the answer to 'Is America a fascist state?' - Page 2

lew · 08-31-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

but i didn't say that

man you guys are good at making things up today

I assumed the "fascist traits" were included in the "etc." part of your post.

ballz2wallz · 08-31-2006, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I assumed the "fascist traits" were included in the "etc." part of your post.

prime example of what happens when you assume

lew · 08-31-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Where does anyone say anything about this proving anything one way or another? Did Ballz? Did I? Quit putting more into it than there really is.

Then what's the point of the thread?

The name of the thread is : "the ANSWER to "is america a fascist state?"

The point of this thread was to prove that. By quoting someone generally thought of as extreme left.

thomez · 08-31-2006, 09:55 AM

this thread should have an "extremely stupid waste of time" warning before you click

ballz2wallz · 08-31-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Then what's the point of the thread?

The name of the thread is : "the ANSWER to "is america a fascist state?"

The point of this thread was to prove that. By quoting someone generally thought of as extreme left.

right. let's give an example. let's say the evolution controversy is in its prime. and the focus of the controversy is that both evolution and creationism are theories and nothing more. and let's say perhaps Ballz makes a thread that says 'the answer to the evolution controversy' and quotes all the major evolutionary experts typically used to support evolution instead saying 'evolution has yet to be proven'. while the creationists would never agree with one word they have previously said, would they not use that as proof on their side?

the same applies here. chomsky is seen as one of hte leading anti-war and often anti-american advocates. he is well respected (for whatever reason) among the left. he's obviously a smart dude; he teaches at MIT. so while i don't agree with most of what he says, when he says something like 'american is far from fascist' i'm going to post it and use it. why wouldn't i?

Stylerod · 08-31-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

so while i don't agree with most of what he says, when he says something like 'american is far from fascist' i'm going to post it and use it. why wouldn't i?

Because it seems to piss some people off is all I can think of

lew · 08-31-2006, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Because it seems to piss some people off is all I can think of

Who did it piss off?

motivez · 08-31-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I know you won't beleive anything Bush says, good or not, just because he's Bush. But most people aren't like you.

Where do you get off telling me what I believe "just because he's Bush"?

I have no problem believing Bush if he says something factual. I just disagree with the vast majority of his opinion-rhetoric-subjective "analysis" of certain situations.

When he says things like "America and China are two great nations seperated by a large oceanr", I believe him.

When he says someone who he's appointing for a position graduated at the top of their class, I believe him.

Why? Those things are fact checked so he doesn't sound like [more of] an idiot.

However, when he suggests we've turned the corner so many times in Iraq that we've made a complete 360, yet it's somehow supposed to be "progress", I don't believe him.

I don't believe him in those types of instances because I can look at the facts and see for myself that what he's saying is untrue and is simply a talking point with little basis in reality, although that should be expected, since while I live in the "reality based community" and am proud of it, he does not.

However, I fail to see what all of this has to do with the thread.

ballz2wallz · 08-31-2006, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't believe him in those types of instances because I can look at the facts and see for myself that what he's saying is untrue and is simply a talking point with little basis in reality,

unless you're in iraq yourself, or in charge of our country, i'm afraid you cannot simply look at the facts. nothing that we get from bloggers, the media, or even through news conferences from the government will ever portray what is really happening over there.

motivez · 08-31-2006, 02:33 PM

Oh, okay. And political talking points will?

I prefer statistics. attacks are up. deaths are up. violence is up. there's a larger number of people in militias roaming around today than yesterday.

those types of things aren't manipulated. they're simple facts. you can choose to ignore them, or dismiss them in favor of a more optimistic outlook based on thin air, but it doesn't make them wrong.

Ardentfrost · 08-31-2006, 02:43 PM

The entire premise is based on a fallacy... "Because we are the freest country in the world, we are not facist." Facism isn't a relative trait... You can't normalize everyone's facist level, then take the upper quantile to be facists and the rest to be increasing levels of free.

DosEquis · 08-31-2006, 02:46 PM

This country is fascist in regards to one form of fascism. Government run by corporations.

There are nearly 70 lobbyists for every 1 congressman. They are there to buy votes. The only ones who can afford to pay someone to share their views to these elected officials are corporations. They will often fly them some place and stay at a resort for two weeks to drive their views home with the congressmen.

I ask myself every day why Pete Ricketts (running for senate in nebraska) is spending nearly 5 million of his own dollars to get a job that pays $150,000 a year. Something is seriously wrong with that.

DosEquis · 08-31-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I know you won't beleive anything Bush says, good or not, just because he's Bush. But most people aren't like you.

YouTube - Democrat Tim Ryan kicks Bush's ass

IminWonderland · 09-01-2006, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Oh, okay. And political talking points will?

I prefer statistics. attacks are up. deaths are up. violence is up. there's a larger number of people in militias roaming around today than yesterday.

those types of things aren't manipulated. they're simple facts. you can choose to ignore them, or dismiss them in favor of a more optimistic outlook based on thin air, but it doesn't make them wrong.

Truthiness?

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Oh, okay. And political talking points will?

I prefer statistics. attacks are up. deaths are up. violence is up. there's a larger number of people in militias roaming around today than yesterday.

those types of things aren't manipulated. they're simple facts. you can choose to ignore them, or dismiss them in favor of a more optimistic outlook based on thin air, but it doesn't make them wrong.

actually, the number of deaths in iraq are lower this month. how bout them statistics? did you choose to ignore those? (that's good right?)

or how about the fact that the iraqi government is expected to take total control of their security by the end of the yr? did you choose to ingore that little fact? (that's good right?)

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

actually, the number of deaths in iraq are lower this month. how bout them statistics? did you choose to ignore those? (that's good right?)

Lower than what? The deaths by car accidents in the US?
We should be excited about that.

Lets watch for a little while to see if there is a trend here before running up the old "mission accomplished" banner.
I figured you guys would have learned that lesson.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

or how about the fact that the iraqi government is expected to take total control of their security by the end of the yr? did you choose to ingore that little fact? (that's good right?)

I don't care what's expected to happen.
We expected to be greated as liberators.
We expected to have the oil pay for the war for us.
We expected for this to be a quick war.
We expected the insurgency to be in its last throes.

None of those things happened as expected.

Thorgrim · 09-01-2006, 09:30 AM

One good statistic comes out and we're here to declare victory and hang the war critics?

motivez · 09-01-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

actually, the number of deaths in iraq are lower this month. how bout them statistics? did you choose to ignore those? (that's good right?)

or how about the fact that the iraqi government is expected to take total control of their security by the end of the yr? did you choose to ingore that little fact? (that's good right?)

I've said in other threads that it's great that it's down, but unfortunately the overall trend is still up. It's doubled since January. A momentary pause is something we've seen before, and it's never been sustained.

There have been over 300 people killed in Iraq this week due to car bombs and whatnot, so while I'm not ignoring it, I do think it's too early to label it as proof of some great success.

As far as the Iraqi government taking total control, that's great. That's what Democrats have been suggesting for awhile now, so it's nice to see the Republicans start listening to the strategy the Democrats have been putting out there.

Give them responsibility, move our troops back, and have them move in when needed to support the Iraqi troops/government