The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm certainly no fan of Chavez or Maduro, but calling them fascist does sound pretty absurd to me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm certainly no fan of Chavez or Maduro, but calling them fascist does sound pretty absurd to me.

Yeah, the only explanations for that that I can think of are that ag subscribes to the 'horseshoe' thesis or that he's using 'fascist' in the 'political ideology I disagree with A WHOLE LOT' sense.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm certainly no fan of Chavez or Maduro, but calling them fascist does sound pretty absurd to me.

Yeah, the only explanations for that that I can think of are that ag subscribes to the 'horseshoe' thesis or that he's using 'fascist' in the 'political ideology I disagree with A WHOLE LOT' sense.

Except that he also compares them to Mussolini so...

[Flake]

Both of those men are terrible people.  I can't even begin to explain my hatred for them. They are fascist. Plain and simple.

[TNF]

Both of those men are terrible people.  I can't even begin to explain my hatred for them. They are fascist. Plain and simple.

Yeah, fascists don't usually win free and fair elections or continue to allow democracy to exist after they are elected. Chavez and Maduro were both elected in free and fair elections and democracy hasn't gone the way of the dodo in Venezuela as of yet. (Though it might if the right-wing opposition forces Maduro out of power)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both of those men are terrible people.  I can't even begin to explain my hatred for them. They are fascist. Plain and simple.

This really, really sounds like you're using the 'political ideology I disagree with A WHOLE LOT' definition.

[Sol]

Both of those men are terrible people.  I can't even begin to explain my hatred for them. They are fascist. Plain and simple.

Yeah, fascists don't usually win free and fair elections or continue to allow democracy to exist after they are elected. Chavez and Maduro were both elected in free and fair elections and democracy hasn't gone the way of the dodo in Venezuela as of yet. (Though it might if the right-wing opposition forces Maduro out of power)

Maduro is not a particularly friendly fellow to civil liberties, and IIRC, the 2013 elections were a little shady.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Both of those men are terrible people.  I can't even begin to explain my hatred for them. They are fascist. Plain and simple.

Yeah, fascists don't usually win free and fair elections or continue to allow democracy to exist after they are elected. Chavez and Maduro were both elected in free and fair elections and democracy hasn't gone the way of the dodo in Venezuela as of yet. (Though it might if the right-wing opposition forces Maduro out of power)

Maduro is not a particularly friendly fellow to civil liberties, and IIRC, the 2013 elections were a little shady.

Chavez was elected free and fair, and was a legitimate (albeit also thuggish) leader. Maduro most likely rigged that election, and has been far, far worse.

Let us not forget that Chavez, the "champion of Democracy" tried to overthrow the government in a quixotic coup d'etat attempt.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Both of those men are terrible people.  I can't even begin to explain my hatred for them. They are fascist. Plain and simple.

Yeah, fascists don't usually win free and fair elections or continue to allow democracy to exist after they are elected. Chavez and Maduro were both elected in free and fair elections and democracy hasn't gone the way of the dodo in Venezuela as of yet. (Though it might if the right-wing opposition forces Maduro out of power)

Maduro is not a particularly friendly fellow to civil liberties, and IIRC, the 2013 elections were a little shady.

Yes, there was attempted regional vote-rigging on both sides.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm certainly no fan of Chavez or Maduro, but calling them fascist does sound pretty absurd to me.

Yeah, the only explanations for that that I can think of are that ag subscribes to the 'horseshoe' thesis or that he's using 'fascist' in the 'political ideology I disagree with A WHOLE LOT' sense.

Except that he also compares them to Mussolini so...

I think his reasoning initially was that Chavez's agenda was quite similar to Jorge Haider or Le Pen's, basically espouse nationalism (something Chavez was huge on) while implementing state control of the economy. A very simplified version but the whole basic jist.

I agree that the Mussolini comparison doesn't work though. In fact the real problem is that Mussolini's brand of fascism isn't really applicable anywhere besides 1920s-1940s Italy. Even the other fascist regimes in Europe at the time were a rather different flavor.

[RogueBeaver]

A country stuck between a rock and a hard place; the government is a bunch of corrupt thugs and the protesters range from naive "liberal" students to neo-Nazis. The idea that Ukrainians are a separate nation is silly, though.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A country stuck between a rock and a hard place; the government is a bunch of corrupt thugs and the protesters range from naive "liberal" students to neo-Nazis. The idea that Ukrainians are a separate nation is silly, though.

The part about Ukrainian nation made me want to bang my head agaist the wall. Sadly, there is a very substantial presence of far right elements involved there and trust me, those are very nasty guys.

[Velasco]

I think his reasoning initially was that Chavez's agenda was quite similar to Jorge Haider or Le Pen's, basically espouse nationalism (something Chavez was huge on) while implementing state control of the economy. A very simplified version but the whole basic jist.

Italian fascism is something more than nationalism and state control of the economy. You're forgetting corporatism (which is quite different from socialism), irredentism, expansionism, traditionalism, sexism, nostalgia of the Imperial Rome, hands on hips, black shirts and blah, blah, blah.

You do realise that is better go away running when people start to discuss on Venezuelan politics. Fascists here, fascists there... Come on, boys. How boring.

[Hash]

    Like most Western leftists, I take the view that our society's peak was the period from about 1933 to 1969, the point where we achieved the most progress in the pursuit of social and economic equality. But starting in the late 1970's and late 1980's, I'd say, the decline has begun and continues to this day. We've become a civilization of individuals, who seek to ignore what, as Kennedy said, they can do for their country. Instead, the plutocratic stranglehold on civilization has been accepted and the chasm between rich and poor continues to widen, while both heads of the individualist beast preach to us to live for ourselves, be it through the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others or the pursuit of mindless self-indulgence at the expense of others (and ourselves).

    Like most Western leftists, I take the view that our society's peak was the period from about 1933 to 1969

our society's peak was the period from about 1933

1933

1933

1933

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

ftr that referred to the new deal

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

So Josephus was a Christian?  Because he certainly is a first Century writer who mentioned him.  Now I can see doubting that the miracles associated with the birth, baptism, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus happened, but there really is no basis to doubt that Jesus the son of Mary lived in Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered disciples and evangelized, and then was crucified. Even a myth has to start somewhere.

Antiquities of the Jews has some very obvious Christian bias.

[Antonio the Sixth]

    Like most Western leftists, I take the view that our society's peak was the period from about 1933 to 1969, the point where we achieved the most progress in the pursuit of social and economic equality. But starting in the late 1970's and late 1980's, I'd say, the decline has begun and continues to this day. We've become a civilization of individuals, who seek to ignore what, as Kennedy said, they can do for their country. Instead, the plutocratic stranglehold on civilization has been accepted and the chasm between rich and poor continues to widen, while both heads of the individualist beast preach to us to live for ourselves, be it through the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others or the pursuit of mindless self-indulgence at the expense of others (and ourselves).

    Like most Western leftists, I take the view that our society's peak was the period from about 1933 to 1969

our society's peak was the period from about 1933

1933

1933

1933

he can't be real

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It is unbelievable that colleges across the country, even those in "liberal" states, allow these openly segregationist organizations to exist.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It is unbelievable that colleges across the country, even those in "liberal" states, allow these openly segregationist organizations to exist.

Very absurd.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It is unbelievable that colleges across the country, even those in "liberal" states, allow these openly segregationist organizations to exist.

Very absurd.

Very ignorant.

[Oakvale]

*pulls face off* I'm 20RP12.

Wait, seriously!
BAN HIM! BAN HIM ALL TO HELL!

And again, WHY DO SOCKS ADMIT THEY ARE SOCKS?!?

[TNF]

I support capitalism. I also support socialism.

How  does that work?

There's no such thing as a pure socialist state or a pure capitalist state. Everything is a blend to some extent.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I support capitalism. I also support socialism.

How  does that work?

There's no such thing as a pure socialist state or a pure capitalist state. Everything is a blend to some extent.

Explain to me, please, how this is ignorant, absurd, or bad.

[TNF]

I support capitalism. I also support socialism.

How  does that work?

There's no such thing as a pure socialist state or a pure capitalist state. Everything is a blend to some extent.

Explain to me, please, how this is ignorant, absurd, or bad.

Socialism means the ownership of the means of production by the people, either through the state, trade unions, or directly. IceSpear seems to be conflating "taxpayer-funded public services" with socialism, which is a totally ridiculous claim to make.

[TNF]

Disgusting classism and Southron-hate from our enlightened progressive brethern:

The average IQ of the United States would increase by several points.

Porous borders for the first few years could solve that problem. Also send the wingnuts from the North down there.

What would be left of America would be an infinitely better place.