Gay Patriot Header Image

Those who accuse modern American conservatives of fascism neither understand American conservatism nor fascism

As I’ve been pondering Bruce’s post on the left-wing blogger who contended my co-blogger engaged in a “perpetual celebration of fascism”, I wondered if that left-winger had even the slightest idea of the basic ideas undergirding modern American conservatism as well as the ideology of fascism.

For such left-wingers, it seems “fascism” has been the all-purpose political insult to hurl against people they don’t like — or whose worldview they refuse to understand.

Modern American conservatism is, in nearly all ways, the exact opposite of fascism.  It is based on the notion of freedom — and the necessarily concomitant decentralization of power.  Fascism involves the centralization of power.

As advocates of freedom, we believe such folks as that blogger critical of Bruce should have every right to express their criticism.  We believe government should leave individuals and entrepreneurs alone to live their lives and run their enterprises as they choose.  Do our critics, particularly those who hurl the insult fascist on a regular basis, even understand that aspect of conservatism?  Do they know what freedom means?

Share

27 Comments

  1. Part of the problem is the loose use of the term “conservative.” It has a very different meaning in Europe where it’s much more a “Throne and Altar” sensibility than a free-market one.

    That’s not including cute legerdemain like “conservatives in the Kremlin” or “conservatives in Iran.”

    It’s basically an all purpose term for people that Democrat partisans do not like.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — June 24, 2010 @ 2:12 pm - June 24, 2010

  2. “Conservatives” want to “conserve” a country’s traditional strengths.

    The meaning of “conservative” will therefore vary by Country. For example, in Britain it would mean conserving the class system / nobility. But in America, it means conserving the opposite of all that, the rebellion against it, namely the American Revolution.

    Since being conservative in America means conserving the American Revolution, conservatives in America often find themselves on the side of equal *opportunity* for all, under a framework of individual freedom and tightly limited government. That is why I (as a non-conservative) can stand you guys ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2010 @ 2:36 pm - June 24, 2010

  3. Well the fact I think its because that most prominent examples of conservatism is the Religious Right which does come off as controlling and limiting of freedom. It would like to pass laws that limit actions of individuals and control behaviors, and one can debate whether this actions are worth limiting or not.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 24, 2010 @ 3:11 pm - June 24, 2010

  4. I agree too many people are prone to want to limit freedoms, and the loudest voices of the ‘religious right’ are included in those.

    The budgetary excesses of the last Republican Congress show that anyone can forget their principles when given power. I do believe that the religious right have more in common with the right than anyone on the left though. So I accept them as part of my ‘here but no farther’ school of thought.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 24, 2010 @ 4:09 pm - June 24, 2010

  5. As I said: Conservatives are those looking to conserve their country’s traditional strengths.

    To the extent that some of the Religious Right emphasize religion over freedom, they would be the people who think America’s strength has come from religion, more than from freedom as such. I disagree with them. (Without necessarily disrespecting them.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2010 @ 4:19 pm - June 24, 2010

  6. The latest bit of news for the government addicts; the reason that BP was unprepared for the spill containment was that it was using outdated models of how oil spills behave — that were created by the government and mandated by regulation.

    Let me repeat that: BP was not able to make its own decisions on how much to have around and what to deploy because the Federal government ordered it to follow the Federal government’s own outdated, useless model.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - June 24, 2010

  7. NDT, thanks.

    Getting farther afield, I love this headline: Europe Spurns Obama’s Plea for More Spending. Just dripping with irony, if you know where to look :-) And it’s yet another illustration of Obama’s cluelessness on economics. He seriously equates economic growth with spending borrowed money. As in,

    “We worked exceptionally hard to restore growth; we cannot let it falter or lose strength now,” Obama said in a letter to G-20 leaders last Friday. “This means that we should reaffirm our unity of purpose to provide the policy support necessary to keep economic growth strong.”

    LOL

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2010 @ 5:01 pm - June 24, 2010

  8. I long ago concluded that liberals bandy about the word “fascist” merely because it sounds really cool and makes Bush sound even more sinister. That’s all there is to it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 24, 2010 @ 5:52 pm - June 24, 2010

  9. Fascists in Europe were National Socialists . . . socialism married to extreme nationalism. Socialism nevertheless and not far in its philosophy from communism, which differed from fascism in that it was “international”.
    In every case, socialism cannot thrive absent overweening government power. That’s what we are seeing here as socialists (Obama, Pelosi, Reid and others) restrict free enterprise, individual liberties, and individual responsibility.
    Like the Germans of the 1930s, Americans are being seduced into giving up their God-given individual liberties in favor of big socialist government.
    Terms such as conservatism and liberalism are often misapplied and misunderstood. USA conservatives are similar to European liberals. Social conservatism often requires big government to further its agenda. I would argue social conservatives are not truly classic conservatives. How do they differ from labor unions who also require big government to further their aims? Different aims; similar strategies.

    Comment by Man — June 24, 2010 @ 6:37 pm - June 24, 2010

  10. Communists, fascists, socialists – so-called “democratic” or otherwise; so-called “humanist” or religious – and communitarians, feudal barons and witch doctors, all share an underlying philosophy of: collectivism.

    Collectivism means: the individual’s life is not her own; it is the property of the State/tribe/Church/Race/community.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2010 @ 7:35 pm - June 24, 2010

  11. D’oh! – and left-liberals. Liberal Democrats, Greens and other enviro-wackos, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - June 24, 2010

  12. To me, it seems ‘conservative’ has lost most meaning. I have a very difficult time reconciling definitions of it against the actions of avowed conservatives. Are neocons conservative? Hell if I know. Are libertarians conservative? Hmm. Are Republicans conservative. Most of ‘em, I guess, unless they’re Texans.

    I’m still disappointed to see no posts about the Texas GOP platform with so many anti-freedom measures.

    Comment by DRH — June 24, 2010 @ 7:44 pm - June 24, 2010

  13. Understanding why so-called “progressives” even use “Fascist” as an epithet to begin with is key to understanding them. The American left ADORED the Fascist and Nazi movements in the beginning, with the New York Times praising them.

    There are 5 elements that define Fascism,

    1. Dictatorial government
    2. Government control of industry
    3. Repression of all opposition, and
    4. Nationalism (as opposed to Communism which is an international movement)

    Replace nationalism with environmentalism, and you have a perfect description of the Obama regime, the Democrat party and the American left as it is today. Regressives not only enthusiastically approve of 1-3, but they and they justify it by wrongly blaming the crimes of Fascism and Naziism on nationalism instead of on the dictatorial mentality that they have a right to control others, a right to seize industry, and a right to oppress people who disagree if they thing they are acting for “the greater good”.

    The only thing the Nazis and Mussolini did wrong, they rationalize, was to be too nationalistic. If only they had been more international, or ENVIRONMENTAL, then their dictatorial tendencies would not have led to the slaughter of millions, but instead to daisies, unicorns, and totalitarian heaven on Earth.

    In other words, the left thinks it isn’t the desire to control everyone that makes Fascists bad — since they share that desire — but that they loved their country too much.

    And so they loathe America, and loathe anyone who thinks America is any better than any other country, and they keep right on trying to control everything everyone else does, says, thinks, etc.

    They think conservatives, who want power taken away from government and returned to the individual are the threat even as they seize control over people’s very own health decisions, seize industry after industry, and try to prevent the industries they are seizing from having free speech to fight them — not to mention as Obama and the Democrats are trying to figure out if the so-called “fairness doctrine” or “local control” boards, or “minority ownership” laws are the best way to eliminate conservative speech on radio and cable. As their own dictator violates the Constitution time and time again to seize industry, shakedown industry and demand that industries give up their rights and do things Obama’s way.

    Sorry, lefties, you ARE the closest thing America has to Fascism. And in light of the violence and force Obama’s union thugs have already perpetrated — I’d say dangerously close.

    All in the name of the environment, instead of in the name of a country.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 24, 2010 @ 8:43 pm - June 24, 2010

  14. sorry, that should say 4 things that define Fascism

    Comment by American Elephant — June 24, 2010 @ 8:46 pm - June 24, 2010

  15. Nice site, interesting discussions you guys have here on subject(s).

    As a evangelical (fundamentalist) conservative (religious right type). Most of us are for traditional values and traditions. Most of the people I know on the right are opposed to gay marriage but willing to discuss (accept) civil unions. Don’t agree with gay marriage but you will find most of us have a more live let live mind set (myself I am more libertarian but personally socially conservative). What goes on behind closed doors is your business, just don’t do it in public is all I ask (same goes for heterosexuals).

    Conservatives were the first environmentalists, conservation was the word. Why be wasteful with resources, if you don’t mind wasting your money go for it.

    As for the group of gay republicans that had the “tea bag’ event, poor taste. Nice publicity but one would have to wonder if they really are republicans or just under cover democrats posing as republicans.

    A good example of a gay person who has had a positive impact with conservatives is Elton John. Having listened to Rush talk about him and what a wonderful person he is pays dividends for the gay community. He is building bridges. Reasonable people on the right will step back and rethink their position because he does not fit a certain stereo type in their minds.

    On the other hand, when you have people do the outrageous, it just reinforces certain beliefs some people have.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Comment by aps — June 24, 2010 @ 10:18 pm - June 24, 2010

  16. Modern American conservatism is, in nearly all ways, the exact opposite of fascism. It is based on the notion of freedom — and the necessarily concomitant decentralization of power. Fascism involves the centralization of power.

    I take issue with this for a couple of reasons.

    First, conservatives simply have not been on the ‘freedom’ side of many contemporary freedom-related issues, from the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping to gay marriage and abortion and others. Over the past decade, supposed freedom-loving conservatives have cheered on policies that have imprisoned innocent people for years with no charges, which is as direct a strike against the credibility of your claim that conservatism is about freedom as any that I can imagine. When you factor in popular conservative support for the criminalization of abortion and preventing gay people from marrying, it’s simply impossible to seriously make this claim for yourself anymore. The Bush years have conclusively proven that conservatism is more about controlling certain aspects of peoples’ personal lives and handing the government ever more power to detain and spy on its citizens.

    Second, despite the contradictory positions on the above-mentioned issues of personal freedom and due process, it probably is true in some respects that conservatives want to decentralize government power – but only so that they might centralize power in the hands of the super wealthy. Conservatives say they don’t want to be ruled by big government, they want to be ruled by corporate boardrooms. Because in the absence of a capable, empowered central government, that is who is going to be left to call the shots. The fantasy here is that with the government out of the way, people will all of a sudden become self-empowered and personally responsible for themselves, but in reality we’ll just be left with the captains of industry pulling all of our chains.

    The fact of the matter is that this is pretty much how things are working right now. The government is completely enfeebled and almost completely powerless, while big business is basically permitted to do whatever it wants. Feel like pumping up a housing bubble to generate an extra few million? Go ahead, the government’s not going to stop you. Feel like artificially jacking up the price of oil to squeeze a bit more blood from the stone? That’s fine – the consumer will have no choice but to pay since the government is AFK. Want to gamble with the livelihoods of millions of Americans by negligently and recklessly drilling for oil in the Gulf? Sure thing – just pay off the right politicians. The truth is, the dream world that conservatives would like to live in is here already – and wouldn’t you know? You guys are still complaining about it. This is where your Glenn Beck’s and Sarah Palin’s come in handy, peddling their conspiracy theories about how the government that’s been getting gutted for the past few decades is causing all of these problems and needs to be gutted some more. It makes sense if you’re endlessly rich and intent on preserving your status quo – with the government out of the way and the citizenry scattered, we are easier marks for the wealthy corporations.

    Third, this is a game that has been going on for thousands of years. Rich, powerful elites have always tried to exploit the masses into doing things that don’t make sense for themselves, like fighting wars and doing physical labor for a pittance. The great trick that the modern incarnations of these robber barons have been able to pull is that they’ve made conservatives believe that the government is the wealthy elite that are trying to take advantage, when in fact it’s just the opposite. When run correctly (which it hasn’t been for sometime) the government acts as a countering force to these exploitative forces. To argue against centralization – to simple-mindedly label it as a fascist effort – is to argue against the idea of civilization. Everything involving more than one person requires some centralization and delegation of power, whether in a family unit, a baseball team, a corporation, or a country in the 21st century. Centralization is organization, it’s needed for leadership, it’s the only way to run anything that expands beyond the scope of one human’s consciousness.

    In summation;

    1. Conservatives are not ‘for freedom’ as evidenced by their love for the flurry of civil rights abuses during the Bush years and their continued disdain for women’s right to choose and gays’ right to marry who they want,

    2. Conservatives themselves are corporate fascists who would like to see nothing more than a completely unregulated and opaque free market to control the world,

    3. Conservatives don’t understand human social organization or the development of democratic government if they’re fretting about the general and inevitable trend of centralization. Centralization of power isn’t the problem in and of itself – it’s who ends up with the power and what they do with it that causes issues.

    Comment by Levi — June 25, 2010 @ 11:42 am - June 25, 2010

  17. First, conservatives simply have not been on the ‘freedom’ side of many contemporary freedom-related issues, from the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping to gay marriage and abortion and others.

    Abortion is the “freedom” to kill another human being because you don’t want to be bothered with caring for them.

    Over the past decade, supposed freedom-loving conservatives have cheered on policies that have imprisoned innocent people for years with no charges

    And liberals are demanding that taxpayer dollars be spent to kill absolutely-innocent babies because liberals like Levi don’t want to take responsibility for their actions.

    That’s what you don’t get, Levi. YOU SUPPORT MURDER OF THE COMPLETELY INNOCENT BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

    Abortion pushers like you kill over ONE MILLION INNOCENT CHILDREN annually. You scream and wet yourself over al-Qaeda terrorists who murder women and children being inconvenienced, but you demand that the Federal government pay for you to kill MILLIONS of children annually.

    And then out comes the REAL truth.

    The fantasy here is that with the government out of the way, people will all of a sudden become self-empowered and personally responsible for themselves

    And again, Levi’s fascist instinct that people are all idiots who are incapable of caring for themselves and need the government to do it for them comes out.

    That is more projection. Levi is not capable of caring for himself. Levi is not capable of earning a living. Levi is not intelligent enough. That’s why he’s a welfare addict and why he needs the government to do everything for him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2010 @ 11:53 am - June 25, 2010

  18. Feel like pumping up a housing bubble to generate an extra few million? Go ahead, the government’s not going to stop you.

    Actually, Levi, if you weren’t such an ignorant child who needs the government to tell you what to think, you might have read this yesterday.

    In short, when the government doesn’t order banks to make risky loans, they don’t — because if those loans fail, it costs them money.

    But do you know what actually caused the housing crisis, Levi?
    These two Obama Party sinkholes.

    And do you know who opposed putting them under any type of sanity requirements and demanded that they make more and more questionable loans?

    Liberals and progressives like yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2010 @ 12:12 pm - June 25, 2010

  19. NDT, Levi is also apparently ignorant of history:

    The fantasy here is that with the government out of the way, people will all of a sudden become self-empowered

    That’s not a fantasy. Rather, it is how freedom, and America, and the Industrial Revolution (thus modern life as we know it) came to be.

    Government doesn’t empower people. (Except tyrants.) People self-empower. Except by providing protection for life, liberty and property – which, yes, is government’s essential role – government had little or nothing to do with the historically unprecedented explosion of economic and technological progress that America experienced, 1865-1915.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2010 @ 12:37 pm - June 25, 2010

  20. Over the past decade, supposed freedom-loving conservatives have cheered on policies that have imprisoned innocent people for years with no charges

    Could you show me where those captured during war have to be charged with anything? Geneva only contains rules for prosecution if a crime is committed AFTER imprisonment. In other words, the guests at Club Gitmo don’t have to be charged with anything. That’s why most American POWs were never charged with anything.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 25, 2010 @ 2:17 pm - June 25, 2010

  21. Could you show me where those captured during war have to be charged with anything? Geneva only contains rules for prosecution if a crime is committed AFTER imprisonment. In other words, the guests at Club Gitmo don’t have to be charged with anything. That’s why most American POWs were never charged with anything.

    Certainly, these are the words of a freedom lover. We’re allowed to invade whatever countries we choose for whatever reason we choose, and that allows us to kidnap people from all over the world, lock them up for years, torture many of them, kill a few – and the American government never has any obligation to tell its citizens, the detainees, or the rest of the world why they’re doing any of it.

    Never mind the fact that when Bush was still President, two thirds of everyone we’ve ever held at Guantanao have been released with no apology and with no answers. For freedom-loving, small government conservatives that supposedly mistrust the government instinctively, this isn’t an issue to worry about whatsoever. However you justify it, whether you claim some narrow objection to the application of Geneva or whether you excuse our bad behavior by pointing to someone else’s, there is absolutely no way that you can run around claiming to have the market cornered on loving freedom and not acknowledge the egregious abuses that were carried out by the Bush administration in pursuit of their war. We were rounding up teenagers and journalists, we were torturing people, we were scooping people up based on gossip and neighborly rivalry, and your response to all of these crime is essentially; BUT THEY WEREN’T WEARING UNIFORMS SO IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT WE DO TO THEM.

    The only freedom that matters to conservatives, despite their insistence that the Iraq war is now about securing freedom for the Iraqis, is the freedoms that apply to Americans, which incidentally includes the freedom to lock people up for no good reason and throw away the key with absolutely no accountability. Yes, I’m sure that’s what the Framers meant when they were throwing around words like ‘inalienable rights’ and ‘endowed by their creator.’

    Comment by Levi — June 26, 2010 @ 9:14 am - June 26, 2010

  22. And again, Levi’s fascist instinct that people are all idiots who are incapable of caring for themselves and need the government to do it for them comes out.

    That is more projection. Levi is not capable of caring for himself. Levi is not capable of earning a living. Levi is not intelligent enough. That’s why he’s a welfare addict and why he needs the government to do everything for him.

    And the desperate quote-clipping continues. But what else is a stupid person to do? You can’t win an argument, so you very selectively edit my text and argue against a complete misinterpration of my words that conveniently corresponds to a pre-loaded argument and perception of me that years of conservative propagandizing has drilled into your head so deeply that it is impossible to tell where you begin and where Sean Hannity ends.

    Here’s the sentence I typed in it’s entirety:

    The fantasy here is that with the government out of the way, people will all of a sudden become self-empowered and personally responsible for themselves, but in reality we’ll just be left with the captains of industry pulling all of our chains.

    The purpose of this sentence and of the paragraph in which it is contained is clear to anyone with a middle schooler’s understanding of the English language. Let me spell it for you; with government out of the way, wealthy and powerful corporations are the next in line to inherit power, and you’re simply delusional if you think that they’re simply going to relinquish their new power to the common citizen.

    Of course, the only thing that jumps out to you in that entire paragraph is my description of the conserative fantasy world, which you then have to twist into embarrassing knots by ignoring the bulk of my post and making your usual assumptions about me to believe that what I’m saying is that people can’t be responsible for themselves without a government directing them around….

    This is all so typical and completely predictable, and the fact that you’re not the only one on this conservative website, and that this isn’t the only conservative website where I’ve seen it happen, is very telling. The process is simple; as soon as someone is identified as a liberal, you’ll immediately begin ignoring everything the liberal has to say and start arguing with the carefully constructed liberal stereotype that has been downloaded into your skull, compliments of Rush Liimbaugh and Karl Rove. Of course, anyone that immediately doesn’t pipe up with some form of anti-government, pro-market sentiment is a welfare queen. Of course, anyone that expresses consternation at Bush’s torture and imprisonment policies is a freedom-hating terrorist. You could call it thinking-by-numbers; there’s no creativity to how you argue, you show no signs of adaptability, it’s just rote recital that showcases your enthusiastic and unflinching love for the authority figures that most flatter you.

    I don’t suppose it would matter to you one bit if I told you that I am not and have never been on welfare, that I’m employed in the private sector by a massive corporation, and that when I could have gotten government unemployment benefits, I chose not to because I had saved enough to ride out my joblessness? Would you still spout off with these retarded taunts about my love for welfare?

    Comment by Levi — June 26, 2010 @ 10:19 am - June 26, 2010

  23. In short, when the government doesn’t order banks to make risky loans, they don’t — because if those loans fail, it costs them money.

    Yeah, here’s the problem with that little thesis…. the banks are making off like bandits. The banks made a great deal of money moving around these risky loans, they were the first to be taken care of by the government when their scheme inevitably fell through, and you think that it was the government forcing them to do this?

    Please, describe for me the motivation here. The government is sitting around thinking, “How can we get the people really pissed off at us and make billions of dollars for an already exceedingly wealthy industry to the extreme detriment of the national and global economies?” How is that in any way a plausible scenario? Especially when the alternative explanation is that these large financial institutions bought off politicians and wrote legislation that allowed them to exploit a housing bubble to the tune of billions and billions of dollars of profit?

    You’re so desperate to believe that the government is the source of all society’s ills that you’re incapable of identifying the baltantly obvious culprit in all this. If your suspects are financial institutions and the government, the motive and the mechanism for the crimes is clear, but with the government, you’d have to believe that they’re behaving purely irrationally and counterproductively to their own aims. Which is the stronger case?

    Comment by Levi — June 26, 2010 @ 10:57 am - June 26, 2010

  24. Ah, our resident socialist comes back, again arguing that we need government to tell us what to do.

    Note how he ignores the links showing both Fannie and Freddie being the problem, and government not being the solution. Again, he trots out the lies that our liberation of Iraq was unjustified. Levi tries to hide behind Geneva, not understanding that Geneva doesn’t cover terrorists and that we treat them more humanely than we have to.

    Levi ignores the Federal Government’s efforts to impare the clean up of the spill, whether it be the by blocking efforts to defend shores against it Trying to ignore court rulings or withholding resources in case the ‘might’ be needed elsewhere. And let’s not forget the need for life vests or the Jones act.

    Congratulations to that ‘Centerlization of power’ that Levi wants. Apparently he still believes that it’s a good idea, if the ‘right’ people have it. I guess he thinks he’s one of those right people. An enlightend despot is Levi.

    Oh and lets not forget Levi’s statement of ‘Conservatives are Corporate Fascists’ In addition to proving the point of the thread (that Levi and his ilk neither understand Conservatism or Fascism) Look at the three “Coporate Fascists” who were wanting to vacate all charges on Skilling. Though surely Levi’s supporting Coroporations having free speech rights, as well as making giving support to terrorist organizations illegal. After all men in black robes said it’s fine.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2010 @ 12:41 pm - June 26, 2010

  25. Please, describe for me the motivation here. The government is sitting around thinking, “How can we get the people really pissed off at us and make billions of dollars for an already exceedingly wealthy industry to the extreme detriment of the national and global economies?” How is that in any way a plausible scenario?

    Levi, welfare child, please read the links to which you are provided; the government’s motivation was spelled out quite clearly.

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

    Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

    And put into further detail in this one.

    ‘These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

    To summarize, Levi, the Obama Party and your fellow “progressives” started demanding that loans be made to people with less and less ability to pay them off. And then, to make matters even worse, the Obama Party ordered its puppets, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which between the two of them have a hand in 40% or more of US mortgages, to securitize these riskier loans and sell them as low-risk mortgage-backed securities because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were backed by the US government, and thus it wouldn’t matter if these loans defaulted or not.

    In short, your Obama Party and your fellow “progressives” took dog shit and by fiat decreed it would carry the same value as candy. As long as nobody bit into it, that worked, but the minute people actually started eating it, i.e. lower-income people not being able to afford their mortgages, it became rather obvious that it was dog shit, and the price fell accordingly.

    And why is this the government’s fault? As listed above, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, subsidized, supported, and pushed by the government, own upwards of 40% of the US’s total mortgage debt — with rotten standards. No other private company even comes close to that amount.

    Now, Levi, I have quoted facts and I have provided links. You have completely failed to do either, are babbling the same warmed-over “corporations and capitalism are evil” crap that leftists the world over have repeated, and seem completely and totally incapable of admitting that your Obama Party and your precious leftist governmental principles have completely backfired.

    Do you understand that, delusional child? Your Barack Obama was slapped repeatedly yesterday by people who tried the same welfare state that leftists like you want to impose and are now backing the hell away from it because it collapsed their economies. Every day intelligent people can turn on the news and see the Greek government frantically trying to keep any semblance of an economy in place, and then come over here and watch you blabber about how our economy would be so awesome if it would just put in the massive government welfare, centralized planning, and over-regulation of corporations that Greece did.

    I have long since won the argument with you, Levi. We all have. But in your welfare-deluded, helpless little mind, you continue to repeat your anti-capitalism, anti-corporation, anti-conservative chant because that’s what Barack Obama tells you to say.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2010 @ 7:27 pm - June 26, 2010

  26. And finally, I would simply post back Livewire’s spot-on summary of how Levi handles every situation when he’s losing.

    Me, ILC, Et al: Levi said this.

    Levi: I didn’t say that!

    Me: Sure you did (link)!

    Levi: You’re taking my words out of context! I don’t care if you link to my words in context, where I said these things! You’re taking them out of context!

    Me: How can I take them out of context when I link to your entire statement?

    Levi: You’re a poopy head! I’m your moral and intellectual superior! You need me to think for you! Socialism works! I don’t need to provide any proof of my statements, and won’t read yours!”

    And what’s really funny is when we shame you, perverted little child, by showing how you scream and wet yourself over al-Qaeda terrorists being mistreated but support, endorse, and demand Federal funding for the murder of over one million babies annually in the United States alone.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2010 @ 7:32 pm - June 26, 2010

  27. [...] real revelation is all this is really nothing new–it’s just the regular misrepresentation of conservatives — and our ideas — in the mainstream media.  If Weigel were truly [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Belated Thoughts on the Dave Weigel Brouhaha:How could someone so eager to belong on the left offer even-handed coverage of the right? — June 29, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - June 29, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.