America: Freedom to Fascism?

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is a sign of how far we have sunk in our political discourse that the term ?fascism? is thrown around all over the place. Fascism died at the end of World War 2, just as communism died with the Soviet Union.

and

Bush is no worse than any previous president when it comes to all of these fields.

Oh really? How about we take a closer look at the list you gave us:

Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism (which has nothing to with corporations, but actualy with unelected bodies taking control of decisions),

Energy companies writing energy bills. Pharma companies writing Medicare reform bills. Sounds like a match to me. Just because the corporations are going the indirect route, doesn't mean that they aren't taking control of decisions.

1.Remember the Hillary Clinton health care task force? An attempt to take over national health care by a small group of people? Is that any worse than the energy commision etc.
2.In January of 1993 Clinton established the "National Economic Council" Its principal function was "to coordinate the economic policy-making process with respect to domestic and internation economic issues" In otherwords, the president, VP and a bunch of unelected people would get together and make economic policy.
3.Last time I checked congress still made the laws in this country. In a fascist state congress would just rubber stamp what ever the president decides.
This is fascism: "There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."-Hitler

authoritarianism,

Growing executive power. Although we haven't gotten there yet, if we continue down this road, we'll get there.

1.Have you heard of the term "Imperial Presidency?" The term has been around since the 1960's to descripe the growing power of the president.
2. I can name dozens of acts and presidential orders by Clinton and presidents before him that go from skirting their power to down right going over the line. For Example: Cliton designated over 5 million acres of land to be national monuments without consent of congress.
Again, this is fascism: "The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!"

extreme nationalism,

"You're either with us or you're a terrorist." "Speaking out against the government is supporting the terrorists."

"You're either with us or you're a terrorist." -When did Bush say this? Please refrain from making things up. His real quote "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." is NOT an appeal to nationalism.

We are talking facism here, try this one: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
and this one: "What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator" -Hitler

militarism,

I suppose that Iraq doesn't count towards this in your eyes. How about the demonification of Iran to gain support for war against them?

The house voted 296-133 and the Senate 77-23 to approve the Iraq war.
I don't think we need "demonification" of Iran, they are doing a good enough job for themselves.

anti-anarchism,

Largest increase in the federal government since FDR.

Anti-anarchism is a stance against anarchy, not sure what federal spending has to do with that.

anti-communism

Gee, you got me on this one [/sarcasm]

and anti-liberalism.

Patriot Act, Gitmo, "Free Speech Zones", and warantless wire-tapping. What other freedoms do we need to lose before you'll concede this point?

1. The Patriot Act was passed by the house with a vote of 357-66 and the senate 98 to 1. Congress passed this law, Bush didn't do it by decree.
2. Gitmo: if Gitmo is so bad how come no one in congress has even tried to pass a law calling for its elimination? Second, we could just declare all the non-Amercians in Gitmo POWs and then keep them until this "war" is over.
3.EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949:By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States,... the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
This beauty of an executive order was written by Bill Clinton, not Bush. And I thought Bush was the first president to "impead" on our rights.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Frankly, it's time for you to wake up. Although we aren't there yet, if we continue in the direction that GWB is pointing us, we'll get to fascism soon enough.

-red

[/quote]

As I said, Bush is no worse than other president that has come before him.
If Bish was a "true" fascist the first thing he would do is seal the border and start kicking out all the Mexicans.
You lefties need to learn the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

You lefties need to learn the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism

I don't know the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism is, but your whole arguement looks like your saying but the Dems do the same thing.
And to me that means America is going down fast

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

You lefties need to learn the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism

I don't know the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism is, but your whole arguement looks like your saying but the Dems do the same thing.
And to me that means America is going down fast

Earl, my original point was that Bush is no worse than presidents before him when it comes to exercise of his power.

I was responding to people who make the claim that America is on the path to becoming facist, which I think is ludicrous.

IMO: we are not on the path to facism, nor is Bush attempting to lead us down that path.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
IMO: we are not on the path to facism, nor is Bush attempting to lead us down that path.

I wonder what the new word for whatever it is becoming will be?
Neoconism? Na, makes me think of those folks running the R show right now. It would have to be something unique and include both the D's and R's

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Originally posted by: lozina
So... is there any law serving as the base of income tax? Should we pay it?

But I think what they were getting at in the movie is the 16th amendment was declared unconsitutional by the supreme court ?

First of all, thank you for a great laugh.:laugh:

The 16th amendment is PART of the constitution. How can you declare part of the constitution unconstitutional. If that could happen then tomorrow the supreme court could decide that the first amendment is unconstitutional and outlaw free speech or establish a state religion.

sigh... look, you seem to be taking this personal. I have not done any research on this and I am not a lawyer nor do I ever care to be. Maybe you should watch the movie to get their exact position and if you have problems with their argument go contact them. I am just asking questions here trying to find out more information about this, and you go take this defensive stance and trying to draw me into an argument.

But anyway, why couldn't the Judicial Branch declare something that the Legislative Branch amends to the constitution is unconsitutional? Isn't that part of the balance of power? Especially when this amendment introduces language which directly contradicts language in the original consitution

The legislative branch cannot amend the constitution themselves, it requires far more. See HERE

The judiciairy must uphold what is in the Constitution, they cannot overturn any portion of the Constitution.

If an amendment passes the constitutional requirements linked above, it is by definition "constitutional" and the courts are charged with upholding it. They have NO choice.

No offense, but some "civics' would do you good.

Fern

OK, what about this argument against the 16th amendment's definition if "income" being limited to "in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment." instead of personal wages?

Fern, you will find there are many skills and much knowledge in life that would be good for you. There is only so much time.

I'm familiar with that arguement you link, and others. I'm a tax CPA.

In short, it has brought to the courts (including SCOTUS) many times, and never victorious. The courts are now "sick of hearing it", so to speak. For several years now anyone bringing this type of arguement to the courts has had their case thrown out, been sanctioned and fined for "frivilous arguements" (or whatever they call it) and are starting to get jail time for criminal tax fraud.

A good deal of this countries history is actually founded upon tax concerns. For example, in researching some issues I have had to go back and read comments from the floor of the constitutional convention. While true the founding fathers did not envision any national income tax (up until 1913 the federal government mostly raised taxes in war time - "war taxes"), and in spite of the questionable underpinnings of the current system, peeps with this arguement lose every time.

If the courts held otherwise (that federal income tax was not constitutional etc), the federal government would collapse upon itself. The courts, being part of that very system, will not allow that to happen, IMHO.

Fern

so Fern, I have been reading everyone comment and links especially the one "www.originalintent.org" just trying find out any of this is BS or true. so my question to you, PLEASE be honest... Do you think the IRS is capable commiting this fraud(Income Tax) against the people as those arthors and people accuse them of(anyone could answer this question)? if your answer is no.. can you provide fact the IRS is not evil corp haha... because honestly I been googling about this since I saw this film and I always find negative stuff about them and the confusion of the 16th Amendment. I know most of you in here get really pissed when you see your pay check and wish some this taxes didn't exist, is it possible maybe some of this taxes(Income Tax?) are just BS? I really wouldn't mine paying taxes for school, and retirement,medical.. but being charge taxes for something is not going to benefit the people, is not fair to us while the political leaders sit on there asses and enjoy life while we work asses off to make ends meat(except rich people lol). I honestly have to say is really hard who to believe, and I'm trying my best to be open minded about all current stuff going on. like I've said before I don't trust any government blindly I question there action no matter what. so I'm sorry if you don't like my way of thinking.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: mc00
so Fern, I have been reading everyone comment and links especially the one "www.originalintent.org" just trying find out any of this is BS or true. so my question to you, PLEASE be honest... Do you think the IRS is capable commiting this fraud(Income Tax) against the people as those arthors and people accuse them of(anyone could answer this question)? if your answer is no.. can you provide fact the IRS is not evil corp haha... because honestly I been googling about this since I saw this film and I always find negative stuff about them and the confusion of the 16th Amendment. I know most of you in here get really pissed when you see your pay check and wish some this taxes didn't exist, is it possible maybe some of this taxes(Income Tax?) are just BS? I really wouldn't mine paying taxes for school, and retirement,medical.. but being charge taxes for something is not going to benefit the people, is not fair to us while the political leaders sit on there asses and enjoy life while we work asses off to make ends meat(except rich people lol). I honestly have to say is really hard who to believe, and I'm trying my best to be open minded about all current stuff going on. like I've said before I don't trust any government blindly I question there action not matter, so I'm sorry if you don't like my way of thinking.

If you don't like where you tax dollars are being spent then study up and vote for people who will try and change the system.

No matter how much we hate taxes, we have to collect money some how.

Our biggest problem is run away entitlement spending, and that is going to be hard as hell to end. How do you convince people getting a Social Security check that we need to change the system when all they care about is getting their next check. Apply this logic to medicare, medicaid etc etc etc.

We are in for a worldfull of hurt in the next 10-20 years as the baby boomers start to retire and start taking more money out of government than they are paying in taxes.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: fitzov

I'm familiar with that arguement you link, and others. I'm a tax CPA.

Maybe your good at counting beans, but you can't spell 'argument'.

Maybe he can't spell argument, but evidently you're a grammtically impaired moron.

ouch

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rasico

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
Taxes are passed by our elected legislature, and the IRS is tasked with collecting them by that legislative process.

There is nothing "fascist" about it.

I didnt watch the video but it is interesting that Mussolini's Fascism believed in a progressive tax system where the richest percentile pays the highest rate. Something we as a nation have embraced.

I bet they had fire departments too.

Are FD's a building block to a national fiscal and economic policy?

I think you missed the point

I didnt miss the point at all, his point is irrelevant to what I was saying.

You associated progressive tax system with Mussolini, as if that means progressive tax system has something to do with fascism.

Which is why I mentioned fire departments, to point out to you that just because a fascist state has some particular government policy, that the policy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with fascism.

It was one of the main platforms of his ideology and party. I think there is more than an "association" there, which is why I brought it up in the first place. I find it interesting we as a nation have embraced such a policy.

Our "embrace" has nothing to do with Mussolini, that's why the connection you are making is not only not "interesting", it's false.

If you think progressive taxes are suspicious or wrong, why not do so for some real reason, not attack it by some completely fallacious association ?

 

[imported_redlotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1.Remember the Hillary Clinton health care task force? An attempt to take over national health care by a small group of people? Is that any worse than the energy commision etc.
2.In January of 1993 Clinton established the "National Economic Council" Its principal function was "to coordinate the economic policy-making process with respect to domestic and internation economic issues" In otherwords, the president, VP and a bunch of unelected people would get together and make economic policy.
3.Last time I checked congress still made the laws in this country. In a fascist state congress would just rubber stamp what ever the president decides.
This is fascism: "There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."-Hitler

So basically you are trying to say that just because Congress is a party to the changes, our country can't become fascist? Semantics. Whether it is one man or one group, things are still heading to the core definition of fascism: the merging of corporation and state.

authoritarianism,

Growing executive power. Although we haven't gotten there yet, if we continue down this road, we'll get there.

1.Have you heard of the term "Imperial Presidency?" The term has been around since the 1960's to descripe the growing power of the president.
2. I can name dozens of acts and presidential orders by Clinton and presidents before him that go from skirting their power to down right going over the line. For Example: Cliton designated over 5 million acres of land to be national monuments without consent of congress.
Again, this is fascism: "The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!"

Most references I have heard are in reference to the Nixon admin and the loss of presidential powers since then, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. And once again, you are intentionally narrowing the focus to comparisons between the US and Nazi Germany rather than disproving the idea that the GWB admin is attempting to merge corporation and state. This is made even more rediculous by your attempt to compare "declaring national monuments" with Hitler's attrocities.

Let's try a new angle: "Presidential signing statements." Although GWB is not the first to use them, he has issued more of them than any other US president in history. Can you honestly tell me that these are not an attempt at circumventing the legislature?

extreme nationalism,

"You're either with us or you're a terrorist." "Speaking out against the government is supporting the terrorists."

"You're either with us or you're a terrorist." -When did Bush say this? Please refrain from making things up. His real quote "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." is NOT an appeal to nationalism.

We are talking facism here, try this one: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
and this one: "What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator" -Hitler

OK, so I got one quote slightly wrong. However, put in context, what he said was still an international appeal to support the US no matter what. This definitely is an appeal to nationalism by telling Americans to shun those countries that would dare to question the authority of the US.

If you want another appeal to nationalism, read the entire "Freedom at War With Fear" address.

Granted, I will give you that none of these could be considered extreme nationalism.

militarism,

I suppose that Iraq doesn't count towards this in your eyes. How about the demonification of Iran to gain support for war against them?

The house voted 296-133 and the Senate 77-23 to approve the Iraq war.
I don't think we need "demonification" of Iran, they are doing a good enough job for themselves.

Bzzzzz. Wrong. Congress voted to allow Bush's use of military force in the war on terror. If they had approved the war, we would have had a formal declaration.

anti-anarchism,

Largest increase in the federal government since FDR.

Anti-anarchism is a stance against anarchy, not sure what federal spending has to do with that.

Anarchism is the belief that there should be no government. Therefore, anti-anarchism is the belief in a large, powerful government. Does this make more sense now?

anti-communism

Gee, you got me on this one [/sarcasm]

and anti-liberalism.

Patriot Act, Gitmo, "Free Speech Zones", and warantless wire-tapping. What other freedoms do we need to lose before you'll concede this point?

1. The Patriot Act was passed by the house with a vote of 357-66 and the senate 98 to 1. Congress passed this law, Bush didn't do it by decree.
2. Gitmo: if Gitmo is so bad how come no one in congress has even tried to pass a law calling for its elimination? Second, we could just declare all the non-Amercians in Gitmo POWs and then keep them until this "war" is over.
3.EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949:By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States,... the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
This beauty of an executive order was written by Bill Clinton, not Bush. And I thought Bush was the first president to "impead" on our rights.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

1. Passage of the Patriot Act by congress was done (a)in a hurry so that any opposition wouldn't have a chance to challenge it and (b) almost immediately following the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.
2.a. IIRC, dems have tried to initiate attempts to shut it down. Being a minority power kinda sucks, though. Additionally, the president's own party turned against him with the "Torture Ban" law, which he summarily issued a signing statement with basically saying that he doesn't really have to follow the law.
b. If it's so easy to declare the prisoners as POW, then why hasn't he done it? Oh wait...there hasn't been an official declaration of war so he can't.

3. Unfortunately for you, you didn't back-track what this order is referring to. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html...ode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html

(ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person;

BTW, I never said that Bush was the first to impede on our rights, but that he has initiated moany instances of it.

Frankly, it's time for you to wake up. Although we aren't there yet, if we continue in the direction that GWB is pointing us, we'll get to fascism soon enough.

-red

As I said, Bush is no worse than other president that has come before him.
If Bish was a "true" fascist the first thing he would do is seal the border and start kicking out all the Mexicans.
You lefties need to learn the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism

And as I said, while Bush isn't the first to do a lot of these things, he is the worst offender of these collective offenses.
What you righties need to learn is that partial fascism is still a threat to American democracy.

-red

 

[fitzov]

One of the big reasons why using words like 'fascism', 'communism', etc. is not helpful is that both sides of the debate tend to employ different concepts/definitions. You just end up talking past each other. Better to stick to facts at the outset and say what you think about them.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: mc00
.......so Fern........my question to you, PLEASE be honest... Do you think the IRS is capable commiting this fraud(Income Tax) against the people as those arthors and people accuse them of(anyone could answer this question)? if your answer is no.. can you provide fact the IRS is not evil corp haha... .

No, I don't believe the IRS is some "evil, fraudulent" corporation etc.

First, remember that the IRS does NOT make tax (execpt in rare occaisons called statutory regulations. This is were Congress is too lazy to write out the details of a new bill/law, and specifically auythorizes the Treasury, or IRS, to do so in the regulations. However, those regulations may be challenged in court if people feel they stray to far from the "spirit of the law" as enacted by Congress).

So, tax Law come from Congress. Those of us in the industry get a lot of data on this. We even get "notes" on the discussions Senators and Reprsentative have when trying to settle differences of opinion on the law they want to pass. This gives us insight into motives or reasons for their particular use of wordings (a lot of law turns on the very specific wording used. This is where "loopholes" come from).

So teh IRS cannot make tax law, nor can they "fake it". There is a tremendous amount of litigation regarding taxes. People take the IRS to court all the time (and vice-vers). Tax cases are tried in the same courts as all other litigation. From the Supreme Court on down. We have one additional court avaialble to us, but not available to other cases, called "Tax Court". The IRS is challenged daily in courts, these cases are publically available, nothing is really secret (except for peoples personal data, its protected by federal law. IRS agents have been fired & charged for accessing data on, say, Brad Pitts tax return)

The role of the IRS is to collect & administer federal taxation.

The IRS agents are government employees. Not employees of some mysterious corporation.

When making payments of tax due, you're supposed to make your check out to "U.S. Treasury", not the "IRS". The IRS is subdivision of the U.S. Treasury Dept.

So the IRS doesn't make tax law, they're publically scrutinized every step of the way, they're standard government employees with standard classifications and pay grades (they don't make much money), the money goes to the US Treasury Department, etc.

Since about 1913, hordes of accountants & tax lawyers have been fighting with the IRS. If there was truly something odd it would have turned up by now.

EDIT: I hope this answers your question. I'm not quite sure what specifiaclly you've heard about the IRS. What claims are made. I hear many. I quickly reveiwed the original posters link (IMHO the "legal arguments" therein is 3rd rate lawyering at best. E.g., most reference to the word "business" in the federal code I read is in fact about profit generating activities, not "corporations".) The Patriot group has some rather strange and outlandish concepts such as althoughh I live in North Carolina I am not a citizen of the USA?? WTH? I have found that in reading/interpreting law & court cases over the past 20-25 years, it's best to approach the task from a "common sense" type point-of-view. It's too easy to "over-think" yourself into some silly position.

The lesser intellegent person will take something simple and make it complex, while the really smart person can take something complex and make it simple. (I think this a mangled quote by a famous person). I find these groups in the former category


Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: fitzov

I'm familiar with that arguement you link, and others. I'm a tax CPA.

Maybe you're good at counting beans, but you can't spell 'argument'.

I'm not a "bean counter", that a derisive term those of us primarily involved in (tax) law apply to financial auditors.

They call us "tax maggots" because we're always in a book (reading court case or new law).

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
One of the big reasons why using words like 'fascism', 'communism', etc. is not helpful is that both sides of the debate tend to employ different concepts/definitions. You just end up talking past each other. Better to stick to facts at the outset and say what you think about them.

The definitions are simple.
Liberalism is a privately-controlled, privately-owned economy.
Fascism is a state-controlled, privately-owned economy.
Communism/socialism is a state-controlled, state-owned economy.

"Pure" systems only exist in ideology. Reality always consists of mixed economies at various mixtures.

Economy IS politics. Whoever controls the wealth controls the government. The greater the concentration of wealth, the greater the control.

Socialism can be marxist, democratic, or nationalist (but in all cases is authoritarian). It is a misnomer to consider nationalist socialism as fascism, although this is common due to popular misconceptions about the Nazi party.

Being a liberal, I consider both fascist and socialist systems to be modern twists on medieval forms of government and anti-liberal. Socialism is essentially the modern twist of the sovereign monarch owning and controlling everything. Fascism is the modern twist of that monarch and his feudal lords owning and controlling everything.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov
One of the big reasons why using words like 'fascism', 'communism', etc. is not helpful is that both sides of the debate tend to employ different concepts/definitions. You just end up talking past each other. Better to stick to facts at the outset and say what you think about them.

The definitions are simple.
Liberalism is a privately-controlled, privately-owned economy.
Fascism is a state-controlled, privately-owned economy.
Communism/socialism is a state-controlled, state-owned economy.

"Pure" systems only exist in ideology. Reality always consists of mixed economies at various mixtures.

Economy IS politics. Whoever controls the wealth controls the government. The greater the concentration of wealth, the greater the control.

Socialism can be marxist, democratic, or nationalist (but in all cases is authoritarian). It is a misnomer to consider nationalist socialism as fascism, although this is common due to popular misconceptions about the Nazi party.

Being a liberal, I consider both fascist and socialist systems to be modern twists on medieval forms of government and anti-liberal. Socialism is essentially the modern twist of the sovereign monarch owning and controlling everything. Fascism is the modern twist of that monarch and his feudal lords owning and controlling everything.

The definitions are debatable--that's why it's ridiculous to try to have good dialogue using them.

Communism/socialism, for example, is not even a category. They are two different political philosophies. Communism is an economic theory based on the idea that labor and material is what ultimately gives something value. Socialism, on the other hand, is where the state owns the means of production, Communism does not require that.

The other problem is that people try using dictionaries to support their arguments. Each side will find a definition that suits his argument, and then the debate will be over which definition is better. The point of starting a dialogue, though, is to discuss some fact or other, both of which agree exists, but disagree on some aspect of it. Arguing about definitions gets nowhere.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
The definitions are debatable--that's why it's ridiculous to try to have good dialogue using them.

Communism/socialism, for example, is not even a category. They are two different political philosophies. Communism is an economic theory based on the idea that labor and material is what ultimately gives something value. Socialism, on the other hand, is where the state owns the means of production, Communism does not require that.

The other problem is that people try using dictionaries to support their arguments. Each side will find a definition that suits his argument, and then the debate will be over which definition is better. The point of starting a dialogue, though, is to discuss some fact or other, both of which agree exists, but disagree on some aspect of it. Arguing about definitions gets nowhere.

What is truly laughable is the pseudo-messianic myth of stateless communism. That's just the sales pitch for people to accept the brutish totalitarianism of marxist socialism.

What is perfectly normal is for communists, in their never-ending subjectivism, to claim that certain definitions are impossible. This is normal because communists always claim that their system could work "in a perfect world," all the while ignoring the obvious fact that perfection is a personally subjective opinion. This casts a haze over all their arguments. Glaring errors of reality on their part can simply be dismissed as "disagreements of opinion."

 

[fitzov]

Uh, yeah, whatever.

 

[ElFenix]

if america was fascist you wouldn't be posting about how america is fascist. rather, you'd be out back with a bullet in your head. and the government would bill you for the cost of the bullet.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Our biggest problem is run away entitlement spending, and that is going to be hard as hell to end. How do you convince people getting a Social Security check that we need to change the system when all they care about is getting their next check. Apply this logic to medicare, medicaid etc etc etc.

the really stupid thing is that social security could be fixed forever (i.e. moved to a fully-funded rather than pay as you go system, which is going to have to happen anyway) using ONLY the current surplus. that wouldn't affect anyone's checks, as the surplus is the part not paid out in monthly checks.

unfortunately, the democrats and aarp managed to scare seniors into the notion that social security reform means cutting payments. the republicans are too scared or stupid or both to attempt to educate people otherwise.

as a brief attempt to explain social security, how it works currently is that the payroll taxes collected by the government are sent immediately out in the form of monthly social security checks. the government collects more money than it pays out, so there is a surplus. currently, that surplus goes into the general revenue because the social security administration buys t-bills with it. then it gets spent however and on whatever crappy project congress feels like, such as subsidizing corn growers, building roads in the middle of nowhere, buying tyson chicken a new advertising thingamabob, etc etc. unfortunately, as long as the interest rate paid out is larger than the rate of workforce growth, higher taxes or lower payouts are necessary.

in a fully funded system, instead of all that, the social security system is basically a government mandated savings account. it'd be forcing people to save for their own retirement, by socking away a certain amount of money each month, and it would grow with compound interest into gobs of money by the time people are ready for retirement. as a side benefit, in a fully funded system the government can't steal your retirement to fund each congressperson's latest little pet project.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

As I said, Bush is no worse than other president that has come before him.
If Bish was a "true" fascist the first thing he would do is seal the border and start kicking out all the Mexicans.
You lefties need to learn the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism

And as I said, while Bush isn't the first to do a lot of these things, he is the worst offender of these collective offenses.
What you righties need to learn is that partial fascism is still a threat to American democracy.

-red

I am not going to try and debate you on all the points you make, it is getting to be to long of a post and a pain in the ass to break down

A few points I would like to make.
1. We are still a democraticly governed society with elections. In a fascist state you have the election that puts the fascists in power and then you never have another election.

2. You can complain and moan about how congress passed this law to fast or the Republicans blocked changes to this bill etc etc, but the fact is our congress is still elected. They have to make decisions knowing that they will face re-election at some point. (The fact that 90% of congress gets relected might take a little bit of heat off them and their decisions, but they still have to face up for what they do.) Our government still answers to the people unlike Hitler and his belief that: "The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!"

3. I was not trying to compare Hitler to Clinton, only a fool would compare ANY president to Hitler. What I was trying to do was post some quotes to show the true meaning of facism. I think the Italian motto summs up facism the best:"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

4. "Bzzzzz. Wrong. Congress voted to allow Bush's use of military force in the war on terror. If they had approved the war, we would have had a formal declaration. " You are using semantics. Congress didn't approve "war" in Vietnam or Korea, but we still called it a "war" Congress approved of Bush's invasion of Iraq, had congress voted 'no' or Bush skipped congress all together then you might have a point. BTW: Remind me, did Clinton ever seek the approval of congress before sending troops to Hatii, Somalia or Bosnia?

5. "Therefore, anti-anarchism is the belief in a large, powerful government. Does this make more sense now?" As a Republican I am more fearful of Democrats creating a "large, powerful government" than I am of Bush. You should know that most conservatives are very unhappy with Bush and his expansion of government. That said, I'd rather have Bush's bad medicare drug bill than Hillary's government take over of ALL healthcare. Of course I'd rather have niether.

Like I have said since my first post on this subject, just because you may not like Bush and the actions he has taken, that does not mean we are on the path to a fascist state.
We are still the freeist (is that a word?) country on the planet.

 

[straightalker]

Three great videos on this topic.

Share them with others to save our USA Constitution and give respect to the millions of our fallen soldiers who have bought and payed for the freedom we "had" in our Nation before the Patriot Act destroyed that freedom.

1] Bush: Breaking The Law

2] Constitutional Skin

3] What Is Fascism?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

As I said, Bush is no worse than other president that has come before him.
If Bish was a "true" fascist the first thing he would do is seal the border and start kicking out all the Mexicans.
You lefties need to learn the true meaning of facism and authoritarianism

And as I said, while Bush isn't the first to do a lot of these things, he is the worst offender of these collective offenses.
What you righties need to learn is that partial fascism is still a threat to American democracy.

-red

I am not going to try and debate you on all the points you make, it is getting to be to long of a post and a pain in the ass to break down

A few points I would like to make.
1. We are still a democraticly governed society with elections. In a fascist state you have the election that puts the fascists in power and then you never have another election.

2004 Presidential Election final debate was held at ASU, a government organization, that locked out third parties. Sponsoring a bi-partisan event when by law it's required to be a non-partisan event can hardly be considered democratic. Perhaps on a technicality it could be considered democratic, if ever so base.

While you are correct about one possible end result (dictator) of fascism it's always a result, not necessarily a cause of fascism. A supposed elected body can tremple your rights just as well as a dictator can.

2. You can complain and moan about how congress passed this law to fast or the Republicans blocked changes to this bill etc etc, but the fact is our congress is still elected. They have to make decisions knowing that they will face re-election at some point. (The fact that 90% of congress gets relected might take a little bit of heat off them and their decisions, but they still have to face up for what they do.) Our government still answers to the people unlike Hitler and his belief that: "The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!"

Your entire argument here stands on the fact that those making decisions were elected. In that I have no doubt. The fact that it's so easy to change election results makes this point rather moot. The fact that business spends so much money to ensure these people are elected or remain in office makes it even more moot. The fact that they do it so heavily on both sides of the Left/Right line ensures a 2 party system remains. I don't even have to get into the issue of their actions in regards to special intrest groups, especialy foreign government bodies that heavily influence their decision making (e.g. Gulf War I - Kuwait)

Ignoring all this here is one undisputable fact that proves you do not control your own government. Whomever controls the money has the power. Ask yourself who, in the US, owns your dollar? In fact this is true of most Western nations.

Here are two hints. It's not in the blue pages, everyone generally trusts these organizations.

Give up?

One last hint. If they decided to, tomorrow morning they could start a Great Depression that would make the last one seem like a hiccup.

3. I was not trying to compare Hitler to Clinton, only a fool would compare ANY president to Hitler. What I was trying to do was post some quotes to show the true meaning of facism. I think the Italian motto summs up facism the best:"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

What you describe is an authoritarian government. There are important distinctions between them. Yours is a generalization. A wrong generalization at that. Some might argue that you are describing Communism. Personally I'm not even sure what you are trying to describe.

Fascism is primarily composed of one or more of the following:

-A very high degree of nationalism.
-Economic corporatism.
-A powerful dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

While I won't call Bush a dictatorial leader it's also unnecessary. Passing laws and enforcing them that strip individual's rights while preaching that it's for the collective good fits the last point. This includes acts that aren't backed by laws such as intercepting calls and data mining the entire country's telecommunication system (phone and now Internet).

The first two points above are common knowledge.

4. "Bzzzzz. Wrong. Congress voted to allow Bush's use of military force in the war on terror. If they had approved the war, we would have had a formal declaration. " You are using semantics. Congress didn't approve "war" in Vietnam or Korea, but we still called it a "war" Congress approved of Bush's invasion of Iraq, had congress voted 'no' or Bush skipped congress all together then you might have a point. BTW: Remind me, did Clinton ever seek the approval of congress before sending troops to Hatii, Somalia or Bosnia?

Technically according to US History books, and the official government stance, both the Korean War and Vietnam War were not wars. They were Conflicts. That's the politically acceptable word used to get around the law requiring a formal declaration. They used the word of the law against the spirit of the law. Any decent Judge would toss the whole thing right into the trash next to his/her bench. Imagine how many wouldn't have died. Another example of how the law is abused.

5. "Therefore, anti-anarchism is the belief in a large, powerful government. Does this make more sense now?" As a Republican I am more fearful of Democrats creating a "large, powerful government" than I am of Bush. You should know that most conservatives are very unhappy with Bush and his expansion of government. That said, I'd rather have Bush's bad medicare drug bill than Hillary's government take over of ALL healthcare. Of course I'd rather have niether.

I wouldn't want to see either in power. All they do is polarize the politlcal landscape so the Left and Right is at each others throats and neither realize that they are getting hoodwinked.

Like I have said since my first post on this subject, just because you may not like Bush and the actions he has taken, that does not mean we are on the path to a fascist state.
We are still the freeist (is that a word?) country on the planet.

See my reply in bold above.