Is the Republican Party fascist?

[J.R. Brown]

Tell me if this doesn't sound like the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which has control of the party right now.

This is from the Oxford Dictionary of Politics.

Genuinley fascist ideologies are:
MONIST: based upon the notion that there are fundamental and basic truths about humanity and the environment which do not admit to question.

SIMPLISTIC: In the sense of ascribing complex phenomena to single causes and advancing single remedies.

FUNDAMENTALIST: Involving a division of the world into 'good' and 'bad' with nothing in between.

CONSPIRATORIAL: predicated on the existence of a secret world-wide (in our case nationwide liberal) conspiracy by a hostile group seeking to manipulate the masses to achieve and/or maintain a dominant position.

[J.R. Brown]

Tell me if this doesn't sound like the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which has control of the party right now.

This is from the Oxford Dictionary of Politics.

Genuinley fascist ideologies are:
MONIST: based upon the notion that there are fundamental and basic truths about humanity and the environment which do not admit to question.

SIMPLISTIC: In the sense of ascribing complex phenomena to single causes and advancing single remedies.

FUNDAMENTALIST: Involving a division of the world into 'good' and 'bad' with nothing in between.

CONSPIRATORIAL: predicated on the existence of a secret world-wide (in our case nationwide liberal) conspiracy by a hostile group seeking to manipulate the masses to achieve and/or maintain a dominant position.

This could describe some of the far right.....as well as the far left.  Many Democrats have a philosophy that matches those descriptions.

In any case, there's a lot more to fascism than what's contained in those definitions.  It generally involves the killing of many thousands, if not millions of people, and large scale murderous military aggression for the purpose of plunder and conquest.  Neither party in the US advocates anything close to these things, so it's shameful to be ascribing those beliefs to one of our parties.

I'm talking about fascism as a political ideology. Murderous military aggression for certain groups come from that ideology. It doesn't happen right away, but over time, it comes down to that kind of extremism.

I would also have to disagree with you that extreme leftists could be classified as a fascist. Most extreme liberals don't believe in a hierarchial form of government. They believe in a more socialistic form, which a lot of people, for some strange reason, associate with fascism. Probably because the Soviets and the Nazis were allies at one time and both our enemies. The Soviets were closer to fascism than pure communism.

[J.R. Brown]

I would also have to disagree with you that extreme leftists could be classified as a fascist. Most extreme liberals don't believe in a hierarchial form of government. They believe in a more socialistic form, which a lot of people, for some strange reason, associate with fascism. Probably because the Soviets and the Nazis were allies at one time and both our enemies. The Soviets were closer to fascism than pure communism.

Here, I don't know what you're talking about.  Socialism requires a hierarchical form of government.  Government that supports you controls you; there's no way around it.  The government that is powerful enough to give us everything we want is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have.

Are you suggesting that many liberals don't see a vast conspiracy by a hostile group (the religious, as opebo calls them) to manipulate the masses?  Please, I've heard so many Democrats arguing this point, that Republicans manipulate the masses into voting against their own interest through hate propaganda.

As far as pure communism is concerned, there is no such thing.  And any time that has been the goal, the result has been something so close to fascism as to be indistinguishable.

With all due respect, I think you're blowing out a lot of hot air.

Socialism is supposed to be a system in which there is no inequality, everyone is equal. You're thinking of Soviet socialism where the state controled the distribution of wealth.

Yes, our side does have a few consiracy theorists out there, but the leaders of your party think there is a liberal conspiracy in the media, the courts, and anything else they can think of.

[J.R. Brown]

Just a note, our most fascist president this century was a Democrat.  The president who ordered the most deaths was also a Democrat.  So were the presidents who entered the 4 largest wars of the last century.  Where the hell have those patriots gone?

Defeating the Nazis and Fascists makes you fascist?

I think he was talking about throwing Japanese Americans in internment camps, trying to pack the courts, and centralizing all authority in the executive branch to that maximum extent the Supreme Court would allow.

How about throwing Arab-Americans into camps without charging them with a crime right along with criminal terrorists just because they are Arab. Suppression of African-American voters in Florida to gain control. Tearing down the Judiciary with false conspiracy theories.

[J.R. Brown]

Socialism is supposed to be a system in which there is no inequality, everyone is equal. You're thinking of Soviet socialism where the state controled the distribution of wealth.

Yes, our side does have a few consiracy theorists out there, but the leaders of your party think there is a liberal conspiracy in the media, the courts, and anything else they can think of.

The only way to have total equality is for the government to confiscate wealth on a large scale and control its distribution.  That requires a very powerful and hierarchical government.  It sure won't happen on its own, so these academic distinctions that you are making are without practical effect.  And I'll add that total equality can only take place at a very low level of wealth/standard of living.

That's true. Social equality is unattainable in a country that values power and wealth over charity and also in a country that wishes to force social equality on you.

[J.R. Brown]

Tell me if this doesn't sound like the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which has control of the party right now.

This is from the Oxford Dictionary of Politics.

Genuinley fascist ideologies are:
MONIST: based upon the notion that there are fundamental and basic truths about humanity and the environment which do not admit to question.

SIMPLISTIC: In the sense of ascribing complex phenomena to single causes and advancing single remedies.

FUNDAMENTALIST: Involving a division of the world into 'good' and 'bad' with nothing in between.

CONSPIRATORIAL: predicated on the existence of a secret world-wide (in our case nationwide liberal) conspiracy by a hostile group seeking to manipulate the masses to achieve and/or maintain a dominant position.

Monist: Global warming is backed by irrefutable science, anyone who questions it is stupid and cannot admit to the reality.

Simplistic: The bad is the result of corporations, we must reduce corporate power.

Fundamentalist: Bush is Hitler, the incarnation of evil in the modern world.  I like Dean, though.

Conspiratorial: Bush invaded Iraq because he is secretly controlled by oil companies and financiers, like Halliburton and Carlyle Group.

See?  This game is fun!

Socialism is supposed to be a system in which there is no inequality, everyone is equal. You're thinking of Soviet socialism where the state controled the distribution of wealth.

If the government doesn't redistribute the wealth, who does?  It seems you're trying to draw a very gray line.

What happened to a free market, where everyone earns their own wealth?

Monist: God created man and woman, homosexuality is unnatual. (Social environment not the natuarl environment)

Simplistic: Religious Right (every position that they take is simplistic and the Republican Party takes their political ques from them)

Fundamentalist: Christians good, Muslims bad.

Conspiratorial: Liberal judges are trying to change the values of this country.

You're right. this is fun

[J.R. Brown]

Tell me if this doesn't sound like the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which has control of the party right now.

This is from the Oxford Dictionary of Politics.

Genuinley fascist ideologies are:
MONIST: based upon the notion that there are fundamental and basic truths about humanity and the environment which do not admit to question.

SIMPLISTIC: In the sense of ascribing complex phenomena to single causes and advancing single remedies.

FUNDAMENTALIST: Involving a division of the world into 'good' and 'bad' with nothing in between.

CONSPIRATORIAL: predicated on the existence of a secret world-wide (in our case nationwide liberal) conspiracy by a hostile group seeking to manipulate the masses to achieve and/or maintain a dominant position.

Monist: Global warming is backed by irrefutable science, anyone who questions it is stupid and cannot admit to the reality.

Simplistic: The bad is the result of corporations, we must reduce corporate power.

Fundamentalist: Bush is Hitler, the incarnation of evil in the modern world.  I like Dean, though.

Conspiratorial: Bush invaded Iraq because he is secretly controlled by oil companies and financiers, like Halliburton and Carlyle Group.

See?  This game is fun!

Socialism is supposed to be a system in which there is no inequality, everyone is equal. You're thinking of Soviet socialism where the state controled the distribution of wealth.

If the government doesn't redistribute the wealth, who does?  It seems you're trying to draw a very gray line.

What happened to a free market, where everyone earns their own wealth?

Monist: God created man and woman, homosexuality is unnatual. (Social environment not the natuarl environment)

Simplistic: Religious Right (every position that they take is simplistic and the Republican Party takes their political ques from them)

Fundamentalist: Christians good, Muslims bad.

Conspiratorial: Liberal judges are trying to change the values of this country.

You're right. this is fun

Your thread's poin is that the Republicans are fascist for having the four qualities above.  Proving that Democrats have them as well disproves that idea, unless you believe both parties are facist.  Showing that Republicans have the qualities that fit your arbitrary definition of facism does not affect this, since I have already accepted that elements of th GOP have these allegedly facist qualities.  My point is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

As for distribution of wealth, you said socialism is a system where wealth is distributed equally, but Soviet communism is where the government takes earned wealth and redistributes it.  Unless your brand of socialism has a mechanism for distributing wealth other than the government, then there is no meaningful distinction between the two terms.  Is the wealth equally distributed by magic fairy dust?  If your using either a progressive income tax or social welfare programs to redistribute te wealth, your no different in nature than the Soviets at least the way you've set the question up.

The extreme wing of the Republican Party displays fascist qualities. Now does that make them fascist? I don't know. Maybe. And it's not my arbitrary definition, its Oxford's arbitrary definition.

Soviet communism didn't work, because a few power hungry groups took control of the system and hoarded all of the money for themselves, and that's why socialism doesn't work. Human Nature. I have no brand of socialism. I have no idea where you got that.

I'm not saying that all Republicans are Fascist. I know some really decent, moderate Republicans. But the extreme wing, which displays fascist tendancies, has taken control of the party has turned it into what it is.

I also admit that the extreme wing of the Democratic Party displays socialist tendancies, but we control our extremists. Of course most Republicans are too stupid to know what pure socialism is. Giving a little money to the poor is not socialist, it's human. Helping the disadvantaged is human. And if you call that socialist, than you are truly a simple minded creature.

Your problem is that you don't know that the money made in this country by our so called free market system is made by most corporate enterprises and very little is made by the individual investor.

[J.R. Brown]

Oh yeah, everyday I wear my millitary uniform, salute the Swatstika with a stiff arm, and sing "Deutchland Uber Alles" with great vigor. I am a looking forward to April 20th, David Duke and I are going to celebrate Hitler's Brithday by jeering some rabbis.

What a stupid question.

You're an idiot. I didn't say you were a Nazi. Read the definition. It's a definition of the political ideology of fascism not Nazism.

[J.R. Brown]

How about throwing Arab-Americans into camps without charging them with a crime right along with criminal terrorists just because they are Arab. Suppression of African-American voters in Florida to gain control. Tearing down the Judiciary with false conspiracy theories.

It's hilarious to hear you accuse the opposition of making up "false conspiracy theories" right after you spew a bunch of conspiracy garbage.

Umm that's not a conspiracy theory, it's a real conspiracy. I would recommend watching a couple of documentaries. Unprecedented and Unconstitutional. These documentaries actually give facts to back up their claims of conspiracy.

[J.R. Brown]

The extreme wing of the Republican Party displays fascist qualities. Now does that make them fascist? I don't know. Maybe. And it's not my arbitrary definition, its Oxford's arbitrary definition.

Soviet communism didn't work, because a few power hungry groups took control of the system and hoarded all of the money for themselves, and that's why socialism doesn't work. Human Nature. I have no brand of socialism. I have no idea where you got that.

I'm not saying that all Republicans are Fascist. I know some really decent, moderate Republicans. But the extreme wing, which displays fascist tendancies, has taken control of the party has turned it into what it is.

I also admit that the extreme wing of the Democratic Party displays socialist tendancies, but we control our extremists. Of course most Republicans are too stupid to know what pure socialism is. Giving a little money to the poor is not socialist, it's human. Helping the disadvantaged is human. And if you call that socialist, than you are truly a simple minded creature.

Your problem is that you don't know that the money made in this country by our so called free market system is made by most corporate enterprises and very little is made by the individual investor.

I'm glad you've explained it all for us stupid ignorant Republicans.  I feel I understand it so much better now.

I don't know where you get the idea that the Democratic party controls its extremists.  Clinton did, but he's been gone a while now.  You have nutcases like Michael Moore and George Soros totally out of control.  And as for your definitions of fascism, the extremist Democrats exhibit all of them, no different from extremist Republicans.

Read a book, it's not my definition.

[J.R. Brown]

Oh yeah, everyday I wear my millitary uniform, salute the Swatstika with a stiff arm, and sing "Deutchland Uber Alles" with great vigor. I am a looking forward to April 20th, David Duke and I are going to celebrate Hitler's Brithday by jeering some rabbis.

What a stupid question.

You're an idiot. I didn't say you were a Nazi. Read the definition. It's a definition of the political ideology of fascism not Nazism.

I was making a joke, so one ever understand humor anymore.

[BTW, you are the first person on record to have the nerve to call me an idiot, though mnay have thought that. ]

I'm the only one who's had the nerve to call you an idiot? Who the hell do you think you are, some kind of accomplished journalist?

[J.R. Brown]

How about throwing Arab-Americans into camps without charging them with a crime right along with criminal terrorists just because they are Arab. Suppression of African-American voters in Florida to gain control. Tearing down the Judiciary with false conspiracy theories.

It's hilarious to hear you accuse the opposition of making up "false conspiracy theories" right after you spew a bunch of conspiracy garbage.

Umm that's not a conspiracy theory, it's a real conspiracy.

LOL, you're a stereotypical raving conspiracy theorist liberal. Care to share some more of your... um... "interesting" ideas?

If you don't think sh**t goes on behind our backs like this, you're just a naive child. We are being manipulated on a regular basis by the media, politicians and interest groups. Theories aren't usually based on facts.

[J.R. Brown]

Oh yeah, everyday I wear my millitary uniform, salute the Swatstika with a stiff arm, and sing "Deutchland Uber Alles" with great vigor. I am a looking forward to April 20th, David Duke and I are going to celebrate Hitler's Brithday by jeering some rabbis.

What a stupid question.

You're an idiot. I didn't say you were a Nazi. Read the definition. It's a definition of the political ideology of fascism not Nazism.

I was making a joke, so one ever understand humor anymore.

[BTW, you are the first person on record to have the nerve to call me an idiot, though mnay have thought that. ]

I'm the only one who's had the nerve to call you an idiot? Who the hell do you think you are, some kind of accomplished journalist?

No, but I am somewhat respected at this forum as a pretty keen historian and somewhat nice guy [if not a guy who can not tell jokes]. And I met no offense by "the nerve" I just couldn't think of a better word. I mean you have been the first person to actually teel it as it is to me when I am being an "idiot." I'm sure I am one a lot.

I know I am almost all of the time. I appologize for calling you an idiot.

[J.R. Brown]

I'm not going to waste my time watching some worthless Michael Moore-type garbage.

It's not Michael Moore type garbage. Michael Moore's an idiot.

[J.R. Brown]

If you don't think sh**t goes on behind our backs like this, you're just a naive child. We are being manipulated on a regular basis by the media, politicians and interest groups. Theories aren't usually based on facts.

Politics is manipulation of the masses.  Always has been.  Both parties do it, and right now, the Republicans are simply doing it more successfully than the Democrats, by a small margin.  But that doesn't mean the Democrats aren't doing it.

You seem a little paranoid with all your conspiracy and manipulation theories.  Well informed people are much more difficult to manipulate than ignorant ones.

Questioning the government is not paranoia, it's healthy dissent.

[J.R. Brown]

If you don't think sh**t goes on behind our backs like this, you're just a naive child. We are being manipulated on a regular basis by the media, politicians and interest groups. Theories aren't usually based on facts.

Politics is manipulation of the masses.  Always has been.  Both parties do it, and right now, the Republicans are simply doing it more successfully than the Democrats, by a small margin.  But that doesn't mean the Democrats aren't doing it.

You seem a little paranoid with all your conspiracy and manipulation theories.  Well informed people are much more difficult to manipulate than ignorant ones.

Questioning the government is not paranoia, it's healthy dissent.

There's a difference between questioning and being paranoid. You are nearer to the latter from what I can tell.

You're probably right. When I get going, man, I just can't stop. I don't really think the government is out to get me or anything like that, but there is a lot of bad sh**t that's gone down in the past without our knowledge.

Just think if no one would have found out about Watergate, and it was just some rumor floating around on the internet 30 years later like the Kennedy assassination. That would probably be called paranoia. Not probably, it would be called paranoia.

[J.R. Brown]

What is going on in this thread is what I call the Freeper/DU curve.  Someone comes in and posts the stuff that would be wildly popular on one of those sites and be met without question there.  This forum, not being a highly partisan site, reacts completely differently.  People challenge their views with intelligent debate.

Some people adapt, moderate their posts and go on to become productive members.  Others cannot adapt and either become hate spamming troglodytes or leave.

What's a troglodyte? Is that some sort of computer geek word?

Interpretation Please.

[J.R. Brown]

The extreme wing of the Republican Party displays fascist qualities. Now does that make them fascist? I don't know. Maybe. And it's not my arbitrary definition, its Oxford's arbitrary definition.

Soviet communism didn't work, because a few power hungry groups took control of the system and hoarded all of the money for themselves, and that's why socialism doesn't work. Human Nature. I have no brand of socialism. I have no idea where you got that.

I'm not saying that all Republicans are Fascist. I know some really decent, moderate Republicans. But the extreme wing, which displays fascist tendancies, has taken control of the party has turned it into what it is.

I also admit that the extreme wing of the Democratic Party displays socialist tendancies, but we control our extremists. Of course most Republicans are too stupid to know what pure socialism is. Giving a little money to the poor is not socialist, it's human. Helping the disadvantaged is human. And if you call that socialist, than you are truly a simple minded creature.

Your problem is that you don't know that the money made in this country by our so called free market system is made by most corporate enterprises and very little is made by the individual investor.

Once again, you call your opponents facist and provide no justification of your definition of facism other than,

its Oxford's arbitrary definition.

.  Honestly, I'd be embarrassed if I had posted that.

I think you've failed to understand the problem I'm pointing out with your definition of socialism and Soviet Communism.  You have said that socialism is where there is no inequality, Soviet Communism is where there is no inequality because the government redistributes wealth.  Now, I will ask you for the third time, because you haven't answered yet.  What is the meaningful, practical difference between these two systems, ie, who distributes the wealth to eliminate inequality in socialism if the government doesn't?  Of course, the definition you have given, if the government is the one redistributing wealth, then its Soviet communism, so under your definition of socialism, someone other than the government must do the redistribution.  So who is it?

Here's your quote where you provide the definitions referenced above:

Socialism is supposed to be a system in which there is no inequality, everyone is equal. You're thinking of Soviet socialism where the state controled the distribution of wealth.

Nice of you to tell me what I know and don't know, what I believe and don't believe.  That's 500 posts you're headed towards?  That's cute, I working towards 5,000.  There's a little more to my ideology than simply being your opponent on this question.  Its also nice to see someone start a thread calling their political opponents facist turn around and declare anyone who opposes them a "simple minded creature".  Here's some advice, next time you think about speaking, play it safe and shut the f**ck up.

Especially impressive is that you assumed I was against all government redistribution programs (You can ask Bono and A18 about that subject if you like) simply because I said that you failed to draw the distinction between socialism and Soviet Communism.  Well, you did fail to draw that distincition, and its perfectly valid for me to ask that you actually do draw a distinction.  Your inability to draw the distinction, and my demand that you do so properly, as Mike Dukakis might say, "isn't about ideology, its about competence".

Man, you are taking this thing way to seriously. I don't really think Republicans are fascist Nazis. I wanted to see how you guys would respond to that type of question, and you played right into it beautifully. I've never seen anyone get so frustrated like you have.

 My opinion, tell me if you don't understand. I apologize for not being more clear earlier.

Communism: The people who support communism have this belief that a certain population of people will be able to act as a unit. A community in which all members of that community serve an important task of sustaining the environment in which they live. So, every member of that community should, in theory, be able to share the resources which they all produce as one. Sort of like a machine. They all act as a single unit. The problem with this is that a large population of people cannot do this. There's too much confusion and disorder. There needs to be a supervisor sort of. That's where communism is flawed. You can't have a supervisor or a leader. People must work together as an interdependent being. Once that leader is added, it ceases to be communism and turns into a dictatorship, posing as communism. Personally, I would rather work to provide for my own family and myself and not be forced to share with others.

Soviet Communism: A small group of people took over Russia. Now they wanted to form a commune, a large community where everybody could share, but instead they gathered all of the resources from the people to distribute the wealth evenly. They did this, probably, because human nature made it impossible for the Russian people to cease being individuals and become simply a part of a community. So, the leaders had to take control over the people and take their wealth from them and distribute it amonst the people. That's where the dictatorship started. Communism is impossible and the Soviet Union proved this.

I hope I answered your question. Hopefully, I'll be able to graduate from college once I reach that 1,000 mark like you have.

[J.R. Brown]

If you've never seen anyone take anything as seriously as I took this thread, please go outdoors.

If you don't want people to take things seriously, don't insult them.

You mean post like, "should women have the right to vote." or "should these people not be allowed to vote." with a list of people whom they consider to be weak and therefore not eligible or worth their attention. A lot of those posts come from Republicans on this forum and I am sick of it. Maybe I should have waited until I reached the 1,000 mark before I started posting insulting comments.

[J.R. Brown]

If you've never seen anyone take anything as seriously as I took this thread, please go outdoors.

If you don't want people to take things seriously, don't insult them.

You mean post like, "should women have the right to vote." or "should these people not be allowed to vote." with a list of people whom they consider to be weak and therefore not eligible or worth their attention. A lot of those posts come from Republicans on this forum and I am sick of it. Maybe I should have waited until I reached the 1,000 mark before I started posting insulting comments.

Its not about plateaus, its about pretending that one post out of almost 5,000 that stakes no ideological position in and of itself can be used to generalize a person's ideology.

So, they post that crap like I did. To get a rise out of people.