No more of this neocon junk, the repubs are fascists! FASCISTS!!!

[Melodybe]

By definition and by their actions, people in this country should know that.

[LiberalVoice]

1. They should know!

Conservatism equals Fascism no matter how you slice it. I couldn't agree more with you Melodybe.

[Melodybe]

2. I didn't say that conservates= fascism, I am saying Bushco are fascists

The merge of corporations and politics is the definition of fascism. After watching F 9/11 it is so clear, they are trying to take our country away from us, and now is our chance not to let them.

So lets call a spade, a spade, they are fascists.

[GreenArrow]

3. unfortunately, in this merger of corporations and politics,

Democrats are equally complicit, if not as overtly vicious.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. nope

Not equally complicit. The numbers don't add up to make this equal at all. But thanks for our daily dose of Green party propaganda.

[GreenArrow]

9. yep

the numbers add up perfectly. But thanks for our daily dose of Dem denial.

[AP]

8. Democrats are not "equally complicit". They're not blameless, but they're

definitely not equally complicit. Republicans are about one thing only: concentrating as much power as possible in the hands of as few people as possible.

Democrats have to work within the same framework of political donations, and corporate control of society, and they do have to worry about getting punished. Look at McKinney. Look at MLK, Wellstone and Kennedy if you're a consipiracy theorist. You have an antifascist dem who steps out of line, and they find a corporate friendly dem to take your place.

Well, there are many Dems like McKinney who believe that they're representing people and not corporations but know that to stay in the game, they can't step too far out of line. And I believe that there are not as many like Joe Lieberman, and Zel Miller, who really live to help corporations.

I think Gore was very pro-deregulation of some (but not all) industries, and his environmentalism was meant to cover up a love for Wall St banks and the telecoms, so I think it was sad that he was the leading Dem in 2000. But Democrats -- like both Clintons, Edwards, and many many others -- really understand the progressive project. They understand that they represent people and they vote to flow economic, political, and cultural power down to people. They're not complicit in the sense that they want what the Republicans want. What the realize is that they're working within a system that does not allow radical change immediately, and that you have to work for incremental change.

They also realize that you have to get all your ducks in a row for real change. You need to control all branches of government and you have to get your compelling narrative down for society to understand if you want your message to make it through the fascistic filter of the national media.

[GreenArrow]

11. let's assume then that they are not equally complicit

I suppose the Dem's role (by and large) could be compared to that of the driver of a getaway car for their armed robber compatriots, the Republicans. Perhaps some of the drivers may do it unwillingly, and raise complaints or unwelcome questions, and those, as you suggest, are replaced by more congenial drivers.

The trouble is, as the government and society in general become more and more corporatized, politicians increasingly depend on the good graces of the corporations for their very existence. Step out of line, and be replaced. It's easier to get along then to go along, and that applies to members of both parties. Think of Bush as CEO rather than President. Senators, Congressmen etc are employees of different ranks. When all is said and done, if an employee is bad for business, he will be replaced.

I'd agree that Clinton and Edwards understand the progressive part, but I'd also consider that that gives them an edge in exploiting it for their own ends. It enables them to talk emotively about feeling one's pain, while doing little or nothing politically to alleviate it. Every once in a while, they'll throw a sop. I believe Dems do want many of the same things that the Republicans want, but that they approach these goals from very different angles. There are obvious exceptions to this, of course, where religious beliefs and social mores come into play, but by and large, many successful Dems give at least lip service to these, because they are useful instruments of social control.

[AP]

12. The Democrats role, at worst, is like that of the informant.

They know they have to be on the inside in order to be able to make a difference, so the struggle for them is to know when to say, "I have enough here for a conviction."

McKinney, Kennedy and Wellstone (if you're a conspiracy theorist) blew their cover too soon.

Feingold, Barbara Lee, The Clintons, Edwards, and many others are doing a better job of figuring out when it's time to lay it down.

[GreenArrow]

13. you're much kinder than I am

.

[AP]

14. It's because I see your argument leading to one thing:

self-hatred among liberals and lots of Republicans getting elected. You make liberals feel there's nothing they can do, or worth voting for, except for candidates who can't even play the game because they're so far outside of understanding the rules.

I want liberals to discern between candidates whose hearts are in the right place and who see the big picture, like Edwards, and who actually have a chance to win and move things in the right direction.

Elective politics is about electing the most liberal person with a chance to win, and electing people who see that politics is all about incremental change and want to move things in the right direction without blowing their cover so badly that they get destroyed by the fascists. You have to elected people withh conviction and the skills to manipulate the system to go in the right direction (which is the left direction).

[GreenArrow]

18. not so much self-hating among liberals

as an understanding that the two party system is broken; it's largely an illusion of choice. It's still fixable, but barely. Maybe. Money must go, corporate influence must go, term limits must be applied. Ordinary citizens must somehow be encouraged to participate in their communities; it's not simply about casting a vote for this candidate or that pre-selected for you by corporate interests. As money for social programs and welfare is leached away, replaced by avaricious mammonites, under the mantle of privatization, we lose more of our responsiblities as citizens. They are being taken from us, and we are giving them away.

There are plenty of things liberals can do, and no shortage of things worth voting for; the problem is that few mainstream elected liberals are doing them or voting for them. Now whether this is because they are sleeping, and biding their time waiting for the right moment to strike, or because they have become co-opted into a system that rewards those that play the game the best, is open to debate. Some few, no doubt, are doing the best they can; others are simply feeding at the public trough. For others still, to sleep is to forget, and to sleep deeply is to forget one's dreams.

Elective politics is not about "electing the most liberal person with a chance to win" (or the most conservative person, for that matter); it's about gaining, excercising and consolidating power, purely and simply. Image matters more than substance. Rhetoric matters more than wisdom. Familiarity counts for more than vision. Manipulation matters more than honesty. The winning candidate is more often than not the richer candidate, the candidate able to cast the deepest spell. And when a candidate who offers substance, wisdom, vision and honesty does manage to win, they find the rules of the game are not written in their favor. With few exceptions, they are replaced or co-opted. Some toil on best they can, for as long as they can, until strength fails them, or the times pass them by.

All that being said, under the current circumstances, the Republicans are invariably of a much fouler breed than the Democrats.

[ArkDem]

7. Well actually

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[LiberalVoice]

16. "typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

"A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government."

Like I said...Conservatism = Fascism

[kikiek]

17. A post fromo yesterday talked abt a documentary "The Corporation"

http://www.thecorporation.tv/usa/ I haven't pasted before so not sure how that works. This is out, but I hadn't heard of it. Trailer makes me really want to see it.

[BillZBubb]

4. I think you paint with too broad a brush.

Not all Repugs are Neocons, and not all Repugs are fascists.

I do agree though, that if you scratch the paint off a Freeper, you will find a fascist core.

[jokerman93]

6. Of all the revelations

Of all the revelations in F9/11, probably one of the most disturbing and outrageous for me was the business convention of corporate vultures crowing about the unlimited profits coming there way in Iraq. "The government will pay whatever you ask." They were positively bloated with glee and greed.

America.

Fascists? I suppose, if maggots are political.

I felt like vomiting.

[datasuspect]

10. adolf hitler was conservative <eom>

[Zorra]

15. Yep. A fascist by any other name is still a fascist.

[Generator]

19. I agree 100%

Just on vacation with the in-laws, and that's what I told them and they looked a little dumbfounded. Yes, it's beyond Conservative or Neo-Con or Reaganism.

Call it what it is. I want to scream when they call the Moore movie propaganda, which is all the "mainstream" media gives us anymore. It's scary. Thank GAWD for rabblerousers like Moore.