One final thing. The term "Corporate Fascism" is utter nonsense. I've shown how Fascism according to Hitler and Mussolini... who I think we can all agree are experts on the matter... who have been clear that Fascism = Anti-Corporatism.

Thus the term Corporate Fascism would mean.... "Corporate Anti-Corporatism"

The term is nonsense. Please, stop using terms the Marxists make up to try to control the conversation and what people think.

Use the term Corporatism to mean Corporatism. That's what the word means... that's why it was created.
Please dont buy into the Marxists Lie that Fascism == Corporatism.

(02-17-2020 11:46 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm sorry you fail to comprehend that corporatism that appropriates the laws of a nation and bends the rules to their favor at the expense of the middle class IS the new Fascism, just practiced in reverse. What's the difference between state ownership of everything and corporate ownership of everything?

What you are describing is corporatism... NOT FASCISM!

Don't change the definition of Fascism to mean corporatism. That's what the Marists do all the time. Change the definition of something so you can then attack what people value with it.
Remember when Rascism was about the color of a person's skin? The Marxists have now twisted that into meaning "power + racial privilege".

Never let those ******* redefine words... and NEVER accept their false definitions. Because once they do that they're allowed to control the conversation and what people believe because they've been given the power to define words as they want.

Corporatism is a bad thing, I've never argued that it is good. But its not Fascism.

The people who CREATED Fascism were very clear in its relation to corporations.

Quote:
This isn't a lie. I wasn't miss-educated.

What the Actual Fascist have said: "Fascism is gov control of corps."
What the Marxists say: "Corps control of Govs is fascism."

Stop letting the Marxists redefine Fascism just as they've redefined Rascism.

Quote:But you have been sold a bill of goods if you think that Corporate control of Government isn't a form of totalitarianism and it is best described as a Fascist form since it uses government to control policies favorable only to itself at the expense of the citizens.

Is Corporate control of Government a form of totalitarianism? YES
Is it Fascism? NO.

Corporate control of Government IS CORPORATISM!
Corporate control of Government IS NOT FASCISM!

BOTH ARE BAD BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!!

I've given you the quotes directly from the people who created and ran Fascist Governments... but you're going to sit there and tell me that
Mussolini and Hitler didn't understand Fascism... that you somehow know what 'real' Fascism is and they didn't?

I'm against Corporatism just as much as I'm against socialism (Communism and Fascism)

Quote:So sir, I strongly suggest you reread your Constitution, your Bill of Rights, and look at the steady accretion of corporate power within our nation and find the points of conflict, before you think for an instant that Corporate Fascism isn't a real threat and Corporatism isn't the greatest threat to the nation state globally.

Again, CORPORATISM IS NOT FASCISM.
The term "Corporate Fascism" is pushed by the Communists in their war against capitalism in general, because they know most people will agree that it's bad.

But again, CORPORATISM IS NOT FASCISM!
Corporatism is bad. Period. Full Stop.
Fascism is bad. Period. Full stop.
BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Fascism is the government controlling the companies.

Companies controlling the government is bad... but its not Fascism!

I never made ANY comments about CORPORATISM being good.
I never made any comments about FASCISM being good.

Pointing out that those things are unique and different is NOT a statement of support for either thing. You've created a false dichotomy in your response to me... you've acted that since I say A is not B... that I'm somehow in support of one of them. I'm not, being anti-Fascist does NOT mean you are pro-corporatism. You can in fact be anti-Fascist and Anti-Corporatism.

If you say diarrhea is bad and I point out that vomiting and Diarrhea are different... that doesn't mean I'm claiming vomiting is good.

Quote:If the Corporation or their Conglomerates form isn't the biggest threat to freedom today, I'm not sure what is?

I never said it wasn't. All I pointed out is that in a Fascist government the Gov controls the Corps. That's 100% factual and provable based on the writings and speeches of the people who created Fascism.

Quote:So I stand by this. Anytime Corporations and Government collude for the benefit of the Corporation over the rights of the people it is fascism.

You are re-defining Fascism to mean what YOU want it to mean and not what Mussolini and Hitler declared it to mean.
Do you think you know more about Fascism than did? Because you're comments seem to imply that you know what Fascism means and they dont.

Quote:You accused me of misunderstanding and supporting Marxist ideas. Shove it!

Show me where i said you "supported" Marxist ideas?

I stated that you have bought into the Marxist definition of what Fascism is... because you're spouting their propaganda that corporatism = fascism when it clearly does not.
I've given you direct statements that you can go read yourself that show that Fascism is about the Gov controlling the corps. That is all.

I pointed out that you're repeating the lie that Marxists have repeated for AGES that Corporations controlling the Government is Fascism. IT IS NOT.
If Fascism really is what you claim... then Italy and Nazi Germany were not Fascist states, because in those countries the gov controlled the corporations.

The Fascist Corporate System worked like this:

Quote:

The Duce of Fascism and the Head of the Government
|
The Fascist Grand Council and the Fascist Party Organization
|
The National Council of Corporations and the Central Corporate Committee
|
The Ministry of Corporations
|
The National Confederations (for Employee) and The Corporations themselves.

Government controlled Corporations.

Quote:I'm as anti-Marxist as they come and anti Fascist as well.

Good. I'm anti-socialist (all of the Marxist varieties : Communism and Fascism) and anti-corporatism as well.

Quote:Corruption is not capitalism and you are not close enough to private business if you believe it is. So get out of your bubble and visit the real world and then discover what you are, an apologist for continued corruption.

JFC man... I point out that Fascism is anti-corporations and anti-capitalist and you think that means I'm an apologist for corruption? Where in the world did you come up with that mental leap?

Am I not able to make a point about factual definitions about words and what ideologies stand for without you deciding that means I'm pro-corruption on to me?

Show me one pro-corruption statement I made? Show me where I said that corps running the gov is a good thing?

You cant because I never said it. IDK how you read what I wrote pointing out that Fascism is anti-capitalist and from that decided that I must be a pro-corporatist fanboy of corruption.
WTF man? I used to think you were level headed... but you just pulled that entirely out of your ass.

I have never in my life experienced the level of personal straw-manning you have done back to me simply because I pointed out the provable HISTORICAL FACTS about Fascism.

\

1. You attacked me and referred to me as a Marxist. I am not and have fought against such for over 60 years.

2. If your sole point is semantics then you are missing the big picture.

3. I don't give a crap if your word is Corporatism or not. It is white collar mafia tactics that have gained them their privileges but the net effect of their endeavors is the same whether you call them Fascists, Socialists, or Corporatists.

4. Why don't you do something useful and much less anal by admitting what they do, examining how they do it, and trying to think about what can be done to stop it.

5. You still didn't show me how the corporations that backed fascist regimes in Italy, Japan and Germany were harmed by their hired thugs who became dictators, or in the case of Japan the voice behind the throne.

6. My point to you, and I don't care what the nomenclature of the Marxists is or isn't, is that corporations were behind the regimes of what the 20th century called fascist regimes. When their money buys a political party, political structure, or overwhelming influence over any government bad things happen for the people of that nation, period.

7. The dictator, or party, or legislative body they influence eventually takes the fall for them, and they slink off into silence with the money they've gained and reemerge as strong as ever, just like Daimler, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and the Italian companies that backed Mussolini. Why did the mafia hate Mussolini? Because he was the victorious mob boss.

8. I'm not big on semantics. I'm big on what actually is going on and who it is that is doing it. Right now China is the greatest threat and their corporations are using our corporations and the business between them as their trojan horse into our technology which is the advantage they have to reach parity with before they can threaten us militarily. Russia is still a thug, still has punch, and is still a threat, but they don't have the scope of ambition that China has.

9. Corporatism is a relatively new term which is nothing more than window dressing for an old problem. Think 1895 old and depression they wrought upon the country then. And my point to you is that "Too Big to Fail" was not capitalism. I am, have been, and remain a capitalist. Capitalism has to have a legally level playing field, free markets, and competition to thrive and work. When the laws are corrupted to create an unlevel playing field, when markets are protected, and when competition is obliterated by privileges corruptly obtained it is not capitalism.

10. There were no "strawman" arguments in my posts, just real life examples contrary to your academically driven terms. And who controls those terms? Who invents new terms? Academics do. And what direction do most academics lean? They lean left.

My academic instructors were all ardent defenders of capitalism and more importantly of our Constitution. One served on the House UnAmercan Activities Committee as a recording secretary. That one was personal friends with Chiang Kai-shek and held part of his personal library and was friends with Chenault and remained friends with is widow. Another served as an Ambassador to Iran and Argentina and was a speech writer for JFK, and another was a governor and former Naval Intelligence officer. "Corporatism" was not even a word then.

11. Finally if you want to engage in a constructive discussion you don't start it with a bull**** representation of what fascists claimed in their speeches and passed in their laws, while ignoring who profited through them. Fascists lied. They hurt the people they served, but they didn't come to power in a vacuum either as history is want to suggest. They were opportunistically chosen and financially backed by the super wealthy who had an agenda of their own. To think otherwise is to be a dupe of propaganda. And secondly just because you oppose those who are abusing capitalism it doesn't make you a Marxist. To fail to see the intricacies of all of this is to fail to understand how life really works, of how the wealthy buy advantages to keep wealth whether that is J.P. Morgan or John Rockefeller, or a Corporation doing the same as the front for those who actually own them.

The issue is anti-trust law enforcement and unscrambling the mess that has intentionally been created to determine what is anti-trust violation. That is the balance that allows markets to remain free, competition to remain on a level field, and to keep those with power from stealing the innovation of those with little or no power and all of it helps to keep capitalism healthy.

I'm not your enemy. I'm a guy who has lived his life, experienced this all first hand and knows evil when he sees it. So call it what you want to call it, it is pernicious, corruptive, and is neither representative of capitalism nor of a free Republic. And that is good enough for me to call it out.

And if the Marxists call it out then they have served the only purpose a true enemy ever serves, they point out your flaws and weaknesses and if you are smart you address those so that by their accusations you make yourself stronger. So just because they call it fascism doesn't mean it's not, rhetoric or not. The mafia meets the definition of fascism, and based its structure on its historical roots. What difference does it make to call white collar mafia tactics anything different? It serves one point only. It distances them from a tag that carries an obvious pejorative for a vast number of people. Hmm? No wonder academics came up with it. It affected their beneficiaries.

(02-17-2020 12:15 PM)q5sys Wrote:  One final thing. The term "Corporate Fascism" is utter nonsense. I've shown how Fascism according to Hitler and Mussolini... who I think we can all agree are experts on the matter... who have been clear that Fascism = Anti-Corporatism.

Thus the term Corporate Fascism would mean.... "Corporate Anti-Corporatism"

The term is nonsense. Please, stop using terms the Marxists make up to try to control the conversation and what people think.

Use the term Corporatism to mean Corporatism. That's what the word means... that's why it was created.
Please dont buy into the Marxists Lie that Fascism == Corporatism.

I strongly suggest you start discerning what people are by what they do and quit reading the labels and believing them. You can package Pepsi in a Coca-Cola bottle and it is still Pepsi. The power brokers in Washington have misrepresented who they are and what they want practically since the inception of the nation. Political terms mean nothing. Romney called himself a Republican. Corporatists doesn't raise alarm bells among the common folks.

So try identifying the actions of those you meet before you apply the labels. There are really only two labels ultimately. One covers those who support representative government according to the law and Constitution and the other one covers all of those who don't.

So friend and enemy work just fine for me. Those who support our system of government and its laws and the Constitution that governs them are called friends. Those who don't are called enemies. And right now in D.C. we have many enemies.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. You attacked me and referred to me as a Marxist. I am not and have fought against such for over 60 years.

Quote me where I called you a Marxist and I will apologize.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  2. If your sole point is semantics then you are missing the big picture.

Language is the basis of all dialog and understanding. If you're going to just hand wave any discussion as to the definition and meaning of words then we can have no quality exchange of ideas. Because if we do not have a basis to agree on what words mean, we cannot express and exchange our ideas properly.

Definitions are the foundation of communication and the exchange of ideas.
Definitions matter!

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When their money buys a political party, political structure, or overwhelming influence over any government bad things happen for the people of that nation, period.

And I agree with you on that, but call that what it is then. Don't call it by its opposite.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  8. I'm not big on semantics. I'm big on what actually is going on and who it is that is doing it. Right now China is the greatest threat and their corporations are using our corporations and the business between them as their trojan horse into our technology which is the advantage they have to reach parity with before they can threaten us militarily. Russia is still a thug, still has punch, and is still a threat, but they don't have the scope of ambition that China has.

China is actually a great modern example of Fascism. The Gov controls the corporations and the corps do what they are told by the Party or their the corp leaders end up having "accidents". The Gov is in charge, and dictates to corps what they will and wont do.
China transitioned from Communism to Fascism so easily because they're both socialist forms of government.

But what's going on in China is very different than in the US where the Corps try to influence the Gov.

Both are very bad, but they are different.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  10. There were no "strawman" arguments in my posts, just real life examples contrary to your academically driven terms. And who controls those terms? Who invents new terms? Academics do. And what direction do most academics lean? They lean left.

Who invented the term Fascism... Uh... the Fascists... they literally called themselves that. So I'd say that the Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini defined what Fascism means... and not some college professor.
Marxist college professors are trying to change the meaning of Fascism to Corporatism.

Marx is the one who has defined what Marxism means... we shouldnt redefine Marxism to mean anything other than what it means.

College professors have tried to change what words as a way to control the dialog and shape what people believe. This is a huge problem that we have in our modern universities. Marxists professors are teaching outright and utter falsehoods because it helps them push their agenda and indoctrinate people into their line of thinking.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  11. Finally if you want to engage in a constructive discussion you don't start it with a bull**** representation of what fascists claimed in their speeches and passed in their laws, while ignoring who profited through them.

Directly quoting someone == bullsh*t representation of what they claimed?
Really? You really want to make that argument?

(02-17-2020 12:50 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. You attacked me and referred to me as a Marxist. I am not and have fought against such for over 60 years.

Quote me where I called you a Marxist and I will apologize.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  2. If your sole point is semantics then you are missing the big picture.

Language is the basis of all dialog and understanding. If you're going to just hand wave any discussion as to the definition and meaning of words then we can have no quality exchange of ideas. Because if we do not have a basis to agree on what words mean, we cannot express and exchange our ideas properly.

Definitions are the foundation of communication and the exchange of ideas.
Definitions matter!

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When their money buys a political party, political structure, or overwhelming influence over any government bad things happen for the people of that nation, period.

And I agree with you on that, but call that what it is then. Don't call it by its opposite.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  8. I'm not big on semantics. I'm big on what actually is going on and who it is that is doing it. Right now China is the greatest threat and their corporations are using our corporations and the business between them as their trojan horse into our technology which is the advantage they have to reach parity with before they can threaten us militarily. Russia is still a thug, still has punch, and is still a threat, but they don't have the scope of ambition that China has.

China is actually a great modern example of Fascism. The Gov controls the corporations and the corps do what they are told by the Party or their the corp leaders end up having "accidents". The Gov is in charge, and dictates to corps what they will and wont do.
China transitioned from Communism to Fascism so easily because they're both socialist forms of government.

But what's going on in China is very different than in the US where the Corps try to influence the Gov.

Both are very bad, but they are different.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  10. There were no "strawman" arguments in my posts, just real life examples contrary to your academically driven terms. And who controls those terms? Who invents new terms? Academics do. And what direction do most academics lean? They lean left.

Who invented the term Fascism... Uh... the Fascists... they literally called themselves that. So I'd say that the Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini defined what Fascism means... and not some college professor.
Marxist college professors are trying to change the meaning of Fascism to Corporatism.

Marx is the one who has defined what Marxism means... we shouldnt redefine Marxism to mean anything other than what it means.

College professors have tried to change what words as a way to control the dialog and shape what people believe. This is a huge problem that we have in our modern universities. Marxists professors are teaching outright and utter falsehoods because it helps them push their agenda and indoctrinate people into their line of thinking.

(02-17-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  11. Finally if you want to engage in a constructive discussion you don't start it with a bull**** representation of what fascists claimed in their speeches and passed in their laws, while ignoring who profited through them.

Directly quoting someone == bullsh*t representation of what they claimed?
Really? You really want to make that argument?

1. If you say my argument supports Marxism you in effect call me a Marxist.
2. No sir that's not always true. Language is equally used to deceive. If not then why have the leftists been attacking word usage? Why did homosexuals appropriate a term that means blissful happiness when they appropriated "gay".

My point is that corporate backers have hidden behind fascists regimes and mopped up with those associations and when they fail they distance themselves, disavow their relationships, and let the thugs take the punishment. When John McCain argues for "Too Big to Fail" he reveals who he is. Actions speak louder than words.

And from my point of view "Corporatists" is a made up term to distance Corporations from the terms with much more political baggage, even if they are sold as a more accurate descriptor. Say Corporatists and the average citizen says, "Huh?" Say fascists and the average citizen is alarmed. Inventing terms can both illuminate and obfuscate what the thing really is.

9. Because the differences on 3-8 aren't really sufficient to discuss.

Yes Fascists name themselves. My point is, which you are missing, is that Corporations used them as a shield to accomplish their objectives. They were the perfect foils and without the corporate backing none of them would have come to power. So Corporatism (your word) is not a term particular to the form of government as Corporatism anywhere seeks to appropriate whatever form of government is before them. Money corrupts and buys influence. It does in Fascists systems, Monarchies, Parliamentary governments, Socialist governments, and in Democracies and Republics.

The "Deep State" is nothing more than the Democrats and Republicans who have been firmly purchased for an agenda alien to the normal functions of our government. Trump is fortunate that those on the right outed themselves as quickly as many have, but I strongly suspect there are more who are just sleeping.

And remember the language changed for your generation, not mine.

And the point is not that China shifted to Fascism easily because they were both socialist, the issue is that Corporations have everything they want in a socialist society. They have cheap labor with limited competition since the government they buy sanctions them, and they have a closed market with a guaranteed siphon to the public till. They also have proactive regime when it comes to acquiring natural resources.

11. Yes I make that argument. Fascist dictators aren't bound to the laws that they even pass. They don't care what they say in speeches. What matters is who profits, and whose ox gets gored. And their corporate backer's oxen never were gored.

The difference between us right now seems to me to be the difference between theory in a perfect academic world where both the language and circumstances are controlled and practice in an imperfect one.

Can you really trust word meanings when labels don't describe what's in a package? Does that make dialogue difficult? Absolutely. But then that is why I know people by what they do, not by what they claim.

As Shakespeare once said, "One may smile and smile and be a villain."

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. If you say my argument supports Marxism you in effect call me a Marxist.

Please show me where I said that. Show me my exact words. Quote me.

You cant... Because I never said that in my initial post. You read that into my words and decided I meant something I didn't say.

That's not at all what I said. I said exactly what I meant to say... if I meant to say more I'd have said it.

You're extrapolating beyond what a normal person would.

What I said:

Quote:Sorry but that's completely incorrect. In a Fascist State, the Government controls the corporations. NOT the other way around.

That does not say you support Marxism, or refer to you as a Marxist.

Quote:You've been fed the lie that the Communists have pushed forward that Fascism = Corporatism.

That does not say you support Marxism, or refer to you as a Marxist. I'm speaking about what Marxists have done to -change- the definition of Fascism.

Quote:Please Please PLEASE, stop repeating the lie that Marxists have tried to claim is true.

That does not say you support Marxism, or refer to you as a Marxist. However I can see with some stretching that you could argue that I'm implying that repeating their lie is you supporting them.

But regardless... That's not what I said, and I didn't say that because I didn't mean that.
I'm sorry that you took it that way, I did not foresee that anyone would read that kind of meaning into the words I used.

This is an exact example of why the meaning of words is so important. If we are approaching a conversation with different opinion on what words mean and the ideas they convey... we will never be able to communicate properly.

This is the principle reason I am so adamant about the meaning of words and how they are used. Without that common basis and understanding communicating the complex ideas we deal with in life becomes virtually impossible.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  9. Because the differences on 3-8 aren't really sufficient to discuss.
Yes Fascists name themselves. My point is, which you are missing, is that Corporations used them as a shield to accomplish their objectives. They were the perfect foils and without the corporate backing none of them would have come to power. So Corporatism (your word) is not a term particular to the form of government as Corporatism anywhere seeks to appropriate whatever form of government is before them. Money corrupts and buys influence. It does in Fascists systems, Monarchies, Parliamentary governments, Socialist governments, and in Democracies and Republics.

Yes companies will be parasites trying to make as much money as possible.
But this does not mean that the corps are controlling the gov. Corps tried to profit from the British Monarchy as much as possible, but this does not mean that Monarchy is a system of government where the Corps control the King and he does what they tell him to.

Stop calling corporate parasitic behavior a Political Ideology. A business practice is not a political ideology. Likewise a Political Ideology is not a business practice.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And remember the language changed for your generation, not mine.

I'm not the one trying to change the meaning of the word Fascist... you are.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And the point is not that China shifted to Fascism easily because they were both socialist, the issue is that Corporations have everything they want in a socialist society. They have cheap labor with limited competition since the government they buy sanctions them, and they have a closed market with a guaranteed siphon to the public till. They also have proactive regime when it comes to acquiring natural resources.

Yes companies know if they buddy up with a Totalitarian gov and do their bidding they can make a lot of money. But the Totalitarian gov has to exist for them to buddy up to.
They are being a parasite benefiting from the gov's policies... They are not controlling the gov.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 12:50 PM)q5sys Wrote:  Directly quoting someone == bullsh*t representation of what they claimed?
Really? You really want to make that argument?

11. Yes I make that argument. Fascist dictators aren't bound to the laws that they even pass. They don't care what they say in speeches. What matters is who profits, and whose ox gets gored. And their corporate backer's oxen never were gored.

If you're going to take the stand that quoting someones exact words is an incorrect representation of what they have said... i don't know how to have a conversation with you anymore.

If Bob says: "I like cheese." and I then say to Alice "Bob said: 'I like cheese.'"
I'm not misrepresenting what Bob said. I'm literally quoting him word for word exactly as he said it in the exact context that it was said.

It's interesting that you're the one who's refusing to quote me when you claim I've "referred" to you as a Marxist and you refuse to quote me when you claim I said that "you support Marxism".... two things I've NEVER said and NEVER implied.
And you want to lecture me about making incorrect representations of what people said?!
Pot meet Kettle.

(02-17-2020 04:46 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. If you say my argument supports Marxism you in effect call me a Marxist.

Please show me where I said that. Show me my exact words. Quote me.

You cant... Because I never said that in my initial post. You read that into my words and decided I meant something I didn't say.

That's not at all what I said. I said exactly what I meant to say... if I meant to say more I'd have said it.

You're extrapolating beyond what a normal person would.

What I said:

Quote:Sorry but that's completely incorrect. In a Fascist State, the Government controls the corporations. NOT the other way around.

That does not say you support Marxism, or refer to you as a Marxist.

Quote:You've been fed the lie that the Communists have pushed forward that Fascism = Corporatism.

That does not say you support Marxism, or refer to you as a Marxist. I'm speaking about what Marxists have done to -change- the definition of Fascism.

Quote:Please Please PLEASE, stop repeating the lie that Marxists have tried to claim is true.

That does not say you support Marxism, or refer to you as a Marxist. However I can see with some stretching that you could argue that I'm implying that repeating their lie is you supporting them.

But regardless... That's not what I said, and I didn't say that because I didn't mean that.
I'm sorry that you took it that way, I did not foresee that anyone would read that kind of meaning into the words I used.

This is an exact example of why the meaning of words is so important. If we are approaching a conversation with different opinion on what words mean and the ideas they convey... we will never be able to communicate properly.

This is the principle reason I am so adamant about the meaning of words and how they are used. Without that common basis and understanding communicating the complex ideas we deal with in life becomes virtually impossible.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  9. Because the differences on 3-8 aren't really sufficient to discuss.
Yes Fascists name themselves. My point is, which you are missing, is that Corporations used them as a shield to accomplish their objectives. They were the perfect foils and without the corporate backing none of them would have come to power. So Corporatism (your word) is not a term particular to the form of government as Corporatism anywhere seeks to appropriate whatever form of government is before them. Money corrupts and buys influence. It does in Fascists systems, Monarchies, Parliamentary governments, Socialist governments, and in Democracies and Republics.

Yes companies will be parasites trying to make as much money as possible.
But this does not mean that the corps are controlling the gov. Corps tried to profit from the British Monarchy as much as possible, but this does not mean that Monarchy is a system of government where the Corps control the King and he does what they tell him to.

Stop calling corporate parasitic behavior a Political Ideology. A business practice is not a political ideology. Likewise a Political Ideology is not a business practice.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And remember the language changed for your generation, not mine.

I'm not the one trying to change the meaning of the word Fascist... you are.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And the point is not that China shifted to Fascism easily because they were both socialist, the issue is that Corporations have everything they want in a socialist society. They have cheap labor with limited competition since the government they buy sanctions them, and they have a closed market with a guaranteed siphon to the public till. They also have proactive regime when it comes to acquiring natural resources.

Yes companies know if they buddy up with a Totalitarian gov and do their bidding they can make a lot of money. But the Totalitarian gov has to exist for them to buddy up to.
They are being a parasite benefiting from the gov's policies... They are not controlling the gov.

(02-17-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 12:50 PM)q5sys Wrote:  Directly quoting someone == bullsh*t representation of what they claimed?
Really? You really want to make that argument?

11. Yes I make that argument. Fascist dictators aren't bound to the laws that they even pass. They don't care what they say in speeches. What matters is who profits, and whose ox gets gored. And their corporate backer's oxen never were gored.

If you're going to take the stand that quoting someones exact words is an incorrect representation of what they have said... i don't know how to have a conversation with you anymore.

If Bob says: "I like cheese." and I then say to Alice "Bob said: 'I like cheese.'"
I'm not misrepresenting what Bob said. I'm literally quoting him word for word exactly as he said it in the exact context that it was said.

It's interesting that you're the one who's refusing to quote me when you claim I've "referred" to you as a Marxist and you refuse to quote me when you claim I said that "you support Marxism".... two things I've NEVER said and NEVER implied.
And you want to lecture me about making incorrect representations of what people said?!
Pot meet Kettle.

Quit your quibbling and address the arguments.

You said I was repeating Marxist lies. That by implication is an accusation.

And no we won't be able to communicate because you are quibbling over the meaning of a term and ignoring what it is that corporations do, have done, and continue to do.

I raised too big to fail. It directly ties to the issue of the FED's control over the monetary supply and the backers of the FED of which many are part of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about using their economic largess to lobby for programs that spent more of the public till driving the debt up during their ascent from 205 million in '63 to the current 23 Trillion. It wasn't an accident.

If you are too young to see that we are entering a macro version of the old Company Store with regard to the scope of control that multi-nationals have been able attain not only here but in other nation states, and if you are too obtuse to grasp how that applies to globalism and see the implications to the rights of the citizenry and the damage it has to do to our Constitution as they by treaty garner rights for themselves outside of the bounds of the law. It is what it is.

If we were quibbling over terms you could have PM'd me. You didn't do that! You came out with an implied attack against me quoting old speeches and citing old laws from fascists states. What the Hell does that have to do with today or my statements? But since your point was to defend Corporate America against what I was stating, and supporting in my comments, you chose to focus the attack upon me and to try to discredit me. Clearly you have an agenda, but then given you posted record of where you've served I can't say I'm surprised. Your response was a standard pettifogging attempt to not address my arguments but rather to frame them away from the focus of my argument. But really the Marxist comparison was a bit too much and although oblique that is exactly what you attempted to do. You did not address the corporations who profited by the former fascist regimes, you did not really address the depth that corporations have penetrated the government here other than to say they haven't which is laughable! You did not address the causes behind the exponential ballooning of the National Debt in the past 60 years. I should have pointed to the Federal Coinage Act of 1965 because it removed silver from the coins to protect the U.S. Treasury from being picked clean of Silver by the Federal Reserve banks who were swapping their notes for our rolls of silver and selling them for profit overseas.

But that's what you miss out on when you haven't lived the damned evets, known the people who were in the front lines of them, and only have a revisionist History book to learn from.

You've lost all credibility with me sport! I no longer respect you as a poster, and I no longer think of you as one of the normal people who sees what's going wrong in our nation. I'll now view you as apologist for beltway politics only not from the leftist side, but from the Corporate/Bush version of events. And that's the same cadre of culprits that form the Deep State.

Now about that debt.

I'm not debating Korea or Viet Nam from a strategic standpoint as a check on the spread of communism, but I'll debate all day long why we didn't pursue those wars to win them and particularly why Viet Nam lasted as long as it did.

I find it interesting what quarters Trump is drawing criticism from over the idea that we may pull out of Afghanistan. It's the same damned crowd!

The national debt crisis has been carefully crafted by the FED because it empowers them and in their trade with the other central banks it sets them up as major component the corporate players in the globalist agenda.

Now that wouldn't concern me except that the United States is incorporated and the its debt the responsibility of its citizens and the debt was exploded by the very companies that profit by it at our expense and in the end if we fail solvency, all properties of the citizens are subject to forfeiture. And that's no conspiracy. That's fact.

And none of that is how free market capitalism functions!

My grandchildren will likely never have the opportunity to be entrepreneurs. Most of them who are working are all ready working for corporations with less healthcare and virtually no retirement outside of some real dicey 401k's. Regulations for a variety of leftist reasons have been put in place to discourage private business as more and more layers of bureaucracy are placed upon small business. It's a damned cabal.

Healthcare is a bailout of Insurance Companies on the eve of liability against decades of Boomer premiums. It's nothing else. And in 2008 the insurance companies helped the banks with solvency over the mortgage derivative crises which was nothing more than a way to inflate revenue sheets for quarterly statements. Those banks should have failed. But no, Capitalism wasn't allowed to work and Obama and McCain urged us all to accept Too Big To Fail which was in itself another double dip for the banks. Their red ink was underwritten by the citizens long term and by the Insurance companies to free up libor, but then they got to foreclose and resell the properties. So they were covered for the bad debt, and then got to sell the properties. And the American citizen was screwed for the sake of Corporations not too big to fail, but too much in the pocket of politicians to fail!

That's not capitalism. Your attempt to spin this by calling this an argument can't possibly cover the stench of the Taint of Big Banks deep into the pockets of our elected officials, which isn't Democracy or a Republic at work either, but flat out moblike corruption that is covered by their bribed government officials who also profit. So at least it is a conspiracy, and at worst it is what its, Fascism. Corporatism is just an attempt to give it expression in a less inflammatory way.

The only advice I can give you is to get out into the interior and talk to people. Learn that you know what you are dealing with when you see what it is doing. And you can't take their word for what they are doing you have to see for yourself what they are doing to know the truth. And quibbling over words is asinine. Words mean what ever those who are using them to obscure their motives intend them to mean. And next time you do research in a library go to the archives and compare that history to the revised version you find in the stacks. The differences are very illuminating.

I'm done with you. Sine Die.

(02-14-2020 05:45 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Democrats hate white people

This is true.

But democrats are white people.

Isn't there some kind of psychological problem when you hate yourself?

(02-17-2020 07:12 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 05:45 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Democrats hate white people

This is true.

But democrats are white people.

Isn't there some kind of psychological problem when you hate yourself?

#masochists

I don't think regulators will add a new rating to the "CAMELS" rating. If anything, D&I will just be included in the the "M" component. "M" stands for Management.