3 of 4
3
Infographics - the Truthy Project… diffusion network - Indiana University
Posted: 14 October 2010 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

I dunno where you got that definition of fascism, but it’s quite different from wikipedia’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism] and I’d trust wikipedia’s more. Also, Obama is not a fascist according to the wikipedia definition. Is he authoritarian? No. Is he a nationalist? No. Is he pro-war? Not so much.

Write4U’s explanation of how the bailout money was returned and how control of corporations has been given back is not an example of special pleading since the exemption is justified. If Obama had kept control over those corporations maybe you could make the case that he was a fascist, but since he has given control back it can’t exactly be considered evidence of fascism.

Are you saying a government should never interfere with an impending collapse, otherwise you would call it fascist?

How do you know the collapse was not imminent? I think most leading economists would not agree with you there…

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 05:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 05:38 PM

I wonder how all the Obama apologists will try to spin his administrations defending the Defense of Marriage Act?

It was not his administration that defended the defense of marriage act. It was the department of justice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Legal_history 2nd to last paragraph].

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
domokato - 14 October 2010 05:52 PM
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 05:38 PM

I wonder how all the Obama apologists will try to spin his administrations defending the Defense of Marriage Act?

It was not his administration that defended the defense of marriage act. It was the department of justice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Legal_history 2nd to last paragraph].

Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling
—Reuters [Emphasis added.]

Obama Justice Department Defends Defense Of Marriage Act
—ABC [Emphasis added.]

Defense of Marriage Act Ruling Appealed by Obama Administration
—Business Week [Emphasis added.]

Just like I predicted, more Special Pleading.

[ Edited: 14 October 2010 06:03 PM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

Okay, guess you’re sources are right. (edit: but how is anything I said special pleading? I was just stating what I thought was a fact. And technically, I think I’m right that the department of justice is not part of his administration but rather is only headed by a member of his cabinet).

But what do you make of this?:

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

“As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

Do you know whether or not this is what the justice department “traditionally does”?

By the way, I am not an “Obama apologist”. I just think your assertions that he is a fascist is off base.

[ Edited: 14 October 2010 06:12 PM by domokato ]
 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

...and I’d trust wikipedia’s more.

Then you are a fool and you know nothing of history to boot. 

domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

Write4U’s explanation of how the bailout money was returned and how control of corporations has been given back is not an example of special pleading since the exemption is justified.

Myself and many others say it was never justified.  Your justification of it is Special Pleading.  You can never prove it was “justified,” that is only your opinion. 

domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

If Obama had kept control over those corporations maybe you could make the case that he was a fascist

 
And since Obama does not want to seem to give back any of the control he and the government seized when it comes to health care, then are you prepared to admit that that is fascism?

domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

Are you saying a government should never interfere with an impending collapse, otherwise you would call it fascist?

How do you know the collapse was not imminent? I think most leading economists would not agree with you there…

Are you saying the Presisdent wanted to “act before the threat was imminent?”  Where have I heard that before?  And who were the people most loudly protesting against such preemptive action?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
domokato - 14 October 2010 06:06 PM

Okay, guess you’re sources are right.

But what do you make of this?:

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

“As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

 

Then why did Obama have his Justice Department stop federal raids of Medical Marijuana Stores?  If he feels so obligated to defend federal laws, he would have continued those raids.  But he didn’t.  He made the decision and gave the order to ignore that federal law.  He could have given an order not to go through with the filing on the DOMA.  But he didn’t.  The buck stops with Obama.  But since he doesn’t care about gays, he doesn’t care about stopping the DOMA.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 06:10 PM
domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

...and I’d trust wikipedia’s more.

Then you are a fool and you know nothing of history to boot. 

That’s probably somewhat accurate. I’m only 24, have not had much education in history, and am still learning about it on my own time (and in debates like these). But you haven’t explained why wikipedia is wrong. Why should I accept your definition over mine?

domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

Write4U’s explanation of how the bailout money was returned and how control of corporations has been given back is not an example of special pleading since the exemption is justified.

Myself and many others say it was never justified.  Your justification of it is Special Pleading.  You can never prove it was “justified,” that is only your opinion. 

domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

If Obama had kept control over those corporations maybe you could make the case that he was a fascist

 
And since Obama does not want to seem to give back any of the control he and the government seized when it comes to health care, then are you prepared to admit that that is fascism?

Upon further reading about fascism, I don’t understand how this is fascist at all. In fact, if anything it should be considered socialist (including the government takeover of corporations). If this is an example of fascism, and the US is one of the last first world countries to adopt universal health care, does that mean all the other countries that had universal health care before us are fascist?

domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

Are you saying a government should never interfere with an impending collapse, otherwise you would call it fascist?

How do you know the collapse was not imminent? I think most leading economists would not agree with you there…

Are you saying the Presisdent wanted to “act before the threat was imminent?”  Where have I heard that before?  And who were the people most loudly protesting against such preemptive action?

No I’m saying it was imminent.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 06:14 PM
domokato - 14 October 2010 06:06 PM

Okay, guess you’re sources are right.

But what do you make of this?:

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

“As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

 

Then why did Obama have his Justice Department stop federal raids of Medical Marijuana Stores?  If he feels so obligated to defend federal laws, he would have continued those raids.  But he didn’t.  He made the decision and gave the order to ignore that federal law.  He could have given an order not to go through with the filing on the DOMA.  But he didn’t.  The buck stops with Obama.  But since he doesn’t care about gays, he doesn’t care about stopping the DOMA.

quote:

...when challenged in court.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6054
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 05:38 PM

I wonder how all the Obama apologists will try to spin his administrations defending the Defense of Marriage Act?  He lies to gays to get their vote then tosses them under the bus with the shitload of other people he has already tossed under that crowded bus.  And the Obama apologists will contort themselves every which way and bend over backward to not say a bad word about him.  I mean, I know they will resort to Special Pleading (see several examples of that above), but I can’t wait to hear their pathetic rationalizations. 

Consenting adults have the right to marry whomever they wish.  And whether it was the Bush administration or the Obama administration that is curtailing those individuals their rights, that too is part and parcel of fascism.

Here you are correct, but it is up to congress (not the president) to write or recind laws. The President will then enact or veto, at which time his position becomes clearly defined.

All I can say is that “Special Circumstances” warrant “temporary Special Pleadings”

By your definition, undergoing surgery (having someone stab you with a knife) is a Special Pleading.

But having no status, reputation or country to save from a few greedy monopolies, you can call me anything you want.  cool smile

[ Edited: 14 October 2010 07:39 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6054
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 06:14 PM
domokato - 14 October 2010 06:06 PM

Okay, guess you’re sources are right.

But what do you make of this?:

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

“As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

 

Then why did Obama have his Justice Department stop federal raids of Medical Marijuana Stores?  If he feels so obligated to defend federal laws, he would have continued those raids.  But he didn’t.  He made the decision and gave the order to ignore that federal law.  He could have given an order not to go through with the filing on the DOMA.  But he didn’t.  The buck stops with Obama.  But since he doesn’t care about gays, he doesn’t care about stopping the DOMA.

Humm…loosening of Federal laws constitutes fascism? Now that is what I call Special Pleading… LOL

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 06:10 PM
domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

...and I’d trust wikipedia’s more.

Then you are a fool and you know nothing of history to boot. 

OK, fair enough, in a two dimensional way.

Your turn Rocinante - What are your sources of information… and how do you use them?

I ask this because the interesting thing about WIKI is that it is a tool, not perfect.
But it does have a lot of links, for your further investigation.
So it’s a tool, some use it better than others.
Maybe not to be depended on, but worthy nonetheless.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15
domokato - 14 October 2010 05:52 PM
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 05:38 PM

I wonder how all the Obama apologists will try to spin his administrations defending the Defense of Marriage Act?

It was not his administration that defended the defense of marriage act. It was the department of justice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Legal_history 2nd to last paragraph].

OK, so this Defense of Marriage Act is a hot button topic for you. Fair enough.
But, is that really enough for claiming Obama is a Fascist?

Do you really believe all the things you say?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 07:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 06:10 PM
domokato - 14 October 2010 05:46 PM

If Obama had kept control over those corporations maybe you could make the case that he was a fascist

 
And since Obama does not want to seem to give back any of the control he and the government seized when it comes to health care, then are you prepared to admit that that is fascism?

WHAT ?  this doesn’t even make sense…
My Take:  Establishing guidelines is a long way from “taking control” and fascism.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 07:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 14 October 2010 06:40 PM

Humm…loosening of Federal laws constitutes fascism? Now that is what I call Special Pleading… LOL

You surely can’t be that dense, can you?!  I pointed out how the Obama Administration chose to ignore one federal law (raids on medical marijuana stores) but chose to keep another federal law (DOMA) to point out that the Obama Administration was lying when they said they had to follow federal law. 

For the record I am against raids on medical marijuana stores and I am for gay marriage.  Obama, however, must be opposed to gay marriage since he could have stopped his Justice Department from their filing in regards to DOMA.  And opposing consenting adults the right to marry is fascist.  He just wanted the gay vote.  Now he desperately needs to appeal to the majority who opposes gay marriage.  he will do anything to hold onto power.  He will lie to anyone.  He will lie about anyone.  Look at his lie about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funneling foreign money into advertisements.  Look at his lie that doctors are removing healthy tonsils just to make a quick buck. 

Look at some hallmarks of fascism from Robert Paxton’s Anatomy of Fascism:

* A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions (During Obama’s Feb. 18 address on the mortgage crisis, he said the word “crisis” 24 times, Frequently in apocalyptic terms; Obama’s first national press conference he used the word “crisis” 12 times and noted that it was an “unprecedented crisis”; Obama’s radio address to the nation on Jan. 24, Obama claimed, “We begin this year and this Administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action.” and so on and so on…)

* The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it. (The left’s war on the individual is well known.  Here’s Obama’s thoughts on it: “Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” His “spread the wealth around” comment clearly shows he feels individuals don’t have the right to their own property - thus their own body with which to earn that money.)

* The belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external. (Victimhood is a hallmark of the democratic left.  Victim of the “evil rich” of the “racist whites” of the Tea Party, or whoever the boogeyman of the moment is.)

* The need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny.
(“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”—Barack Obama on himself; “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” —Barack Obama.  As for the sexism: Remember the sexism from Obama supporters with their “Bros before Hoes” shirts? Obama’s own sexism has even been called out by democrats.

* The superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason.
(“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death”—Barack Obama; “God Has Blessed Us With Obama”—Nancy Pelosi; “He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere.”—George Clooney; “I’ll do whatever he says to do.  I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”—Halle Berry; “Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?”—Daily Kos;“He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century.”—Gary Hart; “This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.” | “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event.”—Chris Matthews; “We’re here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth.”—Oprah Winfrey)


I know the facts I have pointed out are painful.  I know you don’t want to believe Obama is a fascist.  But he is.  You can attack me all you want, but it won’t change the facts.  Obama is a fascist.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 07:54 PM

You surely can’t be that dense, can you?!
I know the facts I have pointed out are painful.

No you have puzzled together pieces that you believe make your argument - which is actually a transparent “a priori” rejection of anything Obama has anything to do with. Regardless of the underlying situation, or merits.
You fill in only your slivers of information, while avoiding the greater reality of the situations.

Rocinante - 14 October 2010 07:54 PM

Look at some hallmarks of fascism from Robert Paxton’s Anatomy of Fascism:

What if Paxton is a big fool blowing smoke?
I ask this because his list was pretty unimpressive.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3