Late Night Video: OLIGARH
What’s scarier – Glenn Beck’s brain or the fact that people watch Glenn Beck and think he’s some kind of truth-teller?
Tags: Glenn Beck, Republican Crazy
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Spelling aside, does that sonofabitch even know the meaning of the word oligarchy? And the fact that it would have described the type of government Bush was running more? What a dumbfuck.
I’m sure he understands the word as much as he understands the concepts of socialism and fascism. I find it amusing that his audience is probably not familiar with the word and if they try to look it up in the dictionary they won’t be able to find it.
Eeeeeew! I made it to just past the one minute mark and had to turn if off — this guy is totally sick-making. Not to mention dumber than a box of rocks. But, he’s not dumb. He’s just playing dumb. ‘Cause dumb pays big bucks.
I think this proves that not all substance abuse treatments work…So what is Fox News “balancing” with him?
Glenn Beck, he set you liberals up and you took it hook line and sinker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES4wFJa5bzs
Glenn Beck for President!
More wingnuts looking for a clownshow instead of a government.
Fine with me if Beck runs for President.
Palin/Beck 2012!
“…much as he understands the concepts of socialism and fascism…”
What is ‘fascism?’ Is it corporate-state collusion, nationalization of banking and industry, a fatuous belief in the efficacy of government to solve all societal problems and endless calls for mandatory national ‘service?’
If not, please explain…what is ‘fascism?’
I’m definitely not a Beck fan — indeed, I’m not a FoxNews viewer at all.
But I do find it interesting that at the same time your side is proclaiming a successful boycott against Beck, his ratings have sharply increased.
Thanks for playing Rick. Of course, you’re wrong. Here’s the 14 basic defining characteristics of fascism, thanks for asking.
Nope, nothing about encouraging volunteerism. I had to cut most of the explanatory text out for fair use issues, but you can read more at this link.
These characteristics come from studying history and actual fascist regimes instead of intellectual jokes like Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg’s explanation was about as deep as Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are Nazis.
Oddly enough, when one uses those 14 points it is possible to argue that neither the Fascist Party under Mussolini nor the National Socialists under Hitler qualify as fascism. The above 14 points were written by a 21st century partisan more interested in discrediting the Bush Administration than in actually contributing to an understanding of fascism.
Nothing is as it’s proposed to be.
Soviet style Communism really was nothing like what Marx and Engels had in mind either.
And Fascism isn’t what you sore losers wished it was.
But in the case we are discussing here, we know what fascism ACTUALLY was when it was put into practice — and yet those who sought to discredit a president they despised reworked the definition so that the two leading exemplars of fascism do not fit the definition. It is rather like trying to define the word “dog” in such a way that it includes cats.
Fascism –
is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism.
The Bush Co. presidency policies and arguments on may issues were, by definition, movements toward fascism given the constitution of the US and the concept of a representative democracy.
Some quick examples would be:
-The moves to strengthen the Executive branch powers with no balance by the other branches. The arguing of the supremacy of the executive branch in all matters was particularly evocative of fascism.
-The rhetoric surrounding the war on terror after 9-11 (specifically the claims that any dissension or oversight was ‘aiding’ the terrorists.
-The war of aggression in Iraq using the 9-11 terrorist attack and WMD (each of which were complete inventions of policymakers – which might reasonably be seen as propaganda)
-The tight corporate connections (privatized military, energy task force, ignoring environmental regulation, etc…)
-Scapegoating of the Muslim religion, the nation of Iraq, anti-war protesters
-Nationalistic rhetoric and fear mongering
-Incorporation of religions rhetoric into justifications for war and other policies
I raise the examples to illustrate that a reasonable person with any understanding of political philosophy could see the Bush administration as having fascist tendencies. The logical conclusion of many of their arguments and rationalizations would result in a government that would resemble something much more fascist than the system we have today.
I do not raise these examples as an argument for or against the idea that Bush and his people were fascist.
There has been no change of definition to fit the Bush administration. The definition has evolved in so far as there have been fascist movements concurrent to and after the ‘original’ Italian model from which the term is taken.
Community organizing and universal health care are not ‘fascist’ policies (though by definition the rhetoric calling them such might fit the profile of a fascist rhetorical response to such policies). It is actually rather off the point of any academic definition of fascism I have ever seen to identify policies like these as ‘fascist’.
Rhymes with Right and Caller Rick – you can whine and spin all you want (as that seems to be all you do). Reasonable people could have a discussion on the validity of anything I said above, but you don’t seem to understand what you are talking about. You don’t understand the definitions of the things you are talking about.
A little less Glen Beck and the occasional book might do you both well (biographies of Regan and anti-Obama propaganda does not count – I mean something that might give you enough perspective on any issue to have something interesting or intellectually challenging to say).
PS: I do not believe the Bush administration was Fascist.
I think they were making a power play within the corporatist one party kleptocracy we have today. I do not think voting for a Democrat or a Republican is very different except in the rhetoric the parties use to curry favor with the electorate and your acceptance of it and/or personal gratification with your vote.
Generally they will use this rhetoric to differentiate themselves from the other, though both represent almost exclusively the same corporate interests.
Note there were no changes in the legality of abortion under the Bush administration and God is no more part of the education system than it was before his term.
Note with Obama that despite severe financial constraints there is no serious deescalation of the wars we are in – or at the most we are shifting priorities. There is no proposal for universal healthcare that will ever come to the floor of congress. The banks are still bailed out.
They represent the same interests.
It is funny we all don’t argue about the complete lack of difference between the parties and how they represent us rather than following the kabuki theater that is the media coverage of our government and parroting it at each other on a blog. But I digress…
No — we just recognize that you are full of shit.
that means he gives up, NB.
it’s all code with these taintlickers.
Not Brian Wins!