10/02/2009 12:24:50 AM EST

Too Many Morons (foul language warning)

posted by Ebon

Geezus, it's getting difficult to read for all the idiots screaming their collective asses off about bulls*it. The most fu**ing annoying part is that they won't listen to facts. You can show them all the studies and bills you want and they'll still believe what they want to believe. Here, morons, try and get these through your thick fu**ing heads:

(Language only censored in intro because I'm nice like that)

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
There are no death panels. That was never in the fucking bill. There was a provision to pay doctors for having the discussion about end of life care that all of us will one day need to have but there is not and never will be some panel deciding on your productivity. That story you keep spouting about being sentanced to die on the NHS is bullshit. It's talking about a fucking dispute between doctors over when someone should be diagnosed as terminally ill. It's not a fucking Sword of Damocles hanging over your head, it's a discussion about the best way of caring for people. No, illegal immigrants will not be covered under the healthcare bill. I don't give a shit what Rush told you or what Glenn Beck is beaming into your fucking head today. Standing law prohibits illegal immigrants from being part of any federal healthcare plan and the only section of the bill that could be wilfully misinterpreted to apply to illegal immigrants has a proviso specifically saying that they won't be covered (pg 143). No, it will not fund abortions. Whether it should is a different matter but it won't.

Come on, just fucking think about this for a damn second. The people voting on this bill have to get re-elected, some of them soon. Do you really think that if they voted for a fucking bill which "pulled the plug on granma", they'd get re-elected? Of course they fucking wouldn't. And knowing that, why the blue fuck would they vote for it? Why are you willing to believe any shit about Democrats when you would have a shit fit if this had been said about your guys? I didn't like McCain but there's no fucking way I would have said he supported a "death panel" or killing off your elderly relatives. McCain has his faults but that isn't one of them. And yet, you scumbags will swallow any fucking thing if it's said about Obama. You're the morons who actually believe that pro-choicers just know that the foetus inside them is an innocent baby and want to murder it anyway. You don't want a "government beauracrat" to get between you and your doctor, which isn't in the fucking bill anyway, but you'll happily support one getting between a pregnant woman and her doctor. Where's your fucking concern for patient autonomy then? Where was it during the Terri Schiavo fiasco?

No, Obama is not a fucking socialist. Socialism's defining aim is collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. Taking equity in a piddling percentage of the business sphere in exchange for saving your collosal banks is not fucking socialism. No, it's not fucking communism either. The fucking right-wing has so corrupted the words that people don't know what they fucking mean anymore. The objective of communism was to institute a collectivist anarchy. Arguing that expanding government makes you a socialist or communist is fucking inane, it's directly counter to the aims of both ideaologies. And no, I know that's not what the USSR ended up with. That's why their version is called "Soviet Communism". They tried for communism, failed and ended up with soviet communism. All fucking clear now? No, Obama isn't a fascist either. Fascism isn't just a nasty fucking word, it's a specific set of principles. He's not marching people around or glorifying the military or ruling by dictate, no matter what drivel you hear on the radio. And for fuck's sake, don't call him both a fascist and a socialist. The two ideaologies are in direct opposition. Crack a fucking book and learn what the words mean.

ACORN is not a fucking boogeyman. They paid people to register voters. Some of those people put down fictional characters to pad their pay. ACORN was defrauded of the money and reported them itself but Mickey Mouse didn't turn up to fucking vote. ACORN was the victim you fucking imbeciles. But while we're on the subject of vote irregularities, can we count on your support to ban those fucking voting machines?

Stop listening to Glenn Beck, the man is fucking certifiable. He is suffering a psychotic break from reality and desperately needs help. Did you catch his little architectural art critique? The man is out of his fucking mind. In fact, stop watching FOX entirely, they're just lying to you and no, you're not bright enough to know teh difference. And while we're on the subject: Mr President, stop letting your people resign when Beck is attacking them, it makes it look like you're afraid of this fucking maniac.

People, the corporation is not your fucking friend. The corporation does not care about you. The corporation cares only about money. If it is more profitable to help you live, they'll do that. If it's more profitable to take your premiums for years and then cut you off at the first sign of trouble, they'll do that. If it was more profitable to rape you to death with a broken bottle, they'd do that too. The corporation will do whatever it takes to make a profit. Do not trust the corporation, their only objective is to move your money from your pocket to theirs and if they can find any possible way to do so without providing anything for it, you can guar-en-fucking-tee that they will use it.

Oh, and finally, you DON'T have the best healthcare in the fucking world. Stop believing the bullshit blown up your ass by those who wrap themselves in the flag while they pick your pocket. You might well have the best doctors in the world but in every way that can be measured, your actual healthcare outcomes are pretty fucking pitiful and you're presenting the bullshit arguement that because the NHS has problems, the only alternative is to do nothing. The NHS does have problems but it's a fuck load better than what you have now. And you're not being offered an NHS-style option anyway. For fuck's sake, the bill is about reforming health insurance and you act like you're being offered Soylent Green.

Grow the fuck up. The adults are in charge now and it would be nice to have conservatives contribute to the discussion again.
< Some perspective on Alan Grayson's righteous stand | The thought of this makes me sick >
 Display:
Too Many Morons (foul language warning) | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
Wow (none / 0)
My four year old cousin just doubled his vocabulary.

  Just kidding.  You're absolutely right.  Just try to use fewer four-letter words

by birdboy1 on 10/02/2009 12:39:54 AM EST

Normally, I do (none / 0)
Usually, I try to stick to reasoned thought but, sometimes you just gotta howl at the moon.

by Ebon on 10/02/2009 12:53:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Besides (none / 0)
The one I wrote that started out "Dear Republicans" was so profane, even Mike Malloy censored it.

by Ebon on 10/02/2009 12:57:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hey no no (none / 0)
i thought this was supposed to be censored, i was just tricked into reading a heaping dose of cuss words. where is your grandmother? if it is any consolation to you i will devote an hour tomorrow to address the difference between socialism and communism, since there are still people who don't know the difference. just because socialism doesn't work in communism doesn't mean it can't work in capitalism, as a conglomerate system of course

by RealAmericanLiberal on 10/02/2009 02:07:24 AM EST

My grandmother TAUGHT me most of those words (none / 1)
As a conglomerate system, it works pretty well. My own UK manages pretty well (current global economic catastrophe aside). Free market capitalism works great, WHEN customers can walk away from the market. When essential services are subject to teh whims of the corporate class, the same thing happens every time as we discovered during Thatcher's (and Major and Blair to a lesser extent) mania to privatise everything in sight: Prices soar, service deteriorates. Gas, electricity, water, rail. All of them were privatised in my lifetime and in every single case, prices soared, service collapsed.

When dealing with a service (and healthcare is a service, not a product) where your life is at serious risk without it, free market capitalism does not work.

And don't even get me started on the "free market uber alles" crowd...

by Ebon on 10/02/2009 02:26:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you from England? (none / 0)
is your name James Bond?.... hhaha but, no in all seriousness i think you are right or "spot on, chap". the UK is a great example of a nation that mixed socialized medicine in a free market successfully. we learn from their success.

by RealAmericanLiberal on 10/02/2009 02:47:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yep (none / 0)
I am indeed English. I live in the Midlands, just down the road from a famous brewing town.

Sadly, I'm not (yet) James Bond, which is a constant source of annoyance.

by Ebon on 10/02/2009 09:17:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fuckin' A Bubba! (none / 0)
Well said.   I don't mind the language at all. 

by bfaul on 10/02/2009 09:11:37 AM EST

Hold on (none / 0)
Whoa

Who says Communism doesn't work?

Show me where it's ever been tried, in a pure or near-pure form, and failed. Stupid idealism of implementation is what has failed. Of course you need accountability. Doh, humans are not angels.

The USSR was not a true communist state, so don't even try. Red China was and is not a true communist state; Maoism is a perversion. North Korea is a fucking Stalinist nightmare that would make George Orwell wake up screaming. None of those are communism.

Personally, I believe in the dialectic.

Hasta la victoria siempre

by RedPossum on 10/02/2009 10:17:58 AM EST

Communism (none / 0)
requires a change of upbringing, and a lack of entitlement that children have been born under with a capatalism upbringing, it would take generations to fully augment society to be acclimated towards a communistic lifestyle (in its true sense)

Communism is doomed to fail if thrust upon a people that havent been "trained" into its lifestyle, youll always get people saying things like "i work harder than tom, why does tom have everything i do, all he does is push a broom while i have to mine coal... this is not fair i deserve more!"   < this mentality is what im talking about.

but to be frank, there has been no pure communistic society, no pure capatalistic society, no socialistic society...  

Its always been a mix blend of societys, leaning in one direction more than the other but very slightly....

by Ectheleon on 10/02/2009 12:24:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My favourite joke (none / 0)
People talking about communist governments.
Guess only marxists can appreciate it. ;)

Let's try to find a word that's more often misused than communism.

Communism is currently not a form of government, but dishonesty. It claims to be a superior democracy and always ends up as a badly disguised fascism.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 10/02/2009 06:10:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Naughty (none / 0)
Communism never turns into fascism, however disguised, because communism and fascism are directly opposed. What they do usually end up as is authoritarian.

We tend to associate authoritarianism with fascism but it's really not. Fascist governments are always authoritarian but not all authoritarian governments are fascist.

In essence, authoritarianism is any government which opresses it's people, fascism is a specific set of reasons for doing so.

by Ebon on 10/02/2009 09:16:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Communism has never ended up as something (none / 0)
A big part of the definition of communism is the lack of government, because each citicen is equally involved in the decicion making.
This has never happened anywhere in the world, therefore we don't know what communism would end up as.

Do you know of any government that doesn't oppress people?

Only the legitimation varies. In democracies the legitimation is "the will of the people" in fascism it is that the leaders are more able to decide than the rest of the population. Fascist usually think that fate is the reason for this ability. The keep in power by applying the principles of machiavellianism. This involves a lot of punishment, therefore the system of government is named after the fasces which was the symbol of power and the right to punish for certain public officers in the Roman Empire.
All countries that claimed to be communist had a certain elite that was making the decissions. This means they are fascist.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 10/03/2009 12:40:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Holland maybe? (none / 0)
Um, the fasces didn't donate the right to administer punishment. The fasces was a bundle of twigs carried by the Lictors of ancient Rome, bodyguards to the Consuls. And it was only used during the Roman Republic (i.e. prior to Octavian) because, during the Imperial period, the Consuls ceased to exist.

Contrary to popular belief, the capacity of a certain elite making the countries decisions is not necessarily part of fascism. Granted, it usually occurs in fascist systems but so do the trains running on time. Rather, fascism is defined by, amongst other signs, a disdain for individual rights, intellectuals and the arts; a retreat from pre-existing (that part's important) democratic freedoms and some degree of symbiosis between the corporate and state spheres (according to Mussolini, who originated the term, it should be called Corporatism). Fascism is always an anti-intellectual, populist phonomena which takes root first among a rural populace and claims to be returning the nation to it's glorious roots. Comparisons to militant fundementalism are obvious and have been much remarked upon.

The idea of each citizen having a direct say in each decision has happened actually, but only once and not for all that long. In ancient history, Athens (which was a city-state at this point) made decisions by all interested citizens assembling in the Forum and arguing about it until everyone had their say (usually, each side would pick their best orator who would argue for them), whereupon they would vote on the issue. That system is Athenian or Direct Democracy and, AFAIK, they are the only society to ever do so.

More to the point, fascism is on the extreme-right and communism on the extreme-left, and it's not possible to be both.

by Ebon on 10/08/2009 02:53:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're probably right about Rome (none / 0)
I guess we could discuss for days which is the actual definition of fascism and if it is necessarily (extrem-)right. To quote Wikipedia:

"Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"[25], but writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[26] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[27] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[28][29][30]"

The thing with Athens is only true if you share their definition of citizen. Not citizens were women, slaves, children, people who didn't complete military training or who have commited certain crimes or whose parents have commited certain crimes (being convicted of a crime was a little like a lottery). Apart from these few exceptions everybody had a say.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 10/08/2009 10:02:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fascism is difficult to define (none / 0)
My PoliSci professor placed it on the extreme-right but that was largely for lack of anywhere else to put it. I tend to agree for the simple reason that there is more of a correlation between fascistic values and those of the right than there is between fascistic values and those of the left (which is not to say that there's much of a correlation at all, fascism is a billion miles from respectable conservatism). Bear in mind, this was back in teh days when left and right were largely defined by economics. These days, the political compass would probably place fascism at both the right economically and, more importantly for our purposes, very extreme on the authoritarian side of the freedoms index.

Actually, I just ran standard fascist ideaologies through the test (PoliticalCompass.org) and it comes out as extreme-right on the economic (horizontal) axis and extreme authoritarian on the freedoms (vertical) axis.

One thing we can utterly refute was the shared delusion of the right (started by Bernie Goldberg) that fascism was a leftist ideaology.

When discussing any ancient culture, you're pretty much forced to accept the definitions they drew for themselves. We can look back at Athens and decry their views but in the end, we cannot change them and so, we just learn what we can. Proponants of enacting some modern form of Athenian democracy (and there are some, especially now we have the communications technology for it to work) generally assume that all mentally competent adults would have their say.

by Ebon on 10/14/2009 04:53:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
Doesn't left and right always depend on the society you're talking about?

The way we have learned it in history lessons was that left means trying to change society in a direction it hasn't been in before (progressing society) and right means trying to keep society the way it is.

This means that extreml-left means being idealistic and fighting for aims that are nor realistic (yet).
Extrem-right means trying to go back to a form of society that has existed before.

The politicalcompass test is specifically for North America (maybe just USA).

In other parts of the world these terms have other meanings.

We agree that fascism is definitly extremly authoritarian.

The problem with the economical classification is that it's not an "important" part of fascism. It was always just something that was made up on the go and nothing that was part of the ideology.

Anyway some excerpts from the NSDAP 25 point plan:

We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

That's mainly what the NSDAP had to say about economics.
Doesn't sound too far right for me.

Agree with your statements about ancient cultures, but I was talking about the fact that Athen's democracy was not a system where everybody had a say.
It's not more democratic than our current democracies.

It would on the other hand be interesting to discuss if a system where every able minded (how to measure that?) person had a say in every decision.
There are some arguments for and against that and if you are interested in discussing it I would like you to start a new thread about it.
I promise I will oppose your point of view to get a discussion started. That would be no problem for me since I havent made up my mind yet.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 10/14/2009 08:35:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
*insert clever title here* (none / 0)
Hmm, now the version I learned in PoliSci (and remember, I'm a Brit) was that the more toward the left you moved, the more you believed that people were essentially good and would, if left to their own devices, act in the best interests of each other; while the more toward the right you went, the more you believed that humans were essentially selfish and should be restrained. Where the hell modrn Republicans (who seem to believe that people are inherantly selfish but shouldn't be restrained at all) fit in is anyone's guess.

I'll agree entirely that economics were never a very major feature of fascism. The ideaology was always more about returning to a glorious (usually mythical) past. However, some degree of merger between the corporate and public estates is considered a key feature of fascism since fascism normally directs the corporate estate (for example, think of the Nazis directing the development of the VW Beetle). Essentially, fascism subordinates everything, including the corporate sphere, to the state.

With regard to the NSDAP list, a couple of caveats: Firstly, remember that the "socialist" part of the name was a hangover from before Hitler took over and several points of that list are likewise (for example, the communalization of warehouses was abandoned) and other parts (for example, the entry about pensions) were put in there to appeal to voters with no intention of ever honouring them (in the same way as the BNP always include clauses about funding education). Apart from that, most of the list is fairly nondescript, the only significantly right-wing entry is the one that says "the first duty of every citizen is to work". Fascism tends to glorify "honest toil". Think of the propoganda posters of farming volk. Actually, think of Republican tirades about "real America", the tone isn't dissimilar (although Republicans usually don't go anywhere near as far).

I promise I'll start such a thread once I work out my own opinion on it. The thing is, it sounds great in theory until I overhear the guys in the pub or read the local paper's LTTE and remember how incredibly dumb a very large portion of the public are (I actually am an elitist).

by Ebon on 10/15/2009 08:35:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Even though (none / 0)
I'm also an elitist and consider myself extremly left. Some consider that a contadiction.

To me it seems that terms like left and right are not as straight forward as one thinks.
It seems in America left means wanting the best for the biggest amount of people.
My definition was what we were told in Germany.
And the British definition seems to be different, too.

This is just another argument for my hate of people starting arguments with something like :"I as a left/liberal etc..."
Nobody knows what these terms mean and still people let them decide their opinion.

Maybe a thread about direct democracy could help both of us to make up our mind on it.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 10/15/2009 10:16:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think extreme right is a good place to put (none / 0)
fascism ... especially when you consider  conservatives need an authority figure  to tell them what to do.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 10/15/2009 02:35:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Communism (none / 0)
I know full well that the USSR never managed to get to communism. Their version is called "Soviet Communism" in academic circles. No-one's sure how to describe China's weird system and I know too little about Maoism to even venture a guess.

So no, no nation has ever achieved pure communism and I suspect that's because it's unworkable. In a small group, where you have an emotional or social connection to one another, communism can and has worked well but when it is imposed upoen a nation, you lose that emotional link and so communism becomes just another system to be exploited.

That's my opinion anyway.

by Ebon on 10/02/2009 09:12:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
they had marxism not communism right? (none / 0)

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 10/15/2009 02:35:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They couldn't have been further away from (none / 0)
Marxism.

What they had was (Leninism-)Stalinism.

It really had nothing to do with communism, except that it sounds better to say "we have communism" than "from now on I'm your dicktator, suckers".

It's called branding.

The same thing that makes Ford claim a car is fuel efficient because it uses 21 mpg.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 10/15/2009 03:27:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
^ what he said ^ (none / 0)

by Ebon on 10/16/2009 09:42:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Too Many Morons (foul language warning) | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: