theone86's forum posts

Avatar image for theone86
#1 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@evilross said:

Fascism is an extremist form of government that combines strict economic socialism, authoritarian single party government, and fervent nationalism. It is a dichotomy of extremes and gained ground as a political force starting around 1913 in a response to bourgeois capitalism.

The party was created to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although this was later downplayed to gain the support of business leaders working under government oversight, and in the 1930s the party's main focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.

Although the economic and governmental structure of the Nazi party mirrored far left ideology, the National German Socialist Workers Party is generally considered a far right party because of its fervent Nationalism and authoritarian civic structures.

Well, at least you recognize that the fascist movement has always been diametrically opposed to Marxism to the point of imprisoning and killing Marxists alongside homosexuals, gypsies, and Jews. However, fascist economics never looked anything like far left ideology. Fascist economics is predicated, first and foremost, on the buildup of the military. Seeing as how leftists around the world decry militarization, that's a mark against any similarities. Fascists also oversaw mass privatization of their economies, again, a mark against similarities. And Fascists cracked down on unions in order to give corporations unlimited power over the working conditions in their workplaces, another mark against similarities. The only real similarity is that both communist and fascist government exerted control over the economy (and I'd like to point out here that Soviet-associated nations are not the only governments that can be considered far-left, so this can't be universalized to all leftists). However, where the Soviets generally assumed direct state control over many businesses, fascists preferred to set up a system where business leaders had direct access to the government and enjoyed benefits from this access in exchange for compliance. If all of that mirrors any economic ideology very closely, it's modern Republican ideology.

Avatar image for theone86
#2 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:
@evilross said:

@theone86:

Wow. If that’s what you really believe and feel I truly feel sorry for you.

Don´t bother with Theone, he is one of those who hate everything American and who think we should give it all back to the indigenous people.

Also, let´s not factor in that some of what he mentioned had nothing to do with America other than Obama was stupid enough to publically support rebels who had no chance of ever winning and who gave room for ISIS.

Wow, a dumbshit comment from a conservative, NEVER heard that before.

Here's the real problem, is you conjobs go around acting like you actually give a shit about human life when you don't. Even with American, you just use deaths as a cudgel to slander people you don't like. A Muslim woman says something you don't like and you fly off the handle with the whole "she hates America!" bullshit. That's not actually caring about the people who died on 9/11. And even if it were, you still don't give a shit about anyone else around the world. You think you can go around dismissing death everywhere else, but the minute it happens on our soil you expect the whole goddamn world to stop for you. And even when the entire world does stop for you, even when the entire country year after year after year after year goes through the whole "never forget" crap, it's still not enough for you. One woman says one thing about having to endure increased levels of discrimination after 9/11 (objectively proven several times over), and you start lobbing your bullshit allegations of "they hate America!" But we shouldn't expect conservatives to be smart enough to actually get any new material. seventy years ago it was McCarthy calling everyone he disagreed with a communist, you've just switched it up to ant-American. Same shit, different day red-baiter.

Avatar image for theone86
#3 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@Master_Live said:
@theone86 said:
@Master_Live said:

@hrt_rulz01: Well, I think that on a divided field (which will inevitably be culled eventually) he has a chance to win the Democratic nomination with a plurality (lets not think about a divided convention for now, which could be the single greatest TV event of my lifetime).

Once you get to the actual race I think it would become the most ugly Presidential race in modern U.S. history (or I guess since the last one). All the Bernie stuff with the communist dictators during the 80's etc. would come out. That plus the fact that at point Sanders plans for how to pay for (or lack there of) all his free stuff (health care, college, etc.) would come under scrutiny and the undeniable fact the middle class would pay more in taxes (with the argument that they would be better off with all new services they get) would be inescapable. Trump strategy would be to drive Sanders' negatives up since his stupidity won't allow him to run on the economy.

At that point, I think it comes down to the economy. If the economy is doing well Trump will be reelected over a Sanders candidacy, if not Bernie will win.

LOL, free stuff. Trump drives up the deficit for tax cuts on the wealthy and a wall we don't need (that will conveniently make connected contractors quite rich) and you conservatives say we're the ones trying to give away free stuff. Between you and Jac, we're going to need a fleet of bulldozers to deal with all the conservative bullshit in this thread.

"You conservatives", that's funny. Get a clue.

Awww, did that trigger you? Do you need your safe space, snowflake?

Avatar image for theone86
#4 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@whiskeystrike said:

Americans have really milked the hell out of 9/11 considering how much damage their foreign policies have inflicted on other countries.

About 50,000 Syrians killed per year since their war started, 12,000 Iraqis per year since we invaded them, not a peep from the average American. In fact, we're already gearing up for the next war. "Where will it be this time? Iran? North Korea? Palestine? Or maybe the dark horse, Canada? Tune in next week to find out!" 2,000 Americans killed in an attack, and eighteen years later it's all "never forget!"

Avatar image for theone86
#5 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

I remember a world before Trump, a world before Bush. A world before Devins Nunes and Tom Cotton, a world before Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. I remember a world before endless wars in Iraq, a world before endless school shootings. Ah, how I long for those times.

Avatar image for theone86
#6 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@ad1x2 said:
@theone86 said:
@ad1x2 said:

It’s not like you can say what she said about 9/11 and not expect a backlash, even if she may have been taken out of context or simply chose her words poorly.

What did she say about 9/11? That hate crimes against Muslims have increased since 9/11? Is that not true? That all Muslims are not responsible for 9/11? Is that not also true?

Watch the video. Regardless of her intent, the way she said what she said would obviously cause some hurt feelings. People are afraid to criticize her for her comments because they don’t want to be called racist or Islamophobic.

What a snowflake comment, she really triggered you. I'm gonna drink your tears with with my coffee in the morning, snowflake.

Avatar image for theone86
#7 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@mandzilla said:

Atrocities should never be forgetten, and the holocaust stands as one of the most grievous genocides ever committed.

That being said, this is the smartest person they could find to lead Brazil... really?

Not exactly what happened. You see, they had a relatively smart leader. Then her party was embroiled in a corruption scandal, even though she wasn't implicated and seemed by all accounts to not be involved. Then corrupt members of her own party threw her under the bus in order to avoid punishment for their own crimes. Finally, Bolsonaro ran on a platform of anti-corruption, as proto-fascists often do (for the most egregious example see Yeltsin become leader of Russia by opposing the government using tanks to intimidate parliament, then using tanks himself to intimidate parliament). And don't think that the ridiculous shit he says is due to idiocy. It's disturbingly calculated, even though it is idiotic.

Avatar image for theone86
#8 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@ad1x2 said:

It’s not like you can say what she said about 9/11 and not expect a backlash, even if she may have been taken out of context or simply chose her words poorly.

What did she say about 9/11? That hate crimes against Muslims have increased since 9/11? Is that not true? That all Muslims are not responsible for 9/11? Is that not also true?

Avatar image for theone86
#9 Edited by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@Stevo_the_gamer said:
@theone86 said:
@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@theone86: Yes, the Constitution is a conduit... Of FASCISM! *Pitch forks ahoy*

A cop who doesn't know the constitution, NEVER seen that before! The constitution does not give free reign to strip any and all criminals of any and all rights. If it did, the government could go around killing anyone who's ever gotten into a barfight. It gives free reign to strip criminals of rights only so far as is necessary for their rehabilitation/the general welfare. I fail to see how preventing them voting serves either purpose.

And not only did you blatantly make the argument that committing a crime gives the government the right to strip an individual of all rights (blatantly fascistic and unconstitutional), you blatantly compared human beings to animals in order to dehumanize them, which is a classic tactic of fascists. You say I'm the one with a pitchfork, but you're the one with a literal gun calling people animals and saying they don't have rights. **** your service, the streets would be better off without people like you patrolling them.

Ah, veryyyyy salty.

Which part of any of my comments in this thread led you to believe I do not know the constitution? Please quote the sentence and elaborate so I can see where I am off base. Of course the constitution doesn't give free reign - such "absolute" terms like ALL is so silly to drive a wedge through, as there will be circumstances - a la the death penalty - where all will be inherently stripped.

Where did I state it gives the government the right to strip an individual "of all rights"? Again, we're pandering to absolute terms again so perhaps you can find me the receipt there. And blatantly compared human beings to animals in order to dehumanize them? The sheep, wolf, and sheepdog analogy? Holy reaching batman bananas.

@Rockman999 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: Interesting how you feel felons should be held accountable for their past actions even after they served their time but also brandish a sigil meant to counter protest a movement calling for LEOs to be held accountable for their actions. 🤦🏿‍♂️

Y'all wanna be Judge Dredd so bad. 😂

Um, LEOs should be accountable for any and all unlawful acts. Unfortunately, charlatans and "knee-jerk" reactionary folks get fumed/heated about what they don't understand. Pander to lies (hands up, don't shoot). But hey, I got paid a crap-ton of overtime to deal with people protesting recently even when the District Attorney and State Attorney General (who's extremely liberal) both stood by the officers.

You seem to think the Constitution gives free reign to strip all the rights. The right to vote is a right, and nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly say criminals can be stripped of the right to vote. Your logic seems to be "We can strip people of the right to life, ergo we can strip them of other rights." It's completely arbitrary, and it is a completely reasonable jump to say you think the government can strip people of all rights. Fascistic.

And you can try to downplay your bullshit comparisons all you like, I'd expect nothing less from a fascist. But comparing humans to animals is by definition dehumanizing, and it's also a well-documented tactic of fascists going back to Goebbels comparing Jews to rats. Some of those who work forces are the same who burn crosses.

Avatar image for theone86
#10 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@ronvalencia said:
@theone86 said:

I agree with President Obama on almost everything, but I think he is dead wrong on this one. You would think that after six years of bending over backwards trying to placate intransigent Republicans he would've learned his lesson, but no. Apparently being the first president denied a rightful Supreme Court appointment, having a record number of judicial nominees stalled or blocked, having the government shut down in order to try and repeal his signature piece of legislation even though it came from a conservative think tank, and getting absolutely no bipartisan support on legislation even though many congressmen supported his proposals didn't teach him. Oh, and there's the all the years of Democratic politicians from Carter to Clinton to him adopting conservative policy positions and still getting called socialists. Clinton only passed legislation that contributed to mass incarceration and reduced welfare benefits, but he's still a soft-on-crime spend-happy liberal to conservatives. Oh, but wait, it's those Democratic firing squads we've gotta worry about, right?

President Obama has been installing Democrats judges when Democrats has senate control (112th United States Congress). There's something wrong with the entire system when a country turned into "country of political judges".

No, President Obama was appointing qualified judges, full stop. There used to be a consensus in this country about what a qualified judge was, and there were well-accepted norms for keeping fringe candidates off the benches. Judicial confirmation used to be a fairly bi-partisan process. Then Republicans woke up one day and decided that wasn't working for them, they needed to install judges who were ideologically aligned with them. So they went about blocking and stalling judges who didn't share their ideological views, which is a blatant politicization of the court system, which blatantly goes against what the court system was supposed to be in the Constitution. There were no Democratic judges and Republican judges before Republicans politicized the courts.