On Jan 19, 11:15*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Mr. Robert Hunt wrote:
On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Bob Hunt wrote:

Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
* a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.

The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.

The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.

Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
A- None.
Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.

Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that
is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy.

Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The
short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that
suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic
national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the
US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would
fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still
posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents
have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only
conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the
totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at
suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother
arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist.
As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your
implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half
attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a
pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently
only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it
only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without
relying on implication and innuendo?
You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the
argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has
"won".

Bob Hunt