|
OT:Americans and guns
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 28 2014, 08:01 AM (620 Views)
|
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Jan 28 2014, 04:15 PM
Post #41
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- Gooner0893
- Jan 28 2014, 04:06 PM
After reading JODB's soliloquy, I had to grab my dictionary to re-examine the definition of fascism. Then, I realized that my understanding of the word wasn't incorrect. This is just another example of JODB's propensity for melodrama. "Corporate fascism." That means that big money runs things at the expense of the people. Militaristic or not, that is control from an authoritarian right-wing force, just like the dictionary said.
You're an intellectual as well as a moral lightweight.
|
|
|
| |
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Jan 28 2014, 04:20 PM
Post #42
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 04:11 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 03:42 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 03:03 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 02:54 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 02:44 PM
- dsch15
- Jan 28 2014, 02:22 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 02:15 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 01:55 PM
Franklin's quote is my favorite from those founding fellas, and it has perhaps never been more relevant than today. From snooping on the citizenry to imperialism abroad, Obama is the third-term of Bush, and worse in many ways.
I have plenty of issues with Obama, but I think calling him the same as Bush is unfair. Obama inherited impossible situations. Bush created them.
I think that 'get out of jail' card has expired. Every president inherits nasty problems. At some point he has to own them. It's the nature of the job.
Again not fair to compare what other presidents inherited, there is no comparison. Obama got: --Biggest recession since depression --Iraq --Tea Party Frankly, if you look at where the country is today (at least economically) vs where it was in December 2008, you could make a case for his greatness, particularly given the environment he exists in. Plus he loves the Bears and the White Sox.
The divisions of wealth have dramatically increased under the Obama presidency. There are a billion reasons why he is servicing Wall Street over Main Street. Any CEO's go to jail in the last few years? Executives? No, but the FBI went after Aaron Schwartz with everything they had for downloading files from the MIT website. We live in a fascist state, and Obama is it's willing leader.
If you say so.
The division in wealth hasn't continued to increase by leaps and bounds under Obama just like it did under Bush? News to me, but if you say so.
The division of wealth in this country has jumped since Reagan (and before) as hyperbole-driven neocon economics (supported by Dems as well) have become accepted as the norm. That the rich get richer during and after a recession is the reality of capitalism, its apolitical. Like it or not, Wall Street always recovers first. And Obama hasn't been a willing steward of the status quo for the majority of his presidency? And though Reagan and his team of punks really started the ball rolling, it was actually under Clinton's watch that the Glass-Stiegel Act was rescinded allowing banks to mix funds from commercial banking with risky investment schemes - the single greatest factor that brought on the recent recession.
They're not all crooks though - just most of them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gooner0893
|
Jan 28 2014, 04:25 PM
Post #43
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,341
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
I understood that you were referring to corporate fascism. While I agree that corporations control and run things, it's remarkably naive on your part to expect any president from either party to change the culture. And yes, I believe that the word fascism is too strong a word to use when it comes this subject, hence my accusation of melodrama.
|
|
|
| |
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Jan 28 2014, 04:47 PM
Post #44
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- Gooner0893
- Jan 28 2014, 04:25 PM
I understood that you were referring to corporate fascism. While I agree that corporations control and run things, it's remarkably naive on your part to expect any president from either party to change the culture. And yes, I believe that the word fascism is too strong a word to use when it comes this subject, hence my accusation of melodrama. And that's somehow not "corporate fascism?" Give yer head a shake.
|
|
|
| |
|
Joe Bobs Fine Foods
|
Jan 28 2014, 04:48 PM
Post #45
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,007
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Jul 4, 2013
|
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 04:20 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 04:11 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 03:42 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 03:03 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 02:54 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 02:44 PM
- dsch15
- Jan 28 2014, 02:22 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 02:15 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 01:55 PM
Franklin's quote is my favorite from those founding fellas, and it has perhaps never been more relevant than today. From snooping on the citizenry to imperialism abroad, Obama is the third-term of Bush, and worse in many ways.
I have plenty of issues with Obama, but I think calling him the same as Bush is unfair. Obama inherited impossible situations. Bush created them.
I think that 'get out of jail' card has expired. Every president inherits nasty problems. At some point he has to own them. It's the nature of the job.
Again not fair to compare what other presidents inherited, there is no comparison. Obama got: --Biggest recession since depression --Iraq --Tea Party Frankly, if you look at where the country is today (at least economically) vs where it was in December 2008, you could make a case for his greatness, particularly given the environment he exists in. Plus he loves the Bears and the White Sox.
The divisions of wealth have dramatically increased under the Obama presidency. There are a billion reasons why he is servicing Wall Street over Main Street. Any CEO's go to jail in the last few years? Executives? No, but the FBI went after Aaron Schwartz with everything they had for downloading files from the MIT website. We live in a fascist state, and Obama is it's willing leader.
If you say so.
The division in wealth hasn't continued to increase by leaps and bounds under Obama just like it did under Bush? News to me, but if you say so.
The division of wealth in this country has jumped since Reagan (and before) as hyperbole-driven neocon economics (supported by Dems as well) have become accepted as the norm. That the rich get richer during and after a recession is the reality of capitalism, its apolitical. Like it or not, Wall Street always recovers first.
And Obama hasn't been a willing steward of the status quo for the majority of his presidency? And though Reagan and his team of punks really started the ball rolling, it was actually under Clinton's watch that the Glass-Stiegel Act was rescinded allowing banks to mix funds from commercial banking with risky investment schemes - the single greatest factor that brought on the recent recession. They're not all crooks though - just most of them. Its such a blanket statement when you say he's a willing steward. What does that mean? What should he do?
He certainly wasn't happy with the Supreme Court protecting the rights of corporations to own us. But it did.
|
|
|
| |
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Jan 28 2014, 04:50 PM
Post #46
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 04:48 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 04:20 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 04:11 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 03:42 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 03:03 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 02:54 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 02:44 PM
- dsch15
- Jan 28 2014, 02:22 PM
- Joe Bobs Fine Foods
- Jan 28 2014, 02:15 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 01:55 PM
Franklin's quote is my favorite from those founding fellas, and it has perhaps never been more relevant than today. From snooping on the citizenry to imperialism abroad, Obama is the third-term of Bush, and worse in many ways.
I have plenty of issues with Obama, but I think calling him the same as Bush is unfair. Obama inherited impossible situations. Bush created them.
I think that 'get out of jail' card has expired. Every president inherits nasty problems. At some point he has to own them. It's the nature of the job.
Again not fair to compare what other presidents inherited, there is no comparison. Obama got: --Biggest recession since depression --Iraq --Tea Party Frankly, if you look at where the country is today (at least economically) vs where it was in December 2008, you could make a case for his greatness, particularly given the environment he exists in. Plus he loves the Bears and the White Sox.
The divisions of wealth have dramatically increased under the Obama presidency. There are a billion reasons why he is servicing Wall Street over Main Street. Any CEO's go to jail in the last few years? Executives? No, but the FBI went after Aaron Schwartz with everything they had for downloading files from the MIT website. We live in a fascist state, and Obama is it's willing leader.
If you say so.
The division in wealth hasn't continued to increase by leaps and bounds under Obama just like it did under Bush? News to me, but if you say so.
The division of wealth in this country has jumped since Reagan (and before) as hyperbole-driven neocon economics (supported by Dems as well) have become accepted as the norm. That the rich get richer during and after a recession is the reality of capitalism, its apolitical. Like it or not, Wall Street always recovers first.
And Obama hasn't been a willing steward of the status quo for the majority of his presidency? And though Reagan and his team of punks really started the ball rolling, it was actually under Clinton's watch that the Glass-Stiegel Act was rescinded allowing banks to mix funds from commercial banking with risky investment schemes - the single greatest factor that brought on the recent recession. They're not all crooks though - just most of them.
Its such a blanket statement when you say he's a willing steward. What does that mean? What should he do? He certainly wasn't happy with the Supreme Court protecting the rights of corporations to own us. But it did. Yes, a willing steward. Most of the billion bucks that got him elected paid for that service to capital.
|
|
|
| |
|
dsch15
|
Jan 28 2014, 05:00 PM
Post #47
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,526
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2013
|
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 04:47 PM
- Gooner0893
- Jan 28 2014, 04:25 PM
I understood that you were referring to corporate fascism. While I agree that corporations control and run things, it's remarkably naive on your part to expect any president from either party to change the culture. And yes, I believe that the word fascism is too strong a word to use when it comes this subject, hence my accusation of melodrama.
And that's somehow not "corporate fascism?" Give yer head a shake. In any truly fascist state, corporate or otherwise, you'd have been locked up long ago for remarks like this.
Criticize anything you want (your ability to do so is unconstrained by real fascism), but please do us the service of using less shrill propaganda.
|
|
|
| |
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Jan 28 2014, 05:12 PM
Post #48
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- dsch15
- Jan 28 2014, 05:00 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 04:47 PM
- Gooner0893
- Jan 28 2014, 04:25 PM
I understood that you were referring to corporate fascism. While I agree that corporations control and run things, it's remarkably naive on your part to expect any president from either party to change the culture. And yes, I believe that the word fascism is too strong a word to use when it comes this subject, hence my accusation of melodrama.
And that's somehow not "corporate fascism?" Give yer head a shake.
In any truly fascist state, corporate or otherwise, you'd have been locked up long ago for remarks like this. Criticize anything you want (your ability to do so is unconstrained by real fascism), but please do us the service of using less shrill propaganda. And fascism has to be opaque? There aren't varying degrees of fascism?
Just because I'm not locked up for pointing out and criticizing corporate control of my country, doesn't mean that those in control aren't fascists to some degree.
Had they seized and enforced control with guns, we would call them fascists. The fact that they do so with strokes of pens makes them no less so.
The more we reflect upon it, the more comfortable I am with the term "corporate fascism." It may be "shrill" to label it as such, but there is far greater danger in not recognizing this dynamic now, because it certainly represents the slippery slope to militaristic fascism.
|
|
|
| |
|
jays712
|
Jan 28 2014, 05:17 PM
Post #49
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,532
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #25
- Joined:
- Jul 10, 2013
|
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 05:12 PM
- dsch15
- Jan 28 2014, 05:00 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 04:47 PM
- Gooner0893
- Jan 28 2014, 04:25 PM
I understood that you were referring to corporate fascism. While I agree that corporations control and run things, it's remarkably naive on your part to expect any president from either party to change the culture. And yes, I believe that the word fascism is too strong a word to use when it comes this subject, hence my accusation of melodrama.
And that's somehow not "corporate fascism?" Give yer head a shake.
In any truly fascist state, corporate or otherwise, you'd have been locked up long ago for remarks like this. Criticize anything you want (your ability to do so is unconstrained by real fascism), but please do us the service of using less shrill propaganda.
And fascism has to be opaque? There aren't varying degrees of fascism? Just because I'm not locked up for pointing out and criticizing corporate control of my country, doesn't mean that those in control aren't fascists to some degree. Had they seized and enforced control with guns, we would call them fascists. The fact that they do so with strokes of pens makes them no less so. The more we reflect upon it, the more comfortable I am with the term "corporate fascism." It may be "shrill" to label it as such, but there is far greater danger in not recognizing this dynamic now, because it certainly represents the slippery slope to militaristic fascism. Come on JODB. There's no question that big business and corporations hold way too much Influence on policy but militaritic fascism? I couldn't see that happening In our country ever. You watching Alex Jones too much?
|
|
|
| |
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Jan 28 2014, 05:26 PM
Post #50
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- jays712
- Jan 28 2014, 05:17 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 05:12 PM
- dsch15
- Jan 28 2014, 05:00 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Jan 28 2014, 04:47 PM
- Gooner0893
- Jan 28 2014, 04:25 PM
I understood that you were referring to corporate fascism. While I agree that corporations control and run things, it's remarkably naive on your part to expect any president from either party to change the culture. And yes, I believe that the word fascism is too strong a word to use when it comes this subject, hence my accusation of melodrama.
And that's somehow not "corporate fascism?" Give yer head a shake.
In any truly fascist state, corporate or otherwise, you'd have been locked up long ago for remarks like this. Criticize anything you want (your ability to do so is unconstrained by real fascism), but please do us the service of using less shrill propaganda.
And fascism has to be opaque? There aren't varying degrees of fascism? Just because I'm not locked up for pointing out and criticizing corporate control of my country, doesn't mean that those in control aren't fascists to some degree. Had they seized and enforced control with guns, we would call them fascists. The fact that they do so with strokes of pens makes them no less so. The more we reflect upon it, the more comfortable I am with the term "corporate fascism." It may be "shrill" to label it as such, but there is far greater danger in not recognizing this dynamic now, because it certainly represents the slippery slope to militaristic fascism.
Come on JODB. There's no question that big business and corporations hold way too much Influence on policy but militaritic fascism? I couldn't see that happening In our country ever. You watching Alex Jones too much? Corporate fascism gives a potential foothold to greater control by the state, from heavy policing to massive surveillance. It doesn't have to be the military enforcing it to be fascism.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|