Reply #30

In the discussion thread: Why won't Liberal Talkers (Radio & TV) call 'em 'Fascists'? [View all]

Response to brooklynite (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:49 PM

shcrane71 (1,706 posts)

30. Doesn't look like EgalitarianThug agrees with your irresponsible assumption.

That's probably why you missed the point that he/she was making.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

35 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why won't Liberal Talkers (Radio & TV) call 'em 'Fascists'? [View all]	OneAngryDemocrat	Jun 2012	OP
Maybe because they actually understand what that word really means.	TheWraith	Jun 2012	#1
+1	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#3
I disagree...	OneAngryDemocrat	Jun 2012	#10
Well for starters there are no competing parties in a fascist state	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#11
Ditto	Puzzledtraveller	Jun 2012	#4
Well, I will say that "extremism" seems to be working for the Repugs n/t	maxrandb	Jun 2012	#23
I disagree...	OneAngryDemocrat	Jun 2012	#8
How do you define 'fascism' (and 'fascist')? Robert O. Paxton, in	coalition_unwilling	Jun 2012	#16
Only a fascist could say such a thing.	Posteritatis	Jun 2012	#32
Because name calling is less convincing than talking about what they've actually done	jeff47	Jun 2012	#2
Accurately labeling something is not name calling.	RC	Jun 2012	#5
Again, if it worked that well, Mitt would be up 90-10.	jeff47	Jun 2012	#6
It worked so well, corporations are people my friend! "People" who	rustydog	Jun 2012	#18
Look at a map on election night. Do you see that virtually the ENTIRE	shcrane71	Jun 2012	#22
Someday, maybe you'll understand the difference between a plurality and a majority.	jeff47	Jun 2012	#25
GOP is the party for fascists, it's a fact. Exit polls said Walker/Barrett were in a dead heat.	shcrane71	Jun 2012	#27
You're the one pushing for namecalling. You can't then ask for a civil discussion next	jeff47	Jun 2012	#28
I'm responding to the OP. You're responding to the voices in your head.	shcrane71	Jun 2012	#29
Except fascism isn't corporate rule.	jeff47	Jun 2012	#34
Oh really? Your say so of the 90% figure aside, it has resulted in a completely	Egalitarian Thug	Jun 2012	#19
Actually, Mitt should be destroying Obama, just because of the economy	jeff47	Jun 2012	#26
name calling is what THEY do. And we don't do that. It's abuse.	librechik	Jun 2012	#7
I have no desire...	OneAngryDemocrat	Jun 2012	#9
You mistake me. In fact, I am in favor of calling them what they actually are: Nazis	librechik	Jun 2012	#15
It's as irresponsible as RW Media using the phrase "Socialists"...	brooklynite	Jun 2012	#12
And yet you can turn on any channel today and see them use the word socialist	Egalitarian Thug	Jun 2012	#20
So your opinionis that our media should be as irresonsible as Fox?	brooklynite	Jun 2012	#21
Doesn't look like EgalitarianThug agrees with your irresponsible assumption.	shcrane71	Jun 2012	#30
First, there is no "our" media just corporations competing with each other to promote	Egalitarian Thug	Jun 2012	#35
"Communist" or "Stalinist" might be the better example	Posteritatis	Jun 2012	#33
Plutocrats is a far more accurate term, I feel.	Initech	Jun 2012	#13
My guess would be, because they are not.	Nye Bevan	Jun 2012	#14
There is no single agreed-upon definition of 'Fascism'. I refer you	coalition_unwilling	Jun 2012	#17
I'd be happy if they would just fight back n/t	maxrandb	Jun 2012	#24
+1,000,000	shcrane71	Jun 2012	#31

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.