Reply #35

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

Response to brooklynite (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:05 PM

Egalitarian Thug (7,185 posts)

35. First, there is no "our" media just corporations competing with each other to promote

the same agenda. One you seem very comfortable promoting yourself.

And what works, works. Simple as that.

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.