Political Rhetoric: Gone Fascist?

[Professor S]

A few months back I mentioned that several of Obama Administrations economic policies concerning the banks and automakers were fascistic in nature. They have since backed off from these policies, but fascist rhetoric from the left seems to have picked up to fill the void.

For instance, Joel Stein's article from Time Magazine:

President Obama should probably get a little bit dictatorial up in here. He's the only person in the U.S. unaware that we elected him dictator, giving him both houses of Congress and the major television networks whenever he wants them. Instead of ignoring people's objections until they get socialized medicine and realize they like it, as England's leaders did, Obama is worried about seducing Olympia Snowe so he can say his health bill is bipartisan.

I understand Stein is a "humorist" in some aspect but there is a lot of serious thought in that statement, and he is a political commentator as much as anything.

On O'Reilly, Jon Stewart literally said Pres. Obama shouldn't treat Congress and an equal branch of government.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4001020&w=400&h=249"></script><noscript>Watch the latest news video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

This type of rhetoric greatly concerns me, as it is literally fascist, and I see more and more opinions coming from the left that have zero regard for our governing documents.

Pres. Obama was intended to be a unifying force, but it seems more and more that both parties are pulling farther left and right in response to his leadership, or honestly, lack thereof. Republicans are retreating back to the Constitution, pulling some Dems with them, while leftists are being more vocal voicing beliefs that ignore the document and in the face of political defeats have become more defiant than accommodating (a recipe for a return to irrelevance, IMO).

If there can be one positive taken from this, it would be that at least the waters have cleared a bit in terms of political beliefs. But that's stretching it. Politically, our country is a mess.

[TheGame]

This thread is a joke.

Prof, what worries you more.. the fact that Bush actually acted as John Stewart suggested, or the fact that John Stewart is suggesting Obama does the same?

Who got their agends pushed through? And who's agenda has failed at every turn?

[manasecret]

This thread is a joke.

Prof, what worries you more.. the fact that Bush actually acted as John Stewart suggested, or the fact that John Stewart is suggesting Obama does the same?

Who got their agends pushed through? And who's agenda has failed at every turn?

Good point.

[thatmariolover]

I think Congress has taken every opportunity to posture and have made it clear that they intend to be an equal branch of power. On the other hand, Obama promised real change. He can hardly be expected to deliver it if Congress is just going to filibuster everything he tries to do. Regardless of if Congress was designed to be equal, it doesn't mean it is anymore.

Who will take the blame when he fails to deliver with a Congress that won't pass his bills? He and he alone, for the most part. I'm not saying he should take Stewart's advice. I'm just asking what alternative you'd suggest? Pushing everything through Congress worked for Bush, something you seem to have forgotten.

The system is broken somewhere when nothing gets accomplished because of its design.

[Professor S]

No it's not a good point Mana, and in fact it completely ignores reality in favor of revisonist history. I can see Game's post in Mana's quote, so I'll respond because it's just utterly incorrect on every level.

President Bush designed No Child Left Behind WITH Ted Kennedy. He didn't design it behind closed doors and certainly didn't ignore the party in opposition.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371

President Bush passed a prescription drug program with bipartisan support and influence. It was close, but voting was not on party lines, with many Republicans voting No and many Democrats voting Yes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

All wars started under Bush's presidency received massive public support and congressional support. (and lets not devolve this into a tired "he lied" debate)

Even the much maligned Patriot Act passed with 98 yays, one nay and one no-vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

When Bush wanted to privatize social security, he couldn't convince the people and couldn't convince Congress, and it failed.

Regardless of how you feel about his policies, President Bush got his agenda through because he got the votes and had a majority of public support for his agenda when those policies were enacted. The unpopularity of those decisions came later.

President Obama is currently failing to convince the American people or their representatives. When he did, as with the stimulus act, his agenda was passed. Why do you think he's making the populist shift towards the economy and abandoning healthcare as his main concern? He doesn't have to votes to enact his agenda on healthcare, even with a supermajority. If he had the votes, don't you think they would have passed Healthcare reform immediately? They wanted it passed before AUGUST initially. It wasn't delayed because of wanted "bipartisan support", it was delayed because they couldn't overcome a filibuster because other Dems were not on board. And filibusters are part of the process for both parties depending on who is in power. They are there to ensure that controversial and greatly impactful legislation REQUIRES a supermajority to encourage bipartisanship. We've seen little bipartisanship from either side this past year.

If you don't have the votes, you don't get the policy. It's how our democratic republic works. If you don't like it, tough, but you don't get to change the rules without an Amendment to the Constitution.

[Professor S]

Regardless of if Congress was designed to be equal, it doesn't mean it is anymore.

Who gets to make that decision? You? Stewart? Stein? Suddenly we're going to ignore one of the fundamental tenants of America's founding and simply be a half-dictatorship because you and few like you agree more with the President right now? Because the left feels it knows was best for the American people even if the large majority vociferously disagrees? Most of the greatest horrors ever committed by man were for "the greater good", a statement that causes more fear in me than any other.

Once again, if you don't like how the country is modeled, there is an Amendment process. Use it or follow the rules set by the Constitution. There is no third option. The few do not get to change it for the many, and thats how it was intentionally designed by the founders.

The funniest part is, do any of the left actually think they know better than the founders? The sheer arrogance of the left when it comes to the Constitution astounds me. If they cant get their way with the Constitution, they feel no reason not to ignore it completely. It's the thought process of a child, not an adult.

[TheGame]

No it's not a good point Mana, and in fact it completely ignores reality in favor of revisonist history. I can see Game's post in Mana's quote, so I'll respond because it's just utterly incorrect on every level.

President Bush designed No Child Left Behind WITH Ted Kennedy. He didn't design it behind closed doors and certainly didn't ignore the party in opposition.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371

President Bush passed a prescription drug program with bipartisan support and influence. It was close, but voting was not on party lines, with many Republicans voting No and many Democrats voting Yes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

All wars started under Bush's presidency received massive public support and congressional support. (and lets not devolve this into a tired "he lied" debate)

Even the much maligned Patriot Act passed with 98 yays, one nay and one no-vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

When Bush wanted to privatize social security, he couldn't convince the people and couldn't convince Congress, and it failed.

Regardless of how you feel about his policies, President Bush got his agenda through because he got the votes and had a majority of public support for his agenda when those policies were enacted. The unpopularity of those decisions came later.

President Obama is currently failing to convince the American people or their representatives. When he did, as with the stimulus act, his agenda was passed. Why do you think he's making the populist shift towards the economy and abandoning healthcare as his main concern? He doesn't have to votes to enact his agenda on healthcare, even with a supermajority. If he had the votes, don't you think they would have passed Healthcare reform immediately? They wanted it passed before AUGUST initially. It wasn't delayed because of wanted "bipartisan support", it was delayed because they couldn't overcome a filibuster because other Dems were not on board. And filibusters are part of the process for both parties depending on who is in power. They are there to ensure that controversial and greatly impactful legislation REQUIRES a supermajority to encourage bipartisanship. We've seen little bipartisanship from either side this past year.

If you don't have the votes, you don't get the policy. It's how our democratic republic works. If you don't like it, tough, but you don't get to change the rules without an Amendment to the Constitution.

There is a difference between Obama and Bush are their strategy and how they convince the opposition party to come along.

Obama makes massive concessions to the right wing on everything he does. The "creation" of the legislation he puts up for vote has a TON of right wing influence. The difference is that the minority party is now rejecting everything Obama does no matter how many concessions he gives to them.

Obama's issue is that he talks too much.. and he's too nice to do a political attack on the right wing. When Bush pushed for something he simply would say "You vote with me, or I'm going to politicaly attack you for it." I know that's too vauge, so to give more examples..

"You vote for the government to do wireless wire tapping, or I'm going to tell the public that you are too weak to defend the country"

"You vote for the bailout, or when the economy crashes I'm going to blame it on you"

"You vote for the war in Iraq, or when the next terrorist attack happens it's your fault"

etc etc.

Obama is too weak to flex the political muscle that he does have. He never attacks the right wing politically for voting against him, even after making tons of concessions to them. Just until recently he never took out the time to bring up how 1.2 trillion of the deficit is the right wing's fault 100% and was not added by any policy that he added.

The fact that he doesn't mention that at every turn is just an example of how weak he is. It's like he wants the right wing to win. Thus why I call him center-right. He lets them go on TV and blame everything on him even though it's factually incorrect, then we have people on forums like you fear mongering people about what he "might" do opposed to what he has actually done.

[Professor S]

There is a difference between Obama and Bush are their strategy and how they convince the opposition party to come along.

Obama makes massive concessions to the right wing on everything he does. The "creation" of the legislation he puts up for vote has a TON of right wing influence. The difference is that the minority party is now rejecting everything Obama does no matter how many concessions he gives to them.

Obama's issue is that he talks too much.. and he's too nice to do a political attack on the right wing. When Bush pushed for something he simply would say "You vote with me, or I'm going to politicaly attack you for it." I know that's too vauge, so to give more examples..

"You vote for the government to do wireless wire tapping, or I'm going to tell the public that you are too weak to defend the country"

"You vote for the bailout, or when the economy crashes I'm going to blame it on you"

"You vote for the war in Iraq, or when the next terrorist attack happens it's your fault"

etc etc.

Obama is too weak to flex the political muscle that he does have. He never attacks the right wing politically for voting against him, even after making tons of concessions to them. Just until recently he never took out the time to bring up how 1.2 trillion of the deficit is the right wing's fault 100% and was not added by any policy that he added.

The fact that he doesn't mention that at every turn is just an example of how weak he is. It's like he wants the right wing to win. Thus why I call him center-right. He lets them go on TV and blame everything on him even though it's factually incorrect, then we have people on forums like you fear mongering people about what he "might" do opposed to what he has actually done.

Wow, I actually removed you from my ignore list because I thought you might actually have posted something substantive. It's just more of "your version" of events to counter cited facts. I'll know better next time. Back to ignore.

If Pres. Obama has made any concessions "to the right" it was to try and get democrats on board, because that's all he needed to get his legislation passed, and he couldn't do it. There is a lesson in this, and I doubt you'll identify the right one.

As for using fear to get votes? Pres. Obama did plenty of that when passing the stimulus, and he tried hard during the healthcare debate. There is plenty of manipulative grime to spread around for both Bush and Obama.

Bottom line: Get the votes or Amend the Constitution. Thats it.

[TheGame]

Wow, I actually removed you from my ignore list because I thought you might actually have posted something substantive. It's just more of "your version" of events to counter cited facts. I'll know better next time. Back to ignore.

What did I say that is factually incorrect?

If Pres. Obama has made any concessions "to the right" it was to try and get democrats on board, because that's all he needed to get his legislation passed, and he couldn't do it. There is a lesson in this, and I doubt you'll identify the right one.

I agree that his concessions were partly made to appease democrats.. but it was mostly made for the right wing in general. The fact is, when you have a large majority like this, its because your party is in the center, and when that happens you're not going to be on the same page 100%.

As for using fear to get votes? Pres. Obama did plenty of that when passing the stimulus, and he tried hard during the healthcare debate. There is plenty of manipulative grime to spread around for both Bush and Obama.

Obama's version of fear mongering is "I might slap you on the wrist if you don't do it, maybe!" vs Bush's "We're all going to die, and you're in the same group with terrorists if you don't follow my lead"

Bottom line: Get the votes or Amend the Constitution. Thats it.

Speaking of votes, you do realize that filibusters are not in the constitution, and the republicans use it on EVERYTHING Obama supports. How many times has Obama even attempted to pass a bill under reconciliation?

[thatmariolover]

On O'Reilly, Jon Stewart literally said Pres. Obama shouldn't treat Congress and an equal branch of government.

No, he said:

O'REILLY: All right, so you think he's doing OK in some areas?

STEWART: Certain jobs.

O'REILLY: And not OK in others. Give me a not OK.

STEWART: I think he has decided that Congress is an equal branch of government. Huge mistake. You can't just walk in there as the next guy and say, let's go back to…

O'REILLY: Power sharing.

STEWART: …three equal branches.

O'REILLY: No good.

STEWART: No.

O'REILLY: Right.

Who gets to make that decision? You? Stewart? Stein? Suddenly we're going to ignore one of the fundamental tenants of America's founding and simply be a half-dictatorship because you and few like you agree more with the President right now? Because the left feels it knows was best for the American people even if the large majority vociferously disagrees? Most of the greatest horrors ever committed by man were for "the greater good", a statement that causes more fear in me than any other.

A couple of quotes (that you hand picked) without context from political comedians and you're afraid the left is abusing our political system? How am I supposed to take you seriously? All either suggested was that Obama use the bully pulpit as effectively as Bush. I find pushing Healthcare through congress pretty tame in comparison with how Bush ran his war.

You complain about a president that the large majority disagrees with? Show me one. Certainly Obama's approval has been fluctuating, but come on. If that sentence (slightly reworded) had been posted 4 years ago, I might have taken you seriously.

The funniest part is, do any of the left actually think they know better than the founders? The sheer arrogance of the left when it comes to the Constitution astounds me. If they cant get their way with the Constitution, they feel no reason not to ignore it completely. It's the thought process of a child, not an adult.

No, what's funny is that you raise our founders to the level of Gods. To question their infallable wisdom is apparently blasphemous to you. You've taken two statements from 'the left' that fit your view, without regard for accuracy or context, and twisted them to fit your post. One, as you say, a humorist. The other, a comedian turned political commentator. There are a lot of people over the years that have thought that they knew better than our founders. It seems entirely plausable that our founders wisdom might lose its validity to time. Being patriotic doesn't mean blindly doing things the way they've been done. It means caring enough to do the best for your country and its people.

Regardless, it's not what's happening here. And I can't take you seriously.

[Professor S]

No, he said:

I fail to see the difference. He said that having three branches, THE three branches of government mandated in the Constitution was not good, and Obama just should have walked in and... done what? What is the alternative? Stewart never finished his thought.

A couple of quotes (that you hand picked) without context from political comedians and you're afraid the left is abusing our political system? How am I supposed to take you seriously? All either suggested was that Obama use the bully pulpit as effectively as Bush. I find pushing Healthcare through congress pretty tame in comparison with how Bush ran his war.

1) I posted the entire interview from O'Reilly, I don't call that out of context. As for Joel Stein, read the whole article if you like. He does inject humor, but like Stewart, he wants you to take his main point seriously. After all, truth is at the heart of comedy.

2) I no longer fall for the idea of political comedians not to be taken seriously. Jon Stewart is a deathly serious commentator, regardless of the method of his communication. Masking opinion in humor does not excuse him from staements made. Ridicule is one of Saul Alinsky's main "Rules for Radicals" precisely because it's difficult to rebutt because the "comedian" can always shake it off as a joke. I don't buy it anymore.

3) No one said they were abusing the political system, they said they want the President to ignore Congress. It was an opinion, they have no ability to abuse process. It's the thought process that is dangrous. If you ignore Congress, how do you get anything done with no votes? You need the votes, and that is what Bush achiueved and Obama hasn't. So what is the alternative?

4) If healthcare and Iraq are similar... How? Bush had the votes, and got them with almost ZERO bullying. Everyone jumped into the pool before checking the water. Don't look back on history from today's perspective. Bush got the votes by a WIDE majority. Obama did not.

You complain about a president that the large majority disagrees with? Show me one. Certainly Obama's approval has been fluctuating, but come on. If that sentence (slightly reworded) had been posted 4 years ago, I might have taken you seriously.

No, the President is still somewhat popular. It's his policies, particularly on healthcare, that the people disagree with. Look at how his numbers have jumped back up since he put healthcare on the backburner.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/february_2010/obama_approval_index_february_4_2010/284714-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_february_4_2010.jpg

No, what's funny is that you raise our founders to the level of Gods. To question their infallable wisdom is apparently blasphemous to you.

Their wisdom lies in that the constructed a government system that always puts the rule of law in the hands of the majority of the people, and not in one person or a select few. They looked hundreds of years into the future and put governmental regulations in place that would prevent the few from oppressing the many. They were not Gods, but damn, they're a lot smarter than the "we know better than you" politicians we have now.

Hilarious? How little Americans actually know about the Constitution, its intent and it's powers. That document created the most powerful and affluent nation in the world in less than two hundred years and people still doubt it. Incredible.

By the way, thank you for proving my point of childish reactions to the Constitution when things don't go your way.

You've taken two statements from 'the left' that fit your view, without regard for accuracy or context, and twisted them to fit your post.

No, I cited two high profile and highly respected examples to support my thesis. If I need more I could always quote Olberman and Matthews, but I think they're both jokes. I actually respect Stein and Stewart as liberal thinkers.

One, as you say, a humorist. The other, a comedian turned political commentator.

Humor is the method to get a point across without having to take ownership of it. Opinion masked in ridicule is a means to say whatever you want without having to be called out on it. I refuse to buy into this nonsense. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." ~ Saul Alinsky from Rules for Radicals

There are a lot of people over the years that have thought that they knew better than our founders. It seems entirely plausable that our founders wisdom might lose its validity to time. Being patriotic doesn't mean blindly doing things the way they've been done. It means caring enough to do the best for your country and its people.

Once again, the founders did not write laws we have to blindly follow. They wrote a structure that ensures the PEOPLE remain the ruling class, and all elected powers (judiciary appointed by one branch and approved by another) are spread out in three branches that check one another to avoid any one branch from becoming too powerful. If you don't agree with the founders on this, then what do you want instead? It's that question no one seems to answer without looking foolish.

Regardless, it's not what's happening here. And I can't take you seriously.

I've stated a increasing and disturbing trend. I've never a stated that their is a coup de tat in progress or anything of the like. What I've said is that the thought process behind a lot of the leftist thinking right now is not healthy and is in fact dangerous if anyone actually wants to take it seriously. That is all.

[TheGame]

No, the President is still somewhat popular. It's his policies, particularly on healthcare, that the people disagree with. Look at how his numbers have jumped back up since he put healthcare on the backburner.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/february_2010/obama_approval_index_february_4_2010/284714-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_february_4_2010.jpg

If you want to put this all on healthcare.. Lets not forget to point out that his peak of agreement was when he was elected and seemed to be a strong progressive, and his peak of disagreement was when he decided to stop backing the public option.

Also, keep in mind that he's just NOW starting to reveal the fact that 1.2 trillion of the deficit is the right wing's creation. Somehow I think pointing out facts like this for the first time may help people understand him.

So what ACTION has Obama done to lead to these numbers? Besides not pushing for the progressive agenda he set out to do in the first place.

[Professor S]

I just want to add, to Pres. Obama's credit he does not agree with the trend I've noticed in these pundits/commentators. His rhetoric has softened lately and I think he understands the need to bring all parties together, or at least close enough together to get something accomplished in his second year. You attract more bees with honey than vinegar.

[Professor S]

Looking back at it, perhaps my background in communications has made me hypercritical of commentary made in frustration but without real malice. But when pundits and social commentators even half-joke about ignoring the separation of powers, it makes my skins crawl a little.

[Typhoid]

I think the big reason why people aren't impressed with Obama so far is that he was seemingly promising everything without actually saying what that "everything" was.

You do have to realize what he stepped into, with the war etc. I'm not putting everything on that, obviously.

But realistically - what has he done wrong? Tried to appease the Republicans? Wanted to improve healthcare?

He's trying to be so damn accommodating to the Republicans that nothing is really getting done, and nothing will likely get done in the forseeable future. He's been trying to play it directly down the middle as the catalyst in what will make Democrats and Republicans get along, but in the end he's just completely decimating the Democrats, and playing right into what the Republicans want.

Personally, I think he needs to suck it up, grow some balls and not be so afraid of backlash on things that would improve your country.


Edit: And short answer, no. I don't think anything is even close to fascist. I don't even think that's worth talking about or mentioning.

Double Edit: If you really want to talk about 'fascism', take a look at what's going on in the Canadian Government right now, and then what Obama's apparently doing will look like absolutely nothing.

[Dylflon]

O'Reilly has to be the single most condescending person alive.

Professor S is a close second.

[Dylflon]

Shooop.

[thatmariolover]

Frankly, I'd rather have the headache than moderation in this case (particularly since we aren't allowed to ignore Professor S ourselves since he has admin priviledges).

Also, how can you moderate if you're allowed to ignore people? Seems to defeat the purpose.

[Typhoid]

Frankly, I'd rather have the headache than moderation in this case (particularly since we aren't allowed to ignore Professor S ourselves since he has admin priviledges).

Also, how can you moderate if you're allowed to ignore people? Seems to defeat the purpose.

The conversation doesn't need to go the way of personal attacks.
What good will come of it? Really.

I edited it because it's pointless. We all know who does and doesn't like eachother.
There's no point to bring it up again.

[thatmariolover]

It's not a matter of liking each other, it's a matter of respecting other people on the board. It's about trying to have a civil debate. If you guys would take care of the problem Dylfon wouldn't have had to have spoken out in the first place. We don't magically become exempt to the rules when we have access to the admin forum.

Regardless, this stuff never ends well for the forum so I'll just stop there.

[Typhoid]

It's not a matter of liking each other, it's a matter of respecting other people on the board. It's about trying to have a civil debate. If you guys would take care of the problem Dylfon wouldn't have had to have spoken out in the first place. We don't magically become exempt to the rules when we have access to the admin forum.

Regardless, this stuff never ends well for the forum so I'll just stop there.

What he said wouldn't have gone the way of "civil debate".

Believe me, it was a complete and outright attack at him. There was no room for being civil in it. It would have blown up within 4 posts.

Neither of them have posted yet, and look how far it's gotten already.

The reason I deleted it was because of respecting people on the board.

Allowing blatent personal attacks to begin, and most likely continue, would not have gotten anyone any sort of respect.

[Teuthida]

You attract more bees with honey than vinegar.

I never got that saying. Don't the bees make the honey? Would they really buy back their own product?



There's another forum I belong to where the topics of politics and religion aren't allowed to be discussed. Nice and peaceful there. Just saying...

[BreakABone]

I never got that saying. Don't the bees make the honey? Would they really buy back their own product?



There's another forum I belong to where the topics of politics and religion aren't allowed to be discussed. Nice and peaceful there. Just saying...

Actually had a similar discussion with my friend yesterday

I mean attracting bees with honey would be like forcing a cow to drink milk I would think.

[Teuthida]

Well only the calves drink the milk but all bees do eat honey. But it's the honey they make. They'd have no means to carry back honey found elsewhere. Would they even eat honey not from their hive? Someone needs to solve this, stat!

Of course, honey is regurgitated pollen, so perhaps a better comparison would be if a bird would eat random vomit.

[TheGame]

As I've said before, I have no issue with Prof S ignoring me. It in no way stops me from voicing my opinion on any given subject. If he would like to be closed minded and not even have a debate, and let all my points stand with no defense of his own.. that's his own loss.

Prof feels that I created my "own version of reality", and to be honest I think he's done the same for himself. Unfortunately that's part of our human nature.. to read the same thing two different ways. Perception. *shrug*

[Bond]

I'm going to step in and close this thread for now, which is something I do not like doing.

I do want to say, however, that I think Typhoid made the right decision in editing Dylflon's post, as it was a personal attack, which is against our forum rules, and would not have resulted in a constructive addition to the discussion.

I understand this conversation, in general, aggravated some long-standing issues that I have been aware of for a while. I'm looking into these issues.

[Professor S]

Wow, I must have missed something good! :D