Monday, April 20, 2009
Jon Stewart Called Out On Deceitful Edit
I'd like to see Stewart pick a fight with Willard the way he did with Jim Cramer. It would give some serious air time to someone that understands the problems in the United States better than most others.
I doubt it will happen though. Since the election, Stewart has been idolizing Obama like most of the mainstream media. His message has been especially statist the past couple of months and he wouldn't risk giving air time to someone that speaks out against government.
Cody Willard should consider sticking the word "economic" before "fascism" though as it better describes the situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Fascism, from Merriam-Webster +
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
"Cody Willard should consider sticking the word "economic" before "fascism" though as it better describes the situation."
He should consider using "economic" instead of "fascism", not because it is "better", but because the Obama administration can not be described as "fascist". Why? THERE IS NOT DICTATORIAL POWER. THERE IS NO CENTRALIZED, AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO SEVERE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REGIMENTATION. THERE IS NO FORCIBLE SUPPRESSION.
This, like other concepts the right is IGNORANT or DISHONEST about, is classic right-wing stupidity.
The little girl will not pay that much money, but this point is promoted as serious.
The problem with Willard is that he doesn't seem to understand that Stewart was definitely not being deceitful. Libertarianism is sometimes defined as centrist, but usually it is defined as right wing. After all, the most well-known libertarian is a registered Republican.
Yup, that Willard is a complete moron.
"After all, the most well-known libertarian is a registered Republican."
I didn't think Ron Paul would be considered libertarian in your view because he's protects unborn children?
"THERE IS NO CENTRALIZED, AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT."
The US Government isn't central and autocratic?
"THERE IS NO SEVERE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REGIMENTATION."
"THERE IS NO SEVERE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REGIMENTATION. THERE IS NO FORCIBLE SUPPRESSION."
I think most people I listen to who refer to the current state of affairs in the US as fascism would argue they are on the road to fascism.
I am aware of the dictionary definition of "fascism". I think Ron Paul understands the conflict of his use of the term and its actual definition. He refers to it "a type of economic fascism".
And yes, when a president is able to pick up individuals anywhere in the world and hold those individuals without charges and without trial, its fair to say he has dictatorial powers.
"I didn't think Ron Paul would be considered libertarian in your view because he's protects unborn children?"
Well-known.
Fetuses.
"The US Government isn't central and autocratic?"
Congress. Judiciary. Elections.
I REALLY WISH THE RIGHT WOULD LEARN HOW TO USE A FUCKING DICTIONARY!!!!!
Autocrat:
1 : the authority or rule of an autocrat
2 : government in which one person possesses unlimited power
3 : a community or state governed by autocracy
"I think most people I listen to who refer to the current state of affairs in the US as fascism would argue they are on the road to fascism."
What! THEN WILLARD IS A COMPLETE MORON.
"I am aware of the dictionary definition of "fascism". I think Ron Paul understands the conflict of his use of the term and its actual definition. He refers to it "a type of economic fascism"."
That is retarded, because the actual definition of fascism includes economic regimentation. In fact, that is one of the first things I think of when I think of Hitler's Germany. Military and economic regimentation! WAIT! RON PAUL DOESNT KNOW THE DEFINITION EITHER!
"And yes, when a president is able to pick up individuals anywhere in the world and hold those individuals without charges and without trial, its fair to say he has dictatorial powers."
LOL, in relation to terrorism. Anyway, I'm not going to argue that the president doesn't have dictatorial power on certain issues, but that is by design of the constitution. Just as the judiciary has dictatorial power over the interpretation of constitution, Obama currently has dictatorial power over thwarting the terrorists. BUT, and this is the crucial point that libertards never get: THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM AN FASCIST.
And the only real tie Bush had with fascism was his political party. Those on the left who called him a fascist really only could because it is his party that historically went fascist.
"I REALLY WISH THE RIGHT WOULD LEARN HOW TO USE A FUCKING DICTIONARY!!!!!"
I wish you would stop referring to me as "the right".
"3 : a community or state governed by autocracy"
I think that's pretty close to being accurate.
"What! THEN WILLARD IS A COMPLETE MORON."
Yea, he's got the right idea, but I don't overly enjoy listening to him. Stewart did take him out of context to make him look bad though.
"fascism includes economic regimentation"
What is meant by "economic regimentation"?
"Just as the judiciary has dictatorial power over the interpretation of constitution, Obama currently has dictatorial power over thwarting the terrorists."
Who appoints the members of the judiciary branch?
As well, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was quoted publicly a couple of weeks ago saying that americans worry too much about their rights.
The Supreme Court operates behind closed doors and doesn't answer to anyone.
The excuse Obama's dictatorial power simply because the US has a judicial branch is ridiculous. Bush's lawyers argued for the powers that Obama is now abusing.
And I'm not saying that THAT alone makes him a fascist. I'm more concerned about how he seems to do just enough to keep his left-wing base quiet enough while he feeds the cronies that own him.
"And the only real tie Bush had with fascism was his political party. Those on the left who called him a fascist really only could because it is his party that historically went fascist."
When were Republicans fascist?
"I wish you would stop referring to me as "the right"."
Sorry, libertarians are right-wing..
"I think that's pretty close to being accurate."
Autocratic governments are not elected, bonehead.
"Yea, he's got the right idea, but I don't overly enjoy listening to him. Stewart did take him out of context to make him look bad though."
Nope. Stewart applied his viewpoint, that libertarianism is right wing to Willard. To show that Stewart was quoting him out of context you would have to show that libertarianism is not right wing, which is impossible.
"What is meant by "economic regimentation"?"
It means the state controls the entire economy in a military-like manner. This is not happening, sorry.
"Who appoints the members of the judiciary branch?"
Doesn't matter. Once the judge is seated he or she is almost completely dictatorial in their role.
"As well, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was quoted publicly a couple of weeks ago saying that americans worry too much about their rights. "
We are not talking about specific examples, but instead the dictatorial check-and-balance nature of the constitution. Don't like it? TRY BENDING LANGUAGE TO SMOOTH OVER IT!
"The Supreme Court operates behind closed doors and doesn't answer to anyone."
That's its function, and is 100% constitutional.
"The excuse Obama's dictatorial power simply because the US has a judicial branch is ridiculous."
I didnt argue that. I argued that the constitution has dictatorial elements worked into. The Homeland security bill might infringe upon rights, but it is 100% constitutional in the sense that it has been passed by Congress and is not a direct elimination of rights. It is the limiting of rights for a reason.
"Bush's lawyers argued for the powers that Obama is now abusing."
Again, constitutional. And will stay constitutional as long as people keep electing the same people.
"And I'm not saying that THAT alone makes him a fascist. I'm more concerned about how he seems to do just enough to keep his left-wing base quiet enough while he feeds the cronies that own him"
That's not really fascism, though. It's corporatism. You see, you, like Willard, don't know your basic terminology.
"Sorry, libertarians are right-wing.."
I wish you would stop referring to me as a libertarian.
"Nope. Stewart applied his viewpoint, that libertarianism is right wing to Willard. To show that Stewart was quoting him out of context you would have to show that libertarianism is not right wing, which is impossible."
Stewart implied Willard was calling Obama fascist and Willard was clearly calling the entire government fascist, repugs and demogs.
"It means the state controls the entire economy in a military-like manner. This is not happening, sorry."
No government could ever control the "entire" economy. At which portion of control of an economy can we refer to it as economic regimentation?
"We are not talking about specific examples, but instead the dictatorial check-and-balance nature of the constitution. Don't like it? TRY BENDING LANGUAGE TO SMOOTH OVER IT!"
The constitution isn't perfect.
"It is the limiting of rights for a reason."
The constitution doesn't allow for limiting rights.
"Again, constitutional. And will stay constitutional as long as people keep electing the same people."
Its not constitutional simply because elected officials say its constitutional.
"That's not really fascism, though. It's corporatism. You see, you, like Willard, don't know your basic terminology."
Because terminology isn't always the priority. You always divert from the real argument to an argument about definitions.
"I wish you would stop referring to me as a libertarian."
Sorry, your current political stance is right-wing.
"Stewart implied Willard was calling Obama fascist and Willard was clearly calling the entire government fascist, repugs and demogs."
LOL, let's not hairsplit, Josh.. Obama is obviously part of the government..
"No government could ever control the "entire" economy. At which portion of control of an economy can we refer to it as economic regimentation?"
You need to read more about the Nazis. They had soldiers in the streets and at factories. They told factory owners their property would be confiscated if they did not comply.
"The constitution doesn't allow for limiting rights."
Yes, it does. It's called Congressional legislation and judicial overview. If both concur, it is constitutional.
"Its not constitutional simply because elected officials say its constitutional."
Are we forgetting the judiciary? If we really wanted to get rid of it, we would put it before the Supreme Court.
"Because terminology isn't always the priority. You always divert from the real argument to an argument about definitions."
Actually, yes it is. You can't form definite statements about reality and accurately communicate with others if your definitions are WRONG or different.
"Sorry, your current political stance is right-wing."
That's OK I guess. I don't really subscribe to the "left vs right" political spectrum, and therefore am not enthused to have myself, and the way in which I politically position my legs, labeled based on this spectrum.
"LOL, let's not hairsplit, Josh.. Obama is obviously part of the government.."
But there is a difference. One way represents Willard as a republican kook when in reality he's just a long-haired moron with some alright ideas.
"You need to read more about the Nazis. They had soldiers in the streets and at factories. They told factory owners their property would be confiscated if they did not comply."
Right, but there is always a black market (an illegal market outside government oversight). There was probably one within the Nazi political party itself. Besides, do we have to be as bad as the Nazi's before we start calling out where we think the government is moving toward?
"Yes, it does. It's called Congressional legislation and judicial overview. If both concur, it is constitutional."
Please site which part of the constitution allows for limiting rights of individuals.
"Actually, yes it is. You can't form definite statements about reality and accurately communicate with others if your definitions are WRONG or different."
The term scarcity comes to mind. People typically misuse it but can still accurately communicate to each other a particular idea while misusing and misrepresenting the definition of the term.
Regardless, you still always divert from the subject matter to an argument over labels and definitions, what are not the priority. I'm not overly interested in arguing whether the US is fascist or not. Perhaps what is occurring right now will earn its own name and a world will evolve with a definition that properly describes what it occurring. Either way, its not worth worrying about.
Fascism is not the rightword to describe what the government is doing. Lemon socialism or crony capitalism maybe. But, please stop using that word.
Mussolini: "Fascism. . .believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice."
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim.Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."
"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."
"For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order."
Wikipedia: "Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state." "Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government" "Fascism opposes class conflict and blames capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict" "Fascists reject the individualism and self-interest of laissez-faire capitalism.[9] Many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[10][11] This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labor (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini).[12] Some call this corporatism[13] while some others do not use the term corporatism to describe the fascist economic arrangement.[14]"
It seems like Mussolini had the US Government in mind when he was describing fascism. . .the people who built the Wikipedia page on Fascism as well. Mussolini must be wrong though. What would he know about fascism?
"That's OK I guess. I don't really subscribe to the "left vs right" political spectrum, and therefore am not enthused to have myself, and the way in which I politically position my legs, labeled based on this spectrum."
You can "not subscribe" all you want. I can point to opposing philosophies as well as a spectrum of philosophies that go from one metaphorical direction to its opposite. If you want deny the reality of this spread, be my guest, but IGNORING THE EVIDENCE MAKES YOU CRAZY.
"But there is a difference. One way represents Willard as a republican kook when in reality he's just a long-haired moron with some alright ideas."
Hi, Josh. Willard is part of the Fox News team, which famously conservative. Over and over and over again they espouse right-wing notions. Therefore, calling Willard a right-wingers is bullseye on the mark. If you have some examples of Willard making non-right-wing statements, I would love to read them!
"Right, but there is always a black market (an illegal market outside government oversight). There was probably one within the Nazi political party itself. Besides, do we have to be as bad as the Nazi's before we start calling out where we think the government is moving toward?"
Fascism is marked by a nationalist government headed by a dictator who tries to control as much of the economy and populace as it possible can through militaristic regimentation. Got that? THAT'S FUCKING FASCISM. Not pamsy-whasmy Wallstreet and its fuckups.
"Please site which part of the constitution allows for limiting rights of individuals."
I just told you: the judiciary. The judiciary is in charge of interpreting if a law is constitutional or not. If a law were to say "You can't own guns", it is obviously unconstitutional, because it directly contradicts a right. But if a law says "Gun ownership will require a background check" it is constitutional, because the expressed purpose is not to take guns away, but to make things safe for people around gun owners. The Patriot Act is essentially the same. It is not a direct attack on rights and is hence constitutional for as long as we want to elect the retards that signed it.
"The term scarcity comes to mind. People typically misuse it but can still accurately communicate to each other a particular idea while misusing and misrepresenting the definition of the term."
That's because the dictionary is merely a guide. The actual definition is written through usage or by example. Therefore, since we have clear examples of fascism, Hitler's Germany, we can easily define it by listing the essential attributes of those regimes.
"Regardless, you still always divert from the subject matter to an argument over labels and definitions, what are not the priority."
Sorry, I always divert into a discussion about definitions, because your definitions are alway wrong. THAT'S WHY.
"I'm not overly interested in arguing whether the US is fascist or not."
Then stop defending Willard.
"Perhaps what is occurring right now will earn its own name and a world will evolve with a definition that properly describes what it occurring. Either way, its not worth worrying about."
Then stop defending Willard. His definition of fascism is obviously wrong, so there is no point in arguing about it.
"Lemon socialism or crony capitalism maybe."
I think the best term is "corporate capitalism". Cronyism obviously there, but it is merely a symptom in microcosm.
"If you have some examples of Willard making non-right-wing statements, I would love to read them!"
What about calling repugs fascists?
"If a law were to say "You can't own guns", it is obviously unconstitutional, because it directly contradicts a right."
But, by your definition, the supreme court has the authority to interpret the 2nd amendment how it pleases, which could include limiting the rights of gun owners.
"Therefore, since we have clear examples of fascism"
We have EXTREME examples. Obviously the US isn't Italy or Germany in the 30s. But where are they moving to?
....
No response to the descriptions of fascism taken from Mussolini and Wikipedia?
"What about calling repugs fascists?"
The repugs are not the entire right-wing, obviously, and obviously there can be in-fighting within the right. DUH.
"But, by your definition, the supreme court has the authority to interpret the 2nd amendment how it pleases, which could include limiting the rights of gun owners."
I didn't say that. I said the Supreme Court has the right to interpret new laws to see if they directly contradict as their central thrust. For example, numerous parts of the Patriot Act have been struck down because they directly contradicted a right in the Bill of Rights. The PA, however, doesn't directly limit rights, because its central thrust is not the limiting of rights. Its central thrust is responding to terrorists.
"We have EXTREME examples. Obviously the US isn't Italy or Germany in the 30s. But where are they moving to?"
No, Nazi Germany and Mussolini Italy DEFINE fascism. They are not EXTREME fascism. THEY ARE FASCISM AS DEFINITION.
"No response to the descriptions of fascism taken from Mussolini and Wikipedia?"
Getting there, but I have to vacuum now. :)
"No, Nazi Germany and Mussolini Italy DEFINE fascism. They are not EXTREME fascism. THEY ARE FASCISM AS DEFINITION."
Fascism is absolute? There is no grey area? There is no spectrum? It is what it is? I never really thought you were a fan of absolutes.
Grey is okay, but you have to show that the American populace is in favor and working toward fascism.
I disagree. I believe a country could head toward socialism, communism, fascism, any ism unintentionally, but with good intentions.
Then you'd have to show how that is possible. You haven't.
The actions of government agencies are indicative of this.
Such as?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFS7oZtE8Ks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzB7FOF3rRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFEj-UBU9Q
Um, now you have to show how such a law would be expanded to the rest of the nation.
If you think a government that is becoming more and more fascist is going to do so outright, you're wrong.
Its the frame of mind, and you can find a lot of examples of it now more than ever. Its about where they're going.
"If you think a government that is becoming more and more fascist is going to do so outright, you're wrong."
That's a logical circle. I asked you to show me how it is becoming more fascist. You provided links. I watched them. I refuted you by asking the obvious question. You retorted by alluding to a conspiracy you can't prove. Logical circle.
"Its the frame of mind, and you can find a lot of examples of it now more than ever. Its about where they're going."
So you basically can't show anything concrete.
"You retorted by alluding to a conspiracy you can't prove."
Not a conspiracy, its simply where the mainstream approach to government is taking the nation.
It's a frame of mind.
Incidents that occur such as those in the video are concrete examples.
"Not a conspiracy, its simply where the mainstream approach to government is taking the nation.
It's a frame of mind.
Incidents that occur such as those in the video are concrete examples."
Yeah, concrete examples of unprepared cops and laws that seek to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Yup, Josh, you really proved your point! Those cops really are Nazis looking to centralize and militarize the state and economic to take over the world. Yup.
Its the frame of mind they have that because they are the government, they can order people what to do, or else.
Post a Comment