deeply anti-American.
The fast food industry stands against the personal values that made this country great: rugged individualism, originality, creativity, a sense of adventure, non-conformity, and above all, all-around fearlessness.
In an effort to standardize products and maximize profits, the fast food industry has infected America with an insidious creeping fascism that was never political in itself, but which has had deeply political consequences.
Sit in a McDonald's for a half hour with a critical eye. The lights are glaring; there's no relaxation or goodwill to go along with the food. The chairs and tables are bolted to the ground. You can't draw up a chair to another table, for example, or join a larger group. Even if you're uncomfortably close to the table, there is nothing you can do except accept the discomfort. It's like a prison cafeteria; shut up and eat.
The foliage, furniture, plates, utensils and cups are plastic. You are completely disconnected from the natural world. All the decoration is advertisement. It's no wonder so many people wear corporate logos on their clothes and think it's right to put advertisements in schools; they're completely desensitized; life doesn't exist outside of commercials.
Fast food restaurants create a false sense of abundance. They offer access to a ready supply of condiments, sugar packets, straws, napkins and coffee cream - things that cost the restaurant almost nothing and have no real value.
They also offer a false sense of control. You appear to have many choices - a Big Mac, a cheeseburger, a quarter pounder, a double quarter pounder or a "Big 'N' Tasty" - but they're all pre-packaged, frozen, pre-cooked hamburger. If you want to be radical, have fried chicken, fried fish pieces, even flatbread sandwiches. But you have no control over portion size, or the way your meal is cooked.
One of the ways we learn who we are is by the choices we make. Being given free reign to make meaningless choices translates directly into the political arena, where we are asked to make empty choices between multi-millionaires and the almost identical political parties which own them.
The overworked and over-managed young food zombies in fast food restaurants are being trained to accept a lifetime of deadening and unfulfilling jobs. They learn early that making suggestions and demands will get you fired. Fear plays a large part in this kind of work; I once took out a notebook in McDonald's and the young manager looked panic-stricken. He was probably afraid of his own managers.
In order to navigate the world intelligently, we need our language to be clear and well-grounded. McDonald's corrupts language. What on earth is a "McSalad"? A "Happy Meal?" A "Mighty Kids Meal?"
Many books have been written about the frighteningly poor quality of fast food. Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" is a revelation. A new book by Greg Critser, "Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World," reveals how the fast food industry discovered that Americans are so ashamed of appearing gluttonous that they won't order two orders of fries. In response, the industry created "supersized" portions and along with it, a nation of supersized people.
Once you have accepted standardization in fast food restaurants, you may be unquestioning about it in other places. In my supermarket, all the pork is now pre-packaged by a company called Smithfield. The packaging offers a list of ingredients: pork broth, potassium lactate, salt, sodium phosphates, and natural flavorings; shouldn't the only ingredient in a pork roast be pork?
The fast food industry is now under attack from many sides. McDonald's stock has lost half its market value in the last two years; it has closed more than 100 restaurants and fired its CEO. Its arch enemy, Burger King, was on the market for two years without finding a taker; it recently sold at a discounted price that dropped from $2.3 billion to $1.5 billion in just six months.
Obese people are suing fast food restaurants here, while abroad, they are being attack for corporate imperialism. McDonald's, with 23,000 restaurants in about 121 countries, has been attacked in China, Denmark, France, Bangalore, Colombia, Russia, Argentina, Belgium, South Africa and Great Britain.
My own private rebellion against fast food restaurants dates back 30 years, as I watched juicy fresh hamburgers and fried chicken disappear all across the country, along with the small, quirky family-owned restaurants that served them.
Why, I wondered, as Americans grew wealthier, did they also grow so timid? Why did they reject the adventure of discovery, of making choices, of exploring the world? Why were they willing to sacrifice flavor, freshness, variety and a strong connection to the natural world for safe, predictable, boring and homogenized food? I can't blame the fast food industry for being so eager to oblige them.
I may be leaving myself open to a charge of elitism here, but no, I don't want to become a vegetarian, and no, I don't think that wanting restaurants to serve the kind of fresh, tasty, wholesome and inexpensive food that I remember from my childhood makes me a snob.
By unquestionably accepting the corruption of their food, Americans have come to accept the corruption of just about everything else - low pay, out-of-reach health care, corporate corruption, irrational wars, tax breaks for the rich, and McPresidents of the United States.
Today there are thousands of fast food restaurants and millions of people who actually believe this is the way food should be. Is it such a great step to thinking that Americans will also accept a degraded form of something as complex, difficult and demanding as real democracy? "
it is todays liberals, not conservatives who want the govt to tell us what we can eat
0 likes
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
Re: you dont understand what fascism is steph
rainstorm wrote:here is the best definition i can give:
"The Italian "Corporatist" System
So-called "corporatism" as practiced by Mussolini and revered by so many intellectuals and policy makers had several key elements: The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." This stands in stark contrast to the classical liberal idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its "just powers" only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state"
at one time, "classic' liberals did indeed belive in individual liberty. not now. liberals now think just as this quote says.
"The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." the right wing and conservaties believe in individual liberty over statism. liberals now believe in "statism" they want the state to control our lives.
liberalism leads to fascism. dictatoships are inherently left wing. disregard for the individual always leads to dictators such as saddam.
one question? how is fascism right wing?
That definition about facism and right wing came from:
http://www.lahapkido.com/teach.html
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
-
rainstorm
-
streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
That figures, Stephanie...OK, a lesson about where the terms "right" and "left" REALLY came from... (Take notes, pop quiz Monday!)
In the old Etats General in France, those that favored the monarchy (absolute power concentrated in one, or a few hands) were seated to the LEFT of the podium...today, this would include Fascism, Nazism (national or state-controlled countries, run by a dictator), Communism (ostensibly "in the name of thje workers", but also run by a tiny clique) and each depending on fear, secret police and repression to retain power. When one moved to the far RIGHT of the podium, there sat the anarchists (absolute "freedom" to do whatever they will, no restrictions at all), and somewhere in the middle one would find varying shades of freedom under law with the consent of the governed (Alexis de Tocqueville would have been seated here, just to the right of center; Thomas Jefferson would have been a few seats further to the right of him).
Ok, let's review...LEFT means concentrated power (in whatever guise), RIGHT means unrestrained anarchy. Get it! Got it? GOOD!
In the old Etats General in France, those that favored the monarchy (absolute power concentrated in one, or a few hands) were seated to the LEFT of the podium...today, this would include Fascism, Nazism (national or state-controlled countries, run by a dictator), Communism (ostensibly "in the name of thje workers", but also run by a tiny clique) and each depending on fear, secret police and repression to retain power. When one moved to the far RIGHT of the podium, there sat the anarchists (absolute "freedom" to do whatever they will, no restrictions at all), and somewhere in the middle one would find varying shades of freedom under law with the consent of the governed (Alexis de Tocqueville would have been seated here, just to the right of center; Thomas Jefferson would have been a few seats further to the right of him).
Ok, let's review...LEFT means concentrated power (in whatever guise), RIGHT means unrestrained anarchy. Get it! Got it? GOOD!
0 likes
-
rainstorm
absolutely left=statism, the antithesis of individual freedo
streetsoldier wrote:That figures, Stephanie...OK, a lesson about where the terms "right" and "left" REALLY came from... (Take notes, pop quiz Monday!)
In the old Etats General in France, those that favored the monarchy (absolute power concentrated in one, or a few hands) were seated to the LEFT of the podium...today, this would include Fascism, Nazism (national or state-controlled countries, run by a dictator), Communism (ostensibly "in the name of thje workers", but also run by a tiny clique) and each depending on fear, secret police and repression to retain power. When one moved to the far RIGHT of the podium, there sat the anarchists (absolute "freedom" to do whatever they will, no restrictions at all), and somewhere in the middle one would find varying shades of freedom under law with the consent of the governed (Alexis de Tocqueville would have been seated here, just to the right of center; Thomas Jefferson would have been a few seats further to the right of him).
Ok, let's review...LEFT means concentrated power (in whatever guise), RIGHT means unrestrained anarchy. Get it! Got it? GOOD!
0 likes
-
rainstorm
mcdonalds is a great example of liberal fascism
Derek Ortt wrote:I can say that liberals are intolerant from personal experience. I have encountered many of them who, merely for disagreeing with them, view you as intolerant and other worse things
liberals want to use the power of the state to force us to eat what liberals think we should eat. a conservative says let mcdonalds serve what people want to eat. in other words, a free market economy
0 likes
-
rainstorm
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
streetsoldier wrote:That figures, Stephanie...OK, a lesson about where the terms "right" and "left" REALLY came from... (Take notes, pop quiz Monday!)
In the old Etats General in France, those that favored the monarchy (absolute power concentrated in one, or a few hands) were seated to the LEFT of the podium...today, this would include Fascism, Nazism (national or state-controlled countries, run by a dictator), Communism (ostensibly "in the name of thje workers", but also run by a tiny clique) and each depending on fear, secret police and repression to retain power. When one moved to the far RIGHT of the podium, there sat the anarchists (absolute "freedom" to do whatever they will, no restrictions at all), and somewhere in the middle one would find varying shades of freedom under law with the consent of the governed (Alexis de Tocqueville would have been seated here, just to the right of center; Thomas Jefferson would have been a few seats further to the right of him).
Ok, let's review...LEFT means concentrated power (in whatever guise), RIGHT means unrestrained anarchy. Get it! Got it? GOOD!
Actually Bill, I distinctly remember that spectrum being displayed to me when I was in school. That history lesson is good, but what is being taught in schools now? Just curious.
I have seen articles Rainstorm that do state like you that there is more of a blur in the different types of political beliefs. That backs up what we've seen happen to the original left and right wings as Bill had pointed out.
[/i]
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests