Support NeoGAF

[Particle Physicist]

Now, let's take a brief moment to look at George:

Bush's own 'executive order' to authorize his permanent 'Unitary Executive Power' gives him the right to suspend the constitution and declare martial law should a 'national emergency' (like another 9/11) warrant it, at his discretion. Furthermore, under martial law he can declare whomever he wants an 'unlawful enemy combatant' thus removing all of their rights under international law.

Now, that's one hell of a dictator if you ask me.

are people fucken happy about that? you are comparing him to bush.

 

[Walshicus]

URL? Isn't there something in the EU constition about nobility and how to deal with them? Why does Span needs a king? Is it a way to be in the good side of the Catholic pope?

Um... no. I didn't actually read the entirity of the old EU Constitution or the yet to be ratified Reform Treaty which has replaced it, but I'm fairly certain there's nothing about how the states deal with their various systems of monarchy and nobility. Why would there be? It's not an area of concern.

And Spain has a king for the same reason lots of places do; tradition and the fact that most people want him to be there. Don't get me wrong, I'm an English republican and hate the fuckers... but they're not there against popular opinion.


EDIT: Regarding Chavez. Is he a villain, an enemy of all that's good and right? No. Does he have a stupid tendency to over react to percieved insults and does he not know when to shut his mouth? Yes.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Huh? The facts speak for themselves, he's a bastard. But there's no point in arguing with his apologists - maybe we'll talk when he starts executing the opposition and declares himself dictator. But even then you'd probably find an elaborate way to blame it all on Bush

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7084262.stm

At least eight people were hurt during the clashes on a university campus, including at least one by gunfire.

The students were protesting against plans to remove presidential term limits, the subject of a referendum.

Thousands had marched to Venezuela's Supreme Court and filed a demand for the December vote to be suspended.

Last week, troops used tear gas and water cannon to disperse thousands of students protesting in Caracas against the proposed amendments.

several 'unknown' gunmen. :lol yeah.

not really killing the opposition though..

 

[Giganticus]

I find it funny that a fascist (Chavez) attempts to slander someone by calling them a "fascist". It is like Chavez does not understand the concept of irony. Another weirdo going around accusing people of being the very thing he is as if people are not smart enough see through that thin smoke screen.

Just by looking at the definition of Fascism, it's entirely correct to say that the US is closer to a Fascist aka Corporate state than one where the leader is currently nationalising all services he possibly can and is vehemently anti-capitalist.

oh? when those rumors came out about charles being gay/bisexual I heard multiple times that english reporters were feeding the news to american outlets because it was illegal for them to print anything negative about the royal family.

That was just to avoid defamation suits in British courts. And plenty of mentions were made on various TV Shows and often inferred to in various publications. We're allowed to make fun of the Royal Family as much as we want. If we weren't the Private Eye wouldn't exist. However just a few months ago a Spanish cartoonist was sent to two years jail for insulting their Royal family (Link). That plus King Juan Carlos' daddy was the leader of Spain's fascists during the Spanish Civil War does mean Chavez is on the high ground. Chavez still shouldn't've pointed it out though, that's just bad diplomacy.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Just by looking at the definition of Fascism, it's entirely correct to say that the US is closer to a Fascist aka Corporate state than one where the leader is currently nationalising all services he possibly can and is vehemently anti-capitalist.

????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.

and if you want to point to the use of the word corporatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body.

 

[Giganticus]

Do you even know who Mussolini was and what he did and why he was considered the "Father of Fascism"?

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861–1946)#Economic_policy Simple, I'll quote the important part:

The economic policy of corporatism quickly faltered: the left-wing elements of the Fascist manifesto were opposed by industrialists and landowners who supported the party because it pledged to defend Italy from communism and socialism. As a result, corporatist policy became dominated by the industries. Throughout the Mussolini era, economic legislation mostly favoured the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes by allowing privatization, liberalization of rent laws and dismantling of non-Fascist unions.

EDIT2: Hey I'll just run off this list you gave me:
nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
United States: Yes, Yes (on a personal level, not economic level), slowly getting there, Yes, Yes, Hard to Say, No, Officially No but the current administration would say Yes.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Do you even know who Mussolini was and what he did and why he was considered the "Father of Fascism"?

you said: 'Just by looking at the definition of Fascism'

and the definition of Fascism more closely resembles what Chavez is doing in venezuela than the US.

 

[Dies Iræ]

Well, my rational conclusion is that what Chavez is doing is leading to communism. What, you live in Venezuela or something?

A rational conclusion is one based on a logical analysis of facts. You've got a partisan conclusion based on an ideologically biased media.

No, he's just representing the counterculture to the world.

I'm a harsh critic of most self-titled 'counterculturalists.' The majority of them are protofascists...

Huh? The facts speak for themselves, he's a bastard. But there's no point in arguing with his apologists - maybe we'll talk when he starts executing the opposition and declares himself dictator. But even then you'd probably find an elaborate way to blame it all on Bush

The facts do speak for themselves and they clearly illustrate that he's acting within the constitution, for the public good, and in the interests of his nation. Whether or not he's a bastard is still up for inquiry.

It's really not difficult to 'blame it all on Bush' given that he engineered a military overthrow of the Venezuelan government. How anyone can take this lightly is beyond me - that's about as undemocratic a thing I can imagine.

you said: 'Just by looking at the definition of Fascism'

and the definition of Fascism more closely resembles what Chavez is doing in venezuela than the US.

False.

The major institutions of society are under popular control in Venezuela; in the United States they've been largely privatized. In a democracy the central institutions of society must be under public control - as they are in Venezuela. Capitalism is an autocratic system, tight control at the top and strict obedience... when these private powers control the major institutions of society, that society becomes de facto fascist.

 

[Particle Physicist]

EDIT2: Hey I'll just run off this list you gave me:
nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
United States: Yes, Yes, slowly getting there, Yes, Yes, Hard to Say, No, Officially No but the current administration would say Yes.

dude. you can run off a list just like that about venezuela.. how about this part of the definition: " that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state."

 

[Giganticus]

you said: 'Just by looking at the definition of Fascism'

and the definition of Fascism more closely resembles what Chavez is doing in venezuela than the US.

People say the definition of Communism is what happened in the USSR. It's pointless to argue this fact, so I'll just say that the definition of Fascism is what happened in Fascist Italy and base it off that.

dude. you can run off a list just like that about venezuela.. how about this part of the definition: " that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state."

When the state is controlled by Corporate interests, the interests of the state are in profiteering and keeping lobbyists happy. Meanwhile many Americans live in depression, crippling debt and/or poverty.

 

[Particle Physicist]

People say the definition of Communism is what happened in the USSR. It's pointless to argue this fact, so I'll just say that the definition of Fascism is what happened in Fascist Italy and base it off that.

okay. so thats the definition you are using now. but its certainly not the definition Dr. Kitty Muffins was referring to .

 

[Dies Iræ]

If we're to speak of Italy, why not envoke Hitler, too?

The stormtroopers wore Hugo Boss jackets and Coke sold their "Fanta" drinks in Nazi Germany. IBM made the computers that the Nazi's used in concentration camps.

 

[Giganticus]

okay. so thats the definition you are using now. but its certainly not the definition Dr. Kitty Muffins was referring to .

Probably not but you shouldn't have to white knight for his ignorance.

If we're to speak of Italy, why not envoke Hitler, too?

The stormtroopers wore Hugo Boss jackets and Coke sold their "Fanta" drinks in Nazi Germany. IBM made the computers that the Nazi's used in concentration camps.

Bush's grandpappy sold them weapons. Even more hilarious.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

If we're to speak of Italy, why not envoke Hitler, too?

The stormtroopers wore Hugo Boss jackets and Coke sold their "Fanta" drinks in Nazi Germany. IBM made the computers that the Nazi's used in concentration camps.

Speaking of Hitler, he was voted via democratic process too. :lol

Bush's great grandpappy sold them weapons. Even more hilarious.

See now youre just talking out of your ass. :lol

Prescott Bush was a founding associate of a bank that had dealings with German companies. He didn't sell any weapons to the Nazi party.

 

[Dies Iræ]

Bush's grandpappy sold them weapons. Even more hilarious.

I was just reading about that today in the guardian: how Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power.

Speaking of Hitler, he was voted via democratic process too. :lol

Just because Hitler won the popular vote doesnt mean that he was elected via any sort of democratic process. Voting has almost nothing to do with democracy.

 

[Youta Mottenai]

Chavez is a tool but the spanish king has no right. He has no power and Venezuela is no longer a Spanish colony, so stfu too, you powerless royalty.

I maybe would agree with you if wasn´t the fact Chavez loves to talk how other presidents here in South-America should or should not conduct their countries/internal affairs.
One that come to mind was when here in Brazil he openly criticize local newspapers and networks saying they are linked to "the North American Imperialism" and to "South-American oligarchs" (hinting their licences should be revoked or some kind of censorship, the wet-dream of dictators, should be applied). Unfortunately, Lula, who seems to like the idea of news censorship, instead of saying "STFU Chavez", just fell silent. So even it was not elegant props to the king.

His ancestors were probably the reason why so many former Spanish colonies are fucked up to this day.

No, they´re not. The real reason is corruption, low education and stupidity beyond reasonable. And no Chavez doesn´t give a rat-ass about Venezuelan people, what he wants is power. He wants a "United Latin-America", with, surprise, he as its leader, obviously.

 

[Enron]

I don't understand the animosity towards Chavez. What basis do all of you have for this hatred against his government?

Is it the fact that he's a lower-middle class peasant who was democratically elected by the majority of Venezuelans? Is it that we could never have such a democratic president? Ours must go to Yale, join some secret society, and have ties to the Bin Laden family.

Is it the fact that his administration persists despite George W. Bush's attempt to stage a coup d'etat in 2002? Chavez returned to office after millions of Venezuelans protested in Caracas. In the States we rally in protest, but it isnt FOR our president.

Or is it the fact that Chavez trumpets Noam Chomsky at the UN, showing that at least some of our world leaders are well read. I wonder if Bush even knows who Chomsky is.

Or is it the fact that you have Chavez because you're told to - by the same imbeciles, liars and criminals who told you that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons?

Look - I'm not supporting Chavez's socialist policies. But I do support his government, which was democratically elected. I'm against the massive propaganda campaign targetting his government, trying to paint it as some sort of Marxist-Leninist revival (dictatorship, etc., etc.). It's simply ridiculous.

I can see legitimate reasons to disagree with Chavez's policies - but in my mind, we would be so lucky to have him as our president.

 

[Relix]

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Sorry Dies, communism, socialism isn't the way. Media isn't biased, it is a proven fact that both of them are awful, democracy is where it is. Open your mind my dear friend....

 

[Giganticus]

What's so awful about Socialism? Scandanavia and quite a significant part of the rest of Europe seem to be doing great with it.

 

[itxaka]

http://www.r-09.net/rey2.gif[/IMG]

Nice arguments to refute what he said.

Now, please:

See? it´s easy for the rest to do the same.

 

[Grug]

What's so awful about Socialism? Scandanavia and quite a significant part of the rest of Europe seem to be doing great with it.

Wow.... just wow.

Here is a little pointer for you.

There is a difference between "Socialism" as an ideology, and "Social Democracy" as a political system, particular in parts of Europe.

If those countries in Scandinavia were truly socialist, private citizens would not be able to own any form of enterprise or income producing capital.

They are just welfare states.

 

[HokieJoe]

I don't understand the animosity towards Chavez. What basis do all of you have for this hatred against his government?

Is it the fact that he's a lower-middle class peasant who was democratically elected by the majority of Venezuelans? Is it that we could never have such a democratic president? Ours must go to Yale, join some secret society, and have ties to the Bin Laden family.

Is it the fact that his administration persists despite George W. Bush's attempt to stage a coup d'etat in 2002? Chavez returned to office after millions of Venezuelans protested in Caracas. In the States we rally in protest, but it isnt FOR our president.

Or is it the fact that Chavez trumpets Noam Chomsky at the UN, showing that at least some of our world leaders are well read. I wonder if Bush even knows who Chomsky is.

Or is it the fact that you have Chavez because you're told to - by the same imbeciles, liars and criminals who told you that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons?

Look - I'm not supporting Chavez's socialist policies. But I do support his government, which was democratically elected. I'm against the massive propaganda campaign targetting his government, trying to paint it as some sort of Marxist-Leninist revival (dictatorship, etc., etc.). It's simply ridiculous.

I can see legitimate reasons to disagree with Chavez's policies - but in my mind, we would be so lucky to have him as our president.

:lol

Yeah, that's it.

 

[iamblades]

A rational conclusion is one based on a logical analysis of facts. You've got a partisan conclusion based on an ideologically biased media.



I'm a harsh critic of most self-titled 'counterculturalists.' The majority of them are protofascists...



The facts do speak for themselves and they clearly illustrate that he's acting within the constitution, for the public good, and in the interests of his nation. Whether or not he's a bastard is still up for inquiry.

It's really not difficult to 'blame it all on Bush' given that he engineered a military overthrow of the Venezuelan government. How anyone can take this lightly is beyond me - that's about as undemocratic a thing I can imagine.



False.

The major institutions of society are under popular control in Venezuela; in the United States they've been largely privatized. In a democracy the central institutions of society must be under public control - as they are in Venezuela. Capitalism is an autocratic system, tight control at the top and strict obedience... when these private powers control the major institutions of society, that society becomes de facto fascist.

Privatization is inherently less fascist than 'popular control', As mentioned, the word corporatism comes from the root word Corpus, for body. Meaning that everything is a part of they state's 'body' as it were, and everything in society was to serve the state's interest. It meant that every business, every trade/labor union, every individual, had to serve the interests of the state. It has nothing to do with private business corporations, even private business corporations that lobby alot and have what seems like excessive power.

To put it simply, corporatism is more about the state controlling the corporations than the corporations controlling the state (in it's original meaning anyway, which is the meaning used in the definition of fascism). Corporations controlling the state is a very bad thing indeed, but it is not corporatism in the fascist meaning of the term.

If you think capitalism has tight control at the top and strict obedience, then I'm afraid we are speaking different languages. The whole beauty of capitalism is there is nothing and no one to obey. There are just trades among individuals decided on free will. How you can possible think that capitalism is autocratic but state control of the economy isn't absolutely boggles my mind.

 

[Deku]

Just a side note, since when dealing with elected tyrants and demagogues the 'democracy' card is played to silence critics. Many people whose experience with democracy is limtied to a few rounds at the ballot box often confuse democracy with electocracy. Demagogues and mass murderers can get elected by appealing to emotion and fear. Some of the worst tyrants in the last 100 years were elected.

I once overheard a conversation in which a islamist sympathizer chastized a receptive poli-sci crowd about how Hamas was 'democratically' elected and thus is equivalent to any democratically elected western government. The key difference of course is that in the west, there is an infrastructure, an intelligentsia and a democratically inclined population in place to make such decisions. In failing states or states with no democratic traditions, elections merely extends the status quo and the system of patronage is often used by 'politicians' and parties to gain votes. Most of the voters are either too afraid, ignorant or charmed by the leaders to think objectively and merely vote as they are told or vote for the patron.

 

[iamblades]

Wow.... just wow.

Here is a little pointer for you.

There is a difference between "Socialism" as an ideology, and "Social Democracy" as a political system, particular in parts of Europe.

If those countries in Scandinavia were truly socialist, private citizens would not be able to own any form of enterprise or income producing capital.

They are just welfare states.

^^

Europe is just about all capitalist now, just capitalist with high tax rates, lots of regulations and really generous entitlement programs. Which is all fine and good, except the balance sheet for most of that stuff makes social security and medicare look well funded. Norway and a couple of other countries may have the means to pay for that system for a while, but I think most of those systems will be bankrupt in less than 50 years.

 

[Giganticus]

Wow.... just wow.

Here is a little pointer for you.

There is a difference between "Socialism" as an ideology, and "Social Democracy" as a political system, particular in parts of Europe.

If those countries in Scandinavia were truly socialist, private citizens would not be able to own any form of enterprise or income producing capital.

They are just welfare states.

"No True Scotsman"

 

[Tim the Wiz]

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Sorry Dies, communism, socialism isn't the way. Media isn't biased, it is a proven fact that both of them are awful, democracy is where it is. Open your mind my dear friend....

Democracy is the lesser of many evils. The majority do not make decisions on the issues that concern them, but elect representatives to make those decisions. There are many problems with this system - Adolf Hitler got into power through such a system (the Wiemar constitution that governed Germany at the time was drawn up by Social Democrats) - but they are less than almost any other system of government.

Now, your perceived notion that socialism is evil due to its close ties to communism is inherently flawed. American culture is rather different to that of the world at large. Your fore-fathers at the time had escaped a centralized system of government that cared little for the concerns of the working class man and used taxes for creating greater wealth primarily for the mercantile and aristocratic classes.

This fear of centralized government and greater taxes makes such an aversion to socialistic elements in any part of government in your country possible. It's why your health system may never become universal, and why many other current free market systems might never receive the socialism-based government intervention seen in other industrialized Western countries, such as Canada, the UK and Australia.

Chavez has had some impact on his country. GDP is up, inflation is down, and unemployment is coming down again. Overall, his economic and domestic policies have had some positive effects for the Venezuelan people. However, the concentration of power he has within the bureaucracy, the crime and corruption present within the state, and the human rights violations he has committed in rather nuanced fashion, especially in regard to free speech, does speak quite negatively about the future. Add with this a deficit in housing, little improvement in education and public infrastructure, including hospitals, due to the government's reluctance to utilize private sector resources, and you can see that while some things are going right, not everything is going right either.

Yes, the Chavez government currently in power in Venezuela is doing a lot of wrong things, but from there stating that socialism is a weak system of government underlines a lack of knowledge in the aspects where it is succeeding not only in Venezuela - greater living standards for the poor majority, and increased purchasing power on their part - but also in the rest of the Western world.

It is not a proven fact that socialism is inherently awful. Yes, pure socialism and communism have many flaws, however, I am of the personal belief that socialism must be used in certain areas of the free market economies in the spirit of social justice. Even America runs under some kind of mixed economy, but taking it to the level of universal health care and other such government intervention-based policies is where you draw the line. Is that right? Maybe, for your people, it is. Is it a proven fact? No.

Think about that.

 

[Grug]

Why do some people think Democracy is incompatible with Socialism/Communism?

Democracy basically means that the government is answerable to people via the electoral process.

Socialism/Communism, like Capitalism is just a theory of how the division and ownership of labour and capital is to be addressed in a particular society.

That said... capitalism for the win.

 

[Pellham]

The facts do speak for themselves and they clearly illustrate that he's acting within the constitution, for the public good, and in the interests of his nation. Whether or not he's a bastard is still up for inquiry.

You haven't posted any facts, just a list of bullshit and lies made up by left wingers.

 

[Boogie9IGN]

Fuck Chavez is my second motto, with Fuck Fidel being the first

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Why do some people think Democracy is incompatible with Socialism/Communism?

Democracy basically means that the government is answerable to people via the electoral process.

Amen. Mixed economy is probably the best course of government available to society at large.

Socialism/Communism, like Capitalism is just a theory of how the division and ownership of labour and capital is to be addressed in a particular society.

That said... capitalism for the win.

Perhaps this is where we differ. Capitalism, with checks and balances to protect those living in relative and absolute poverty, is definitely my flavor.

Edit: Oh wait, you're Australian, too? Guess we both come from (although, I wasn't born here) a country with a pretty good economic system. Now, let's see what we can do about these AWAs the Liberals have pushed in...

 

[Grug]

Perhaps this is where we differ. Capitalism, with checks and balances to protect those living in relative and absolute poverty, is definitely my flavor.

Sounds like we agree then?

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Sounds like we agree then?

Pretty much. What's England like?

 

[Grug]

Pretty much. What's England like?

I'm Australian, I did live in the UK for a while though.

Their welfare state systems seem a mess.

The NHS seems to be nothing short of a clusterfuck.

 

[Diatribe1974]

It's sad when you live in a world so devoid of rational though and filled with folks who "Just want to all get along...." that we no longer see the truth. 60 years ago, if everyone here existed then, we'd all be all enraged over the actions of the governments of the world if they even attempted the very same things they're doing today. 60 years ago, virtually no government would've even attempted this stuff, because they'd have known their own people would've revolted against them in retaliation.

And some of you wonder why this world is going to shit?

When it's finally all said and done, the world goes before it's current state of "Just fucked up" to "Completely fucked", those that stand on the side of "Hey, he's not a bad guy, I don't understand what you're all so upset with 'Government Dictator Shithead IX' anyways" will be the ones who're sitting back, just dumbfounded, trying to appease folks around them that remember what they once said, by saying "Wait...what happened? I don't understand. Duh...Der....Duhh..."

Beam me up Scotty. I want off this mudball of a planet ASAP. The residents of this planet are globally morons now.

 

[Grug]

It's sad when you live in a world so devoid of rational though and filled with folks who "Just want to all get along...." that we no longer see the truth. 60 years ago, if everyone here existed then, we'd all be all enraged over the actions of the governments of the world if they even attempted the very same things they're doing today. 60 years ago, virtually no government would've even attempted this stuff, because they'd have known their own people would've revolted against them in retaliation.

And some of you wonder why this world is going to shit?

When it's finally all said and done, the world goes before it's current state of "Just fucked up" to "Completely fucked", those that stand on the side of "Hey, he's not a bad guy, I don't understand what you're all so upset with 'Government Dictator Shithead IX' anyways" will be the ones who're sitting back, just dumbfounded, trying to appease folks around them that remember what they once said, by saying "Wait...what happened? I don't understand. Duh...Der....Duhh..."

Beam me up Scotty. I want off this mudball of a planet ASAP. The residents of this planet are globally morons now.

What is your point exactly? What political system should the world be conforming to?

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I'm Australian, I did live in the UK for a while though.

Their welfare state systems seem a mess.

The NHS seems to be nothing short of a clusterfuck.

That's what I've heard, too. Third largest employer in the world, bureaucratic mess, etc. Gives universal medicine a bad name... not that Michael Moore cared.

Medicare here is pretty good. At least from my experience.

 

[Grug]

That's what I've heard, too. Third largest employer in the world, bureaucratic mess, etc. Gives universal medicine a bad name... not that Michael Moore cared.

Medicare here is pretty good. At least from my experience.

Medicare is pretty good, it is an effective service that provides a good safety net, yet still provides an incentive for people who can afford private health insurance to get it.

 

[Diatribe1974]

What is your point exactly? What political system should the world be conforming to?

Doesn't matter what your current political structure your own government currently has adopted. You could be a Democracy, Monotheistic, Socialistic, ect. It all boils down to the world universally accepting shit now that in just the previous generation would've "Put their foot down upon" and simply not accepted it.

For example: In WWII, we saw 6 million Jews exterminated in a world era in which that kind of genocide was completely unexceptable. In todays society, instead of going after those that did that, bombing the fuck outta their own people and killing all those responsible for it all, to set a warning to everyone else around that "This shit ain't cool. Don't do it again, bitches, or this'll happen to you too!", instead we now get people wanting to "Negotiate" with the folks doing this. Remember, not everyone can be negotiated with, simply because they don't think like you and I.....all they care about is shit they want. Right here. Right now. Whatever the costs. Whatever it takes. Doesn't matter who they kill, murder, maim, torture. They want, what they want. Last generation and most generations before it, we went to war to stop people who did shit like this. It some times takes things like that to "Set things straight" again when shit gets off-kilter like that.

If you think I'm wrong, just say so. I'll remember your words and the world goes from this clusterfuck we live in to something, far, far worse, I'll call you out on it.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Doesn't matter what your current political structure your own government currently has adopted. You could be a Democracy, Monotheistic, Socialistic, ect. It all boils down to the world universally accepting shit now that in just the previous generation would've "Put their foot down upon" and simply not accepted it.

For example: In WWII, we saw 6 million Jews exterminated in a world era in which that kind of genocide was completely unexceptable. In todays society, instead of going after those that did that, bombing the fuck outta their own people and killing all those responsible for it all, to see a warning to everyone else around that "This shit ain't cool. Don't do it again, bitches, or this'll happen to you too!", instead we now get people wanting to "Negotiate" with the folks doing this.

If you think I'm wrong, just say so. I'll remember your words and the world goes from this clusterfuck we live in to something, far, far worse, I'll call you out on it.

Are you talking about the genocide that's occurring in certain parts of Africa? Because I wholeheartedly agree with you that some kind of action has to take place. Unfortunately, the Western world is currently occupied with the war on terror and cleaning up Iraq after the situation concerning the weapons of mass destruction.

 

[zoku88]

Doesn't matter what your current political structure your own government currently has adopted. You could be a Democracy, Monotheistic, Socialistic, ect. It all boils down to the world universally accepting shit now that in just the previous generation would've "Put their foot down upon" and simply not accepted it.

For example: In WWII, we saw 6 million Jews exterminated in a world era in which that kind of genocide was completely unexceptable. In todays society, instead of going after those that did that, bombing the fuck outta their own people and killing all those responsible for it all, to see a warning to everyone else around that "This shit ain't cool. Don't do it again, bitches, or this'll happen to you too!", instead we now get people wanting to "Negotiate" with the folks doing this.

If you think I'm wrong, just say so. I'll remember your words and the world goes from this clusterfuck we live in to something, far, far worse, I'll call you out on it.

Hahaha, wait, do you actually think that WWII was started because Nazi Germany started exterminating Jews? Because Britain, America, and Russia wanted to save them? That's hilarious. I doubt that was even on their mind...

Heck, if the US cared so much, they wouldn't have turned away refugees...

Like most wars, it was political.

 

[Diatribe1974]

Are you talking about the genocide that's occurring in certain parts of Africa? Because I wholeheartedly agree with you that some kind of action has to take place. Unfortunately, the Western world is currently occupied with the war on terror and cleaning up Iraq after the situation concerning the weapons of mass destruction.

We humans are just highly developed animals in the whole global animal kingdom. I'm partially of the belief that I say we look out for ourselves, 1st and foremost. Naturally, we should watch the rest of the world, and pay close attention. Like the animals we inherantly are at our core, animals attack & kill themselves and those around them, for whatever reason. For the most part, I say let folks fend for their own too. There will *always* be one side stronger than another. As long as shit doesn't get out of control and bleed over into other areas, if a country wants to have a civil war amongst themselves, let them kill themselves. We should have *no* part of it. Once it starts to spread into other, completely unrelated areas that shouldn't have concerned them, then we step back in, keeping the contestants in the ring where they belong.

It's a sad, cruel fate of the world: We're humans. We are all capable of greatness as well as deep, deep evil as well. While one hand can love and hold, the other hand can murder and maim. Look back at all of human history. You'll see that at no point in our history have we ever "All just got along" with each other for other than very brief periods of time. We're destined to destroy each other, regardless of race, religion, colour, geographical location, rich or poor. It doesn't matter. The inherant flaw that dictates what's going to happen is what makes us what we are: Human.

All I can say is this: Enjoy what time you have, because it'll all come to an end sometime.

 

[Dies Iræ]

This thread is precisely why I so rarely say anything at all. It's difficult because when it comes to ideological discussions people often fail to understand my meaning and seem to conclude that I'm suggesting something that I'm not. I'll go through some posts, as pain staking as it may be, to hopefully clear up some of this muck.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Sorry Dies, communism, socialism isn't the way. Media isn't biased, it is a proven fact that both of them are awful, democracy is where it is. Open your mind my dear friend....

Now, you've really presented nothing but partisan arguments without any proof to substantiate your views - I should simply overlook this post. But I must first state that I'm not, nor do I ever, propose or support the notion that communism and/or socialism (which you're using interchangeably, despite them being extremely different) is 'the way' (whatever that means). I don't advocate either ideology. I consider socialism to be extremely dangerous and communism fallacious from the get-go.

On the topic of media, it's extremely biased. It's corporate and thus inheretly biased against Chavez's socialist policies. Their portrayal of him has been nothing short of humiliating - it's obvious that they're skewing facts and throwing shit at his administration along ideological lines. Now, your notion that it's a 'proven fact' that both 'communism and socialism' are awful is ridiculous. Perhaps you're suggesting that authoritarian protofascist states like the USSR are awful. I agree. There are many socialist states that function as any other state would. It's difficult to say for communism, as no communist state has ever existed. You could argue that socialism is 'awful' relative to other ideologies - but i'm not sure which those would be. Both capitalism and fascism have seen a great deal of atrocities at their hands.

Finally, you're saying that 'democracy' is where it's at. That's the entire objective of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. He's actually decentralizing governmental authority into local communities - something the very opposite of what's been happening in the West over the past fifty years. We've seen nothing short of a complete erosion of democratic institutions. Honestly, I hate to keep bringing up the same point, but you're making the case for democracy under an administration that has shown nothing but contempt for democracy. As a matter of fact, the United States itself doesn't respect democracy. It's responsible for more military overthrows of democratically elected governments then any other state in history.

Going against convention requires painstaking arguments and proof whilst simply spouting accepted truths can be done with passive insults and a laughing emoticon. Does that seem fair to you?

Privatization is inherently less fascist than 'popular control', As mentioned, the word corporatism comes from the root word Corpus, for body. Meaning that everything is a part of they state's 'body' as it were, and everything in society was to serve the state's interest. It meant that every business, every trade/labor union, every individual, had to serve the interests of the state. It has nothing to do with private business corporations, even private business corporations that lobby alot and have what seems like excessive power.

To put it simply, corporatism is more about the state controlling the corporations than the corporations controlling the state (in it's original meaning anyway, which is the meaning used in the definition of fascism). Corporations controlling the state is a very bad thing indeed, but it is not corporatism in the fascist meaning of the term.

If you think capitalism has tight control at the top and strict obedience, then I'm afraid we are speaking different languages. The whole beauty of capitalism is there is nothing and no one to obey. There are just trades among individuals decided on free will. How you can possible think that capitalism is autocratic but state control of the economy isn't absolutely boggles my mind.

I don't really understand the point of your semantics nor what your overall argument is. Your 'beauty of capitalism' doesn't apply to any of the real world cases I've examined. Corporations are fascist entities - there's little room for debate on this subject as they meet the structural definition and their subsequent actions speak to the ideology. Of course corporations are, allegedly, fascist entities under public control (via the government). This isnt so much the case in the United States where the government is quickly eroding and corporations are taking its place - in effect, the privatization of government.

Be it a highly centralized, obedient media... illegal aggression and invasion against foreign states... widespread militarism... xenophobia.... support for fundamentalist doctrines... attacks on human rights laws... unthinkable torture and imprisonment... support for foreign terrorist states... attempts to overthrow or subvert foreign governments... the list is endless and these are all endemic of a fascist state. You can guess, between the US and Venezuela, which is the guilty party.

and on the very sad note of the post above mine, i'm going to bed.

 

[Diatribe1974]

Hahaha, wait, do you actually think that WWII was started because Nazi Germany started exterminating Jews? Because Britain, America, and Russia wanted to save them? That's hilarious. I doubt that was even on their mind...

Heck, if the US cared so much, they wouldn't have turned away refugees...

Like most wars, it was political.

Did I say that's what started WWII?

Did I?

No.

I used it as a point to make about how the world, as a whole, did not, would not, stand for actions such as that then. As for how much things have changed since then, the pure "Screw you, your dog and your entire neighborhood, asshole...." mentality is now replaced with "Can we negotiate, pretty please?". <--- That kind of bullshit mentality is what BREEDS others like them who will see no limits. No boundries to what kind of mass genocide they can get away with, as folks will want to "Negotiate" with them as a result.

But if you also want to talk about WWII, please. Let's do so. I spent the better part of a decade fascinated by it. I can talk about the Pre-Nazi Party Germany, Hitlers rise to power (how had he been accepted into Art School how he might not've rose to power). What about Mousolini? Want to talk about Pre-WWII era Italy and how he rose tp ower there? Japan? England? Poland? France? United States? C'mon. Just say the word. I've got a bunch of papers I wrote in High School and College laying around that I can quote from.

 

[Grug]

Doesn't matter what your current political structure your own government currently has adopted. You could be a Democracy, Monotheistic, Socialistic, ect. It all boils down to the world universally accepting shit now that in just the previous generation would've "Put their foot down upon" and simply not accepted it.

I just think you've oversimplified things somewhat.

What is Chavez really doing that needs the word to say "Stop!"

I'm no socialist, I I have to admit to not following Venezuelan politics, but isn't Chazez simply saying to the western world that they can f*ck off with their campaign of forcing the rest of the world to adopt western values and economic systems whether they like it or not?

I believe in capitalism, but there is a significant case to be argued that developing economies need some protection from it in the short term.

Chavez is acting in the interests of his nation, and that is his job.

 

[C4Lukins]

Chavez hates America and democracy, which despite how ridiculous and unfortunate his thoughts and words are, he is very compelling to a certain percentage of the public who is incapable of producing their own thoughts and scenarios. Thank God we have free thinking individuals who can ape the words that others produced for them in such a direct manner with such vigor and originality. Chavez, you are a humor...

 

[Diatribe1974]

I just think you've oversimplified things somewhat.

What is Chavez really doing that needs the word to say "Stop!"

I'm no socialist, I I have to admit to not following Venezuelan politics, but isn't Chazez simply saying to the western world that they can f*ck off with their campaign of forcing the rest of the world to adopt western values and economic systems whether they like it or not?

I believe in capitalism, but there is a significant case to be argued that developing economies need some protection from it in the short term.

Chavez is acting in the interests of his nation, and that is his job.

Chavez is doing what he and his party believe they should be doing, all for their own political gain/benefit. When Chavez is trying to get rid of Presidential Term Limits (i.e. He can potentially stay there forever) it shows what is really going on: He (and his party) are nothing more than a bunch of power hungry sobs.

BTW, don't say that they were the "Elected Officials" of their country, elected by their own people, because let's face it: If you want to make sure you get in to power, those around you can make sure that it happens, regardless of what the people want.

 

[Grug]

BTW, don't say that they were the "Elected Officials" of their country, elected by their own people, because let's face it: If you want to make sure you get in to power, those around you can make sure that it happens, regardless of what the people want.

Good point. Al Gore learned this in 2000.

 

[fse]

lol @ chavez haters.

 

[fse]

Chavez is doing what he and his party believe they should be doing, all for their own political gain/benefit. When Chavez is trying to get rid of Presidential Term Limits (i.e. He can potentially stay there forever) it shows what is really going on: He (and his party) are nothing more than a bunch of power hungry sobs.

BTW, don't say that they were the "Elected Officials" of their country, elected by their own people, because let's face it: If you want to make sure you get in to power, those around you can make sure that it happens, regardless of what the people want.

They (the citizens) will still have to vote after his term ends if he wants to have another term. The US up until 1951(?) still had no term limit.