The Brits are in for a HARD Time

[miketx]

I don't guess we'll be sending them any of these.

[ready]

What the hell is that?

[miketx]

What the hell is that?

It is a .45 acp liberator that we air dropped to those folks in England during WW2. Al least I think that's what it is.

[ready]

Oh, cool. I would've been like "wtf, can I at least have some grease guns?"

[FunkyPertwee]

[LAGC]

I don't guess we'll be sending them any of these.

I've read that the French Resistance fighters used to jam those things right up against the backs of armed Nazi soldiers on patrol at night, one-shot-kill (or at least critical wounding) and then stealing their rifles, ammo, and gear for future battles.

I know there's a little well-known essay that has made the round over the years, "What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army?"

Here, I found it:

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot...-army-ten.html

[LAGC]

It's interesting you would pass along this link when the very thing the author warns against appears to be the type of people/government system you support.

Nope. I support democracy, period.

Should our government ever devolve into a fascist corporate dictatorship and elections be suspended, or a democratically-elected president ousted by military coup, all options for resistance should be on the table.

As JFK so famously put it: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[Richard Simmons]

Nope. I support democracy, period.

Should our government ever devolve into a fascist corporate dictatorship and elections be suspended, or a democratically-elected president ousted by military coup, all options for resistance should be on the table.

As JFK so famously put it: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

So fascism, in your world can only exist if it's corporate based? That's weird but kind of fits your mindset so not that weird I guess. So an overreaching, constitution violating/suspending democratically elected President lawfully ousted by the military to restore constitutional governance to the people would not fit your idea of justifiable resistance?

[LAGC]

So fascism, in your world can only exist if it's corporate based?

That is the definition of fascism... the marriage of corporation and state, and the suppression of democracy.

fascism
[fash-iz-uh m]

noun
1.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

So an overreaching, constitution violating/suspending democratically elected President lawfully ousted by the military to restore constitutional governance to the people would not fit your idea of justifiable resistance?

So long as there are elections and people can change leadership through peaceful means, there is no justification for violence against the government.

Military coups are inherently undemocratic, and usually lead to some form of extended martial law and the suspension of elections and civil liberties. That's not constitutional governance, by any measure.

[FunkyPertwee]

You couldn't even find a definition online that matched yours?

What a joke.

[LAGC]

You couldn't even find a definition online that matched yours?

What a joke.

I know conservatives these days like to try to redefine "fascism" as if it were some sort of left-wing ideology, but history doesn't lie:

fascism
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and Spain (1939–75)—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco—were portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos. Japanese fascists (1936–45) fostered belief in the uniqueness of the Japanese spirit and taught subordination to the state and personal sacrifice. See also totalitarianism; neofascism.

[LAGC]

Regardless of the historical labels, those ARE the current liberal and democratic values.

"Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Liberalism and Godlessness are celebrated, while conservative and religious values are disparaged"

Nonsense. The opposition is freely allowed to criticize the president, and they do so openly. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage -- it's nothing but 24/7 hate and innuendo directed at the president and his party. Right-wing political cartoons flourish in newspapers across the country. On the Internet, you have Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Drudge Report -- all pumping out propaganda 24/7, without censorship.

And on January 19, 2017, Barack Obama will step down and surrender his provisional authority to the next duly-elected leader of this country.

That's a far cry from fascism, and you know it.

[Kadmos]

Regardless of the historical labels, those ARE the current liberal and democratic values.

"Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Liberalism and Godlessness are celebrated, while conservative and religious values are disparaged"

My instinct was to totally disagree with you on those being liberal or democrat values, but then I considered it with LAGC's initial definition

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

While not an exact match, democrats do tend to favor a powerful president (when a democrat is in office of course), suppressing opposition..not so much by force but still, heavy regulation of industry and commerce, not aggressively nationalistic sorry (much more global), and in a sense do use racism as a tool...just not in the conventional sense.

His second definition, the one you used, I think is further from how democrats operate

"Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Liberalism and Godlessness are celebrated, while conservative and religious values are disparaged"

Again more global thinking, less "glory to the state" patriotism, questioning leadership isn't an issue...it's a sport, individuality is highly prized..but still the state's authority is given more primacy (Federalism), again not the harsh suppression of dissent...more of a mocking.


However much of the same applies to Republicans. You get more nationalism, a dropped questioning of leadership (when they are the one's in charge), suppressing opposition..through mocking and marginalization, not so much on the regulation of commerce...but more cronyism, and of course race is also a political tool.


I think some of this is simply the nature of power, and the fact of partisanship.

Both parties want strong leadership, when they are in power...which seems pretty normal

Both want influence over economics, just through different means

Both attempt to suppress the opinions of the opposition, occasionally with some slight force, usually with marginalization...but both seem like they would love to do more, if only they could get away with it.

Both use nationalism and race as political tools...just in slightly different ways.

[miketx]

Nope. I support democracy, period.

Perhaps you should move somewhere a democracy is in place then because here we have, or had, before people like you took over, a constitutional republic.

[LAGC]

Perhaps you should move somewhere a democracy is in place then because here we have, or had, before people like you took over, a constitutional republic.

Not since 1913, when three-fourths of the states ratified the 17th Amendment into law.

[5.56NATO]

In typical marxist disasters, the marxists take over industry and emplace complete incompetents to run them.
In typical fascist disasters, the fascists cooperate with a very willing industry, leaving industrial owners and experts to their tasks, albeit with complete oversight such as in the case of Herr Albert Speer.

[Krupski]

Nonsense. The opposition is freely allowed to criticize the president, and they do so openly. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage -- it's nothing but 24/7 hate and innuendo directed at the president and his party. Right-wing political cartoons flourish in newspapers across the country. On the Internet, you have Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Drudge Report -- all pumping out propaganda 24/7, without censorship.

And on January 19, 2017, Barack Obama will step down and surrender his provisional authority to the next duly-elected leader of this country.

That's a far cry from fascism, and you know it.

Almost everyone criticizes Zero. But the small fry (i.e. us) they don't care about. The louder voices of dissent seem to all end up having tragic "accidents" or found dead with three gunshot wounds to the head, ruled a "suicide".

Oh and allow me to correct you. The USA is NOT a "democracy". Democracy is mob rule. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Very big difference.

It's sad though, everyone talks about "American democracy" and kids are taught about "democracy". We are not a "democracy".

[Krupski]

Not since 1913, when three-fourths of the states ratified the 17th Amendment into law.

"Elections" do not constitute a "democracy".

In a true democracy, if the people proposed to, let's say, re-instate black slavery, put it to a vote and it won the popular vote, it would become the law of the land and we would once again have slavery.

In America (a Constitutional republic) such a vote would be overturned and tossed in the trash as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL, even if EVERY SINGLE PERSON voted "yes".

You do see the difference?

[JTHunter]

Whatever the man driving the car has done in the past, HE wasn't the one to throw a punch! Whatever words or actions between these two had occurred before, it was the muzzie that did the punching at a person not in a position to defend themselves.

[Kadmos]

Whatever the man driving the car has done in the past, HE wasn't the one to throw a punch! Whatever words or actions between these two had occurred before, it was the muzzie that did the punching at a person not in a position to defend themselves.

Looked more like a smack than a punch to me...I could be wrong though, and won't bother to re-watch it.

But yep, the guy was in the wrong to smack him.

May or may not be understandable, but not decent behavior.