Liberal FACEPALM. According to recent discoveries, Obama is the Anti-Christ! Awkward...

[GreyWolf257]

Don't really like Obama, but I severely doubt he's the anti-christ. The video seems pretty strange, but, hey, some people really believe that stuff... kind of wierd.

 

[ottenni]

I loved the part were Obama was pictured with a Hitler mustache. Ahh Hitler, everybody forgets his horrible crimes of creating health care.

And i was raking them seriously until i noticed none of them new what they were talking about (taking into account those that did were probably cut out of the video).

Oh and communists and fascists are totally the same, yeah.

Fascism and communism do have a lot in common. Fascism is commonly misconceived as being an extreme right wing movement, when its more effective to name it as being a combination of the best parts of socialism and capitalism; this was how it was originally devised to be in Italy, something that Mussolini even said in many of his speeches.

Still, to have knowledge of this would require one to have studied the subject (something i am actually doing right now), and it is extremely clear that the people in this video have no idea what they are talking about and are just talking bullshit.

Well ill take your word for it, i was thinking of it as fascism as a style of government and communism as a set of ideas. But i could be wrong.

No, you're right in thinking of them as very different. The simplest I can put it is:


(1) Communism is the belief that the state is a tool for liberating the worker from oppression; Fascism is the belief that the worker--and everyone else--are tools for glorifying the state.

therefore:

(2) Communism is at odds with the idea of Nationalism--just look at the 'anthem' for Communists/Socialists/etc., it's called "The Internationale"; Fascism could almost be called Industrial Nationalism--Fascism is at odds with the idea of any identity group larger/more important than the state.

They look the same sometimes only (a) because they are both a reaction to Nationalism meeting the phenomenon of Industrialization, and (b) because certain brands of Communism wound up believing that the 'revolution' needed strong, undemocratic leaders.

See this is why i like the escapist. So many wise people. Its like a gathering of the beards.

 

[Flos]

You cannot be the Anti-Christ, Hitler, and a Communist. You hear me? You can't. If Obama was the Anti-Christ as well as Hitler that would mean Hitler was the Anti-Christ and obviously the world didn't end and FUDGEHOGING REDNECKS.

I don't really like Obama, but I didn't really like Bush, either. However, I disagree with them on their ideals rather than stooping to petty name calling. Y'know, like an adult. These people get so upset and red faced and my natural reaction is to giggle nervously. >_>

Today I was taking the SAT in a room at the local college. There was a sign on the wall of the classroom comparing the Bush/Cheney government to eight of the popular fascist regimes in history. It was lulworthy.

 

[axia777]

For educational purposes!

Fascism:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6]

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]

In the economic sphere, 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 establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").[12][13] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.[14]

Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the publicity surrounding the atrocities committed during the period of fascist governments, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism:

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of modern socialist theory, advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism.[4][5] This would allow for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[6] Social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets. Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. The Utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771?1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760?1825), the first individual to coin the term socialism, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[7] The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemptorary socialists share this belief. Early socialist thinkers tended to favour an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Vladimir Lenin, perhaps influenced by Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism[8], and certainly by Hegel's concept of thesis vs antithesis leading to a synthesis, later used the word "socialism" as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Communism:

Communism (from French: commun = "common"[1]) is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society.[2][3][4] As an ideology, communism is defined as "the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat".[5] The term "Communism", when spelled with a capital letter C, however, refers to any state or political party that declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof and explicitly identifies itself as Communist, even if that party or state is committed to non-communist economic policies; as is the case with the modern Chinese Communist Party.

Forerunners of communist ideas existed in antiquity and particularly in the 18th and early 19th century France, with thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the more radical Gracchus Babeuf. Radical egalitarianism then emerged as a significant political power in the first half of 19th century in Western Europe. In the world shaped by the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, the newly established political left included many various political and intellectual movements, which are the direct ancestors of today's communism and socialism ? these two then newly minted words were almost interchangeable at the time ? and of anarchism or anarcho-communism.

The two most influential theoreticians of communism of the 19th century were Germans Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), who also helped to form the first openly communist political organisations and firmly tied communism with the idea of working class revolution conducted by the exploited proletariat (or the working class). Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved after an intermediate stage called socialism, and through the temporary and revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Communism in the Marxist sense refers to a classless, stateless, and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made directly and democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. Some "revisionist" Marxists of the following generations, henceforth known as reformists or social democrats, have slowly drifted away from the revolutionary views of Marx, instead arguing for a gradual parliamentary road to socialism; other communists, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin, continued to agitate and argue for world revolution.

The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, were brought to power by the Russian Revolution of 1917, where the Tsarist regime disrupted by World War I was smashed by the world's first workers revolution. After years of civil war (1917?1921), international isolation, erosion of the soviets (workers and peasants' councils) and internal struggle within the Bolshevik leadership, the Soviet Union was founded (1922). Lenin died after a second stroke in 1924, and despite of his warnings was succeeded by Joseph Stalin.

Once in power, Stalin carried out multiple purges of dissidents and left communists/opposition, particularly of those around Leon Trotsky, and established the character of Communism as the totalitarian ideology it is most commonly known as and referred to today. The Soviet Union emerged as a new global superpower on the victorious side of World War II. In the five years after the World War, Communist regimes were established in many states of Central and Eastern Europe and in China. Communism began to spread its influence in the Third World while continuing to be a significant political force in many Western countries.

International relations between the Soviet Bloc and the West, led by USA, quickly worsened after the end of the war and the Cold War began, a continuing state of conflict, tension and competition between the United States and the Soviet Union and those countries' respective allies. The "Iron curtain" between West and East then divided Europe and world from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s. Despite many Communist successes like the victorious Vietnam War (1959-1975) or the first human spaceflight (1961), the Communist regimes were ultimately unable to keep up with their Western rivals. People under Communist regimes showed their discontent in events like the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Prague Spring of 1968 or Polish Solidarity movement in early 1980s, most of which were ironically led by or included masses of workers.

After 1985, the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tried to implement market and democratic reforms under policies like perestroika ("restructuring") and glasnost ("transparency"). His reforms sharpened internal conflicts in the Communist regimes and quickly led to the Revolutions of 1989 and a total collapse of European Communist regimes outside of the Soviet Union, which itself dissolved two years later (1991). Some Communist regimes outside of Europe have survived to this day, the most important of them being the People's Republic of China, whose Socialism with Chinese characteristics attempts to introduce market reforms without western style democratization and with the introduction of new capitalist and middle classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

 

[Shoggoth2588]

1:33 -> 1:44 xD

2:04 -> 2:13 xD

"Washington of D.C. is district of Corruption" made me laugh out loud. The woman who said this made me laugh out loud as well.

I also love how further on, they're all opposed to Czars ... when it was Bush who elected the first Czar.

[watches on]

... oh it was Regan ... I wasn't born in the Regan years anyway >.>;;

 

[SendMeNoodz84]

It's okay. The only thing I fear is universal healthcare.

...and I'm afraid that the "untouchables" among us might also have healthcare and become COMMIE SCUM

I fixed your post for you. Might want to check your keyboard. I'm pretty sure it's broken.

 

[Alex_P]

That picture is just a moron sundae with retard sprinkles.

There's a thing where you can zoom in [http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353] and the creator explains all the overdone symbolism. The book that the black guy next to the marine is holding really tells you everything you need to know about the artist.

Two great parodies:
A satirical relabeling [http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm]
Obligatory Cthulhu version [http://k.photos.cx/4af30b04985f54dc58bd8641e547a042f1f08275-153.jpg]

-- Alex

 

[A Weary Exile]

That picture is just a moron sundae with retard sprinkles.

There's a thing where you can zoom in [http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353] and the creator explains all the overdone symbolism. The book that the black guy next to the marine is holding really tells you everything you need to know about the artist.

Two great parodies:
A satirical relabeling [http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm]
Obligatory Cthulhu version [http://k.photos.cx/4af30b04985f54dc58bd8641e547a042f1f08275-153.jpg]

-- Alex

Oh, it's supposed to be stupid. I get it.

 

[Alex_P]

Non-authoritarian "big government" = democratic state with stronger government influence than libertarianism yet less than, say, authoritarian Communism. You can have a rather big government without turning authoritarian, therefore the position on the axis would have to be near the middle, slightly towards authoritarian.

Playing "authoritarian" on one end of the axis implies that the other end stands for a focus on individual liberty.

One approach to that is libertarianism. Libertarianism sees individual liberty and state power as a zero-sum game, so a strong focus on individual liberty is associated with the reduction of the state -- minarchy or even anarchy. Libertarians also see economic non-interference as fundamental to protecting individual rights. So, "small government" (in the laissez-faire capitalist sense) is considered a necessary condition for a focus on individual liberty.

But that's just one outlook. There are other ways to formulate a coherent definition of individual rights, retaining the emphasis on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" without making the same assumptions about government and business that underly the typical libertarian ideal. For example, you could recognize that many economic relationships are exploitative, and that the free market does not fully compensate others for indirect effects. In that case, individual self-determination and self-actualization can be improved with "bigger" government which imposes constraints on economic activity that threatens more basic rights. Under such a scheme, the state is powerful but it is not authoritarian -- the focus of the state is stewardship over individual rights, not perpetuating itself at the expense of citizens. This is anathema to libertarians but it's a coherent anti-authoritarian liberal-democratic position. Like I said, it's kinda where the more successful European socialist democracies are trending.

How authoritarian "small government" is supposed to be = warlords I'm not sure. A warlord may literally have a small government but that's not what the term means. It means little interference by the state. And warlords tend to lead like despots, I wouldn't really call that "small government" to begin with.

Or are you argueing for the literal sense of big/small government here? Then I'd actually agree with you, though I'm not sure we'd need an extra axis just for that.

A warlord state can exist in near-anarchy, with laissez-faire markets, no social services, and minimal infrastructure. Basically just a dictator with an army exerting often-tenuous control over an area. People are left to fend for themselves in every which way (laissez-faire capitalism, small governments) but they're at the mercy of the warlord (authoritarianism).

And, like I said before, the Republican version of "small government" seems to have a big place for authoritarianism. Many of their "small government" beliefs include strong conformity to cultural behavior codes (placing tradition over individual self-determination is authoritarian) and extralegal action against people perceived as threats (infringing physical liberty outside of due process is pretty dang authoritarian).

-- Alex

 

[shadowstriker86]

now im not the biggest fan of obama, but seriously i think this is one of those high school drama things where if someone does something different, its evil. however i decided instead of getting pissed, i decided to watch it as if it was a movie, and its so exciting cause i have no idea how its going to end lol

 

[ShakyFiend]

I suppose were safe for now then Erana...
Unless Obama is going to be running for pope after his Nobel prize!!1 =O

Hey! this guy over here has sort of a point, not everyone who dislikes Obama is neccessaraly a rascist, sexist, evangelist idiot despite that video.

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

Ah these people are all fucking braindead.

So are we liberals Socialists? Communists? Fascists? Muslims? Gay? If you're going to insult me at least be coherent.

I don't like Obama, he has not done anything I voted him in for. Let's make that clear.

These people are threatening revolt, violence, and think it's cute to hinder free speech, free thought, and the democratic process. Not in, to borrow your phrase, my America. You arrogant bastards.

Mindless right wingers are as big of a threat as globalization and corporate America.

They call us Nazis mostly, but here's a couple funny things relating to that...

1. The fascists in Europe were backed by wealthy industrialists (Krupp Steel, various chemical companies). The Tea Baggers (BEST NAME EVER) are backed by "grass roots movements" sponsored by high up corporate guys in the US. Coincidence? I think not. Research Koch Industries, Fred Koch, and his sons for more info to get an example.

2. They say healthcare is intended to kill the undesirables. Uhhh ok. So why then do you justify not providing medical care to others on the grounds that you should not be paying for "lazy people who can't afford insurance." Sounds kind of like the hands off approach for really weeding out undesirables, your undesirables, if you ask me.

 

[NRX]

I love how people can possibly believe America can have universal healthcare and have it's debt wiped.
It's one or the other, and I'd rather deal with debt first, b/c I HATE owing ppl -.-
Besides, America already has socialistic tendencies and how are those programs going?
They are either extremely inefficient (fraudulent) or are going bankrupt in a few years.

I'm sure many people outside America may or may not understand this, but Americans don't trust our government. The checks and balances system is skewed. Big Companies have too much of an influence on those congress men's paychecks. I say limit the terms congress men can be in Congress to two times. That should at least cycle some one new in there. (poor political science majors can't be kissing up to the same congress men over and over, let them have a chance too)

I say good luck to Obama controlling the extremely left-wing democratic majority.
I have a feeling this is gonna go down hill from here, when it does, imma go to japan and help them make those mechs XD. /rambling over

 

[sagonas123]

While generally Christians frown on abortions, I've been to church plenty of times and nowhere in the priest's sermon did he randomly start saying, "Oh, and Obama is the Antichrist."

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Fascist movements are based on an appeal to a sense of corrupted national identity -- the order is fading and the nation needs zeal and unity and redemptive violence to restore its strength and purity. This myth inherently emphasizes nationalism, hierarchy, and order -- all pillars of the right. Fascism wraps these ideals up in the energy of populism rather than the language of the elites, but populism itself isn't a left-wing force -- and, ultimately, fascism, with its devotion to hierarchy and (fictionalized) national tradition, maintains the elites fairly comfortably despite its populism.

The irony being, the closest thing we have to fascists ARE the people calling Obama a fascist.

Don't forget Ann Coulter [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter], who wants us all to know that Muslims and liberals are the enemy, Al Gore is a 'total fag', and the Earth is ours (READ: America's) to rape and plunder.

 

[NRX]

Ann Coulter = Pirate of the seven seas? XD

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Why is it that only insanely annoying nut-jobs argue against exorbitant government spending? I am sincerely hoping for Milton Friedman to get up out of his grave, dust off the dirt, and write a book.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Ann Coulter = Pirate of the seven seas? XD

[http://img386.imageshack.us/i/anncoulterpiratecaptain.jpg/]