Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Eudaimonia & Co: What America Still Doesn’t Understand About Fascism

Bozo the kKklown

By Bozo the kKklown
in The Tailgate

Is America on the track towards fascism?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Is America on the track towards fascism?


Recommended Posts

Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

The larger point is small arms holding off larger armies

 

The Soviets threw their entire army at afghanistan in the 1980s and tucked tail.  This was after the British tried a century ago

 

The reason we went to afghanistan with unconventional forces, or as you put it 'limite resources` was very intentional.  We learned in vietnam and we learned from the soviets, you cannot fight a guerilla was with conventional means

 

Agreed, and i believe we are still learning how to do that but Iraq shows it's not impossible.  That is where first learned stuff like catch and hold and i think we need to reevaluate this predator program as its creating terrortis while killing them.  Pakistain is interfering far more in Afghanistan then Iran is in Iraq right now, ****, Bin Laden was living in Pakistan.

 

Quote

It would be no different here.  2nd ammendment is defense against tyranny, period, and an effective one at that.

 

These are just my opinions of course.  But theyre the right opinions!  ?

 

I hope you are right, Syria would suggest you could be wrong as well.  Theres no doubt in my mind Trump would go full Assad on us if it came to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

The larger point is small arms holding off larger armies

 

The Soviets threw their entire army at afghanistan in the 1980s and tucked tail.  This was after the British tried a century ago

 

This isn't really true at all.  The Soviets pretty much always had more resources and men positioned to the West then in Afghanistan and very likely to the East..

 

The Soviets did very little of taking and holding ground.  Mostly, they'd attack and then withdraw to the cities or their bases.  At the most, they had just over 100,000 people actually stationed in Afghanistan.  We had more troops in the US zone in Germany alone post-WWII (and as a country Afghanistan is larger than Germany and our zone was certainly much smaller Afghanistan).  There are very few countries you can really occupy with ~100,000 people- maybe Luxemburg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zoony said:

 

He was incredibly naive about the hornets nest he was walking into.  I think he honestly felt he could pull off a Team of Rivals like Lincoln and get the GOP to work with him.  It was a disaster, and honestly, I think thats on him.  Almost every in depth interview i saw or read with the guy he mentioned Lincoln and his writings

 

He should have been more like trump and just steamrolled them.  

 

Revisionist history but this is on the pretense that he doesn't loss chambers in congress still by going that route, because i really want to agree with you.  I understand saying he tried but he kept trying for too damn long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Not so much a take as it is history.  Maybe Im misunderstanding you though.  TARP (or as you put it, bailing out the big banks) was President Bush.  Had nothing to do with Obama.  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

 

I remember a stimulus by Obama, but not a bailout.  The stimulus was way too small to be effective.  Roughly 600 million iirc.  But, we got a new school, definktely no hate from me on that.  Wish it could have been bigger, gop ****ed him on that

 

There was also a lot of Quantitative Easing.  But that was Bernanke, a Bush appointee

 

TARP wasn't something that happened in one day, and Obama and his team participated in all of those discussions because, as the incoming President, it would have been counterproductive for Bush to do something that Obama was just going to do a different way.  I remember it being pretty clear in October that Obama was going to win.  

 

My sentence was "The economy that Obama inherited was in a legit crisis, and he should get credit for what he did in the first few months to stabilize it (despite the criticism he took for bailing out the big banks)."  Are you disagreeing with Obama inherited a crisis, or are you saying he didn't take criticism for bailing out the big banks?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

A lot of assumptions here.  Syria had defections as well, and Trump with an 80+% approval rating among republicans makes me feel we cant count out Red states going against him if it got to this point.  Thats the entire middle kd the country.  I'd argue Afghanistan is an issue of lack of resources being used inefficiently.  Feds would go all in on an insurrection at home and no one would come to help us.  Think if it gets to this point we are screwed, facisim and America First might as well get a room together.

I'm not sure how far down this road we should go in this thread but I will say this.  IF some type of second civil war were to happen due to the rise of fascism or really any other reason, you would see a "war" with more than two "teams".  And what could be defined as guerrilla warfare from the anti government side could be sold as mass domestic terrorism depending on which side you are on.  I could see Texas secede, keep whatever military hardware is in their state, and declare themselves an independent country.  If US tried to go after them, maybe you see two teams there.  Remember there is one thing Texans love more than Trump.  And that is Texas.  Outside of that, I think it would start as large scale civil unrest.  When the new fascist government came down with an overly heavy hand, the resistance would start.  One thing to remember is how militarized most police forces have become.  Some of them would have to start pushing back against federal actions.  And seeing them shot down would energize other segments that may have been hesitant to rebel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

TARP wasn't something that happened in one day, and Obama and his team participated in all of those discussions because, as the incoming President, it would have been counterproductive

 

You have got to be ****ting me.  

Ok to admit youre mistaken brother

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted

@TheGreatBuzz i agree with being careful discussing what would happen in an insurrection versus how to do it, at least on the public internet.  Cluster**** would be putting it mildly, yes, but at home in this thread at least, unfortunately.  Its hard to say the entire population would jus take it if government went this route.  I jus know that no one is going to help us, theyll jus "jump in" to make it worse as an opportunity too good to pass up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Turn off Fox News, they are gaslighting you. :)

You are straight up incorrect on tarp.  Could not be more wrong.  Now you are doubling down on the stupid.  

 

The bill was signed in october.   Before the election.   The work on the bill with bernanke, bush, and key members of the legislative took place months prior.  It was a bi partisan effort all the way.  Everyone was on board except ron paul.

 

Whats next, Obama got us to the moon?  Christ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Revisionist history but this is on the pretense that he doesn't loss chambers in congress still by going that route, because i really want to agree with you.  I understand saying he tried but he kept trying for too damn long.

 

The gop were the minority party in the house when obama took office.  I cannot remember the senate, but iirc it was split pretty much evenly.

 

It was the democrats who caved in red states and a 100 percent unified Gop block of the house that gave obama the most problems.  Again, he tried to be Lincoln and sucked at it.  Were the GOP assholeS.  Yes.  Was obama naieve?  Yes.

 

It sucks, i blame the gop, but i also blame obama.  It was a failure of leadership.  Sometimes leaders have to be assholes.  I dont think obama from day 1 ever pulled a reagan and rallied the american people i defiance of congress.  I was highly critical of him at the time, too.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, zoony said:

You are straight up incorrect on tarp.  Could not be more wrong.  Now you are doubling down on the stupid.  

 

The bill was signed in october.   Before the election.   The work on the bill with bernanke, bush, and key members of the legislative took place months prior.  It was a bi partisan effort all the way.  Everyone was on board except ron paul.

 

Whats next, Obama got us to the moon?  Christ 

 

My ****ing law school professor helped write it, I know what happened..  In October 2008, it was clear the Obama was going to beat McCain.  McCain had just pulled the stunt where he suspended his campaign and his numbers were tanking with the economy.  

 

What's next, W solved the meltdown, is hero. :ols:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

See “facscism” in the thread title.

 

Then sees 20 posts about Obama...

I was expecting emails by now.

10 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

The gop were the minority party in the house when obama took office.  I cannot remember the senate, but iirc it was split pretty much evenly.

 

It was the democrats who caved in red states and a 100 percent unified Gop block of the house that gave obama the most problems.  Again, he tried to be Lincoln and sucked at it.  Were the GOP assholeS.  Yes.  Was obama naieve?  Yes.

 

It sucks, i blame the gop, but i also blame obama.  It was a failure of leadership.  Sometimes leaders have to be assholes.  I dont think obama from day 1 ever pulled a reagan and rallied the american people i defiance of congress.  I was highly critical of him at the time, too.  

 

 

Ya he had as close to a super majority without having one as you can get when he took over.  That was his chance, he never got it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
Quote

(Perhaps you object. The mistake many Americans make is to think that flat-screen TVs and microwave ovens somehow make them better off than people in poorer countries. They don’t. People in Pakistan and Chile can afford those things, too. Poverty — the experience of deprivation — is a truer thing that not having a flat-screen TV. It’s about living at the edge of perpetual ruin, which is something that most Americans now face daily)

1- Why did this guy have to drag Chile into this as a negative example?  (and then promptly ignore how fascism came about in Chile)

2- That definition of poverty is ridiculous.  Poverty isn’t about living on the edge of perpetual ruin, poverty is what exists over that edge.  It’s the place where you choose between a full tank of gas and a full stomach, and it gets worse from there.  Living a comfortable life check to check is stressful, but it isn’t poverty.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo the kKklown

Bozo the kKklown

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, zoony said:

 

The gop were the minority party in the house when obama took office.  I cannot remember the senate, but iirc it was split pretty much evenly.

 

It was the democrats who caved in red states and a 100 percent unified Gop block of the house that gave obama the most problems.  Again, he tried to be Lincoln and sucked at it.  Were the GOP assholeS.  Yes.  Was obama naieve?  Yes.

 

It sucks, i blame the gop, but i also blame obama.  It was a failure of leadership.  Sometimes leaders have to be assholes.  I dont think obama from day 1 ever pulled a reagan and rallied the american people i defiance of congress.  I was highly critical of him at the time, too.  

 

 

I agree with this.

 

And the Dems lost those seats because of those cowardly Blue Dog Dems who the party has seemed hellbent on trying to become the last eight years,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah because they have no idea how to not waste money. 

 

 

 

No ****, nbc nightly news just interviewed a displaced family from the hurricane.  They didnt have money for a hotel.  This lady literally had $2k worth of ink on her neck and shoulders. Just...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

Or maybe more people are living pay check to pay check (as compared to in the past) not because there spending habits are really different than previous generations, but because for nearly the last 40 years, we've pursued economic polices that have allowed wealth to accumulate at the top.

 

Growing wealth inequality and declining income mobility in the US is a real thing.  And it isn't happening (mostly) because people aren't smart about their spending habits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Or maybe more people are living pay check to pay check (as compared to in the past) not because there spending habits are really different than previous generations, but because for nearly the last 40 years, we've pursued economic polices that have allowed wealth to accumulate at the top.

 

Growing wealth inequality and declining income mobility in the US is a real thing.  And it isn't happening (mostly) because people aren't smart about their spending habits.

I feel like you are giving too many people a pass they don't deserve.  Yes the there are issues with wealth immobility but that ain't the only cause.  Some people (most people) don't know how to properly budget and live within their means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Going Commando

Going Commando

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I feel like you are giving too many people a pass they don't deserve.  Yes the there are issues with wealth immobility but that ain't the only cause.  Some people (most people) don't know how to properly budget and live within their means. 

 

People never have.  The issue is that wages haven't grown commensurate with the cost of education, healthcare, housing, and food.

 

The oligarch class wants us to blame each other when they rob us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...