Is the U.S. in danger of becoming Fascist?

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: techs

I look at some of that differently. Take countries we in the US call socialist like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
They have very strong parliamentary democracies, perhaps more so than the US, since their campaign laws strongly limit the amount of money corporations and the wealthy can contribute, hence making them more representitive of individuals than of single individuals with money or corporations.

The US does not have a parliamentary system. Many of the countries you mentioned use proportional representation in their elections as opposed to a majoritarian (winter takes all) style. Limits on contributions has very little to do with the makeup of their legislature.

What are you basing that on? Can you point me to a study that shows campaign financing has 'very little' to do with the outcome of PR elections?

 

[5150Joker]

America is a nation run by strong lobby groups and corporate interests. Democracy is a sham.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: techs

I look at some of that differently. Take countries we in the US call socialist like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
They have very strong parliamentary democracies, perhaps more so than the US, since their campaign laws strongly limit the amount of money corporations and the wealthy can contribute, hence making them more representitive of individuals than of single individuals with money or corporations.

The US does not have a parliamentary system. Many of the countries you mentioned use proportional representation in their elections as opposed to a majoritarian (winter takes all) style. Limits on contributions has very little to do with the makeup of their legislature.

What are you basing that on? Can you point me to a study that shows campaign financing has 'very little' to do with the outcome of PR elections?

I didn?t mean that it would not have an impact on the outcome of any given election. I was referring to (and should have said) the general makeup of the legislature itself. There are usually multiple parties. More people generally feel represented, especially those in the minority, because? they are. That?s the point of PR. The OP was giving the credit to contribution limits.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

Well there were no 13% of gdp deficits under bush, had there been I am sure there would have been tea parties.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

Well there were no 13% of gdp deficits under bush, had there been I am sure there would have been tea parties.

There most likely were if you included the cost of the wars which was conveniently excluded from the budget. QED

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

Well there were no 13% of gdp deficits under bush, had there been I am sure there would have been tea parties.

There most likely were if you included the cost of the wars which was conveniently excluded from the budget. QED

Not even close. The worst budget bush had was only about 5% and that was during the minor recession that started before he took office. Funny how deficit spending was bad then, but ok now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

Well there were no 13% of gdp deficits under bush, had there been I am sure there would have been tea parties.

The tea party protests were originally created in protest of the stimulus bill, not in protest of Obama's budget. Interestingly enough, the spending of $700 billion in 2008 for bank bailouts did not ignite a single tea party. The spending of $787 billion in 2009 did.

Gee, I wonder what changed?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

Well there were no 13% of gdp deficits under bush, had there been I am sure there would have been tea parties.

The tea party protests were originally created in protest of the stimulus bill, not in protest of Obama's budget. Interestingly enough, the spending of $700 billion in 2008 for bank bailouts did not ignite a single tea party. The spending of $787 billion in 2009 did.

Gee, I wonder what changed?

There was quite a bit of protest about the bailouts, just not enough to stop it. Care to remember which party has had control of the house and senate during that time frame.

 

[Schmide]

Old numbers sorry

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

Well there were no 13% of gdp deficits under bush, had there been I am sure there would have been tea parties.

The tea party protests were originally created in protest of the stimulus bill, not in protest of Obama's budget. Interestingly enough, the spending of $700 billion in 2008 for bank bailouts did not ignite a single tea party. The spending of $787 billion in 2009 did.

Gee, I wonder what changed?

There was quite a bit of protest about the bailouts, just not enough to stop it. Care to remember which party has had control of the house and senate during that time frame.

Nice, so you've nailed down one of the things that didn't change between 2008 and 2009, we're still on the search for something that DID change though. Any ideas?

There were no significant protests against the bank bailouts.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Schmide

There most likely were if you included the cost of the wars which was conveniently excluded from the budget. QED

Not even close. The worst budget bush had was only about 5% and that was during the minor recession that started before he took office. Funny how deficit spending was bad then, but ok now.

Bush's deficit for 2008 was $611 billion dollars. You continue to attempt to put forth this dishonest point over and over and over again no matter how many times you are corrected. People were mad about debt over the Iraq war because it was completely unnecessary, money flushed down the toilet. Many of those same people support spending on saving the economy, etc. That's how they can be against one type of deficit, but not against another. It's really not that hard.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Schmide

There most likely were if you included the cost of the wars which was conveniently excluded from the budget. QED

Not even close. The worst budget bush had was only about 5% and that was during the minor recession that started before he took office. Funny how deficit spending was bad then, but ok now.

Bush's deficit for 2008 was $611 billion dollars. You continue to attempt to put forth this dishonest point over and over and over again no matter how many times you are corrected. People were mad about debt over the Iraq war because it was completely unnecessary, money flushed down the toilet. Many of those same people support spending on saving the economy, etc. That's how they can be against one type of deficit, but not against another. It's really not that hard.

$611B is still much less than 13% of GDP, no matter you want to spend it. And this defecit spending is the same defecit spending that oboma continues doing, only multiplied and you have no problem with it.

The war only cost about 100B a year, which is still only a small fraction of GDP.

And guess what, obama and congress just passsed another 100B to spend in iraq and it passed quietly and with little complaint, unlike the last many years.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: techs

How close are we? Once we become a nation of men and not laws, then we are at the mercy of the next President who decides its in the national interest to bug his opponents. And in his interests to find some kind of reason to jail his opponents.
In effect, we are at the mercy of the kind of man who we elect to lead.
And that's fascism.

It will never happen in the USA... Either you are trolling, or just overly upset by Obama's victory and looking to bitch about things that will never happen (like many on the right seem to be doing since Nov 4th) or you are just an idiot with no clue about politics.

Which is it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: techs

How close are we? Once we become a nation of men and not laws, then we are at the mercy of the next President who decides its in the national interest to bug his opponents. And in his interests to find some kind of reason to jail his opponents.
In effect, we are at the mercy of the kind of man who we elect to lead.
And that's fascism.

It will never happen in the USA... Either you are trolling, or just overly upset by Obama's victory and looking to bitch about things that will never happen (like many on the right seem to be doing since Nov 4th) or you are just an idiot with no clue about politics.

Which is it?

:thumbsup: You really nailed that one. Techs is a well known Obamaphobe.

 

[SilentZero]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

I know right?

 

[IGBT]

it's going to happen under the guise of enviromentalism. the green slime eco-KOOKS will have their way. For awhile.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: techs

How close are we? Once we become a nation of men and not laws, then we are at the mercy of the next President who decides its in the national interest to bug his opponents. And in his interests to find some kind of reason to jail his opponents.
In effect, we are at the mercy of the kind of man who we elect to lead.
And that's fascism.

It will never happen in the USA... Either you are trolling, or just overly upset by Obama's victory and looking to bitch about things that will never happen (like many on the right seem to be doing since Nov 4th) or you are just an idiot with no clue about politics.

Which is it?

:thumbsup: You really nailed that one. Techs is a well known Obamaphobe.

This thread really shows who understands political systems and who gets their news from,,,well, shall we say "in a rush".

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: IGBT
it's going to happen under the guise of enviromentalism. the green slime eco-KOOKS will have their way. For awhile.

Have you ever listened to Obama's "Special Advisor for Green Jobs" Van Jones? I actually find him more interesting than Obama (political styrofoam imo) but he's a blatant communist who thinks the "greening of the ghetto" (his term) will save the planet and address social injustice. He says a car has 8000 parts but so does a windmill so we can make the latter instead of the former. It's weird stuff man.

Chairman O would bust up economy to kick one group of people to the curb to try to make a flaky pipe dream economy and move it over to another group - who are not very bright but will make good Greenshirts for Obama. If people were so smart they would have seen this coming during election because the guy was like was obviously a radical who had no biz being on FBI no less pres. The greenest thing about Obama is his slimey nature.

Will a 'red' help blacks go green?
White House appoints 'radical communist' who sees environment as racial issue


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i...PAGE.view&pageId=94771

 

[sandorski]

"Fascism" is possible in any Nation under any Political System. We must remain ever vigilant to avoid it.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: IGBT
it's going to happen under the guise of enviromentalism. the green slime eco-KOOKS will have their way. For awhile.

Have you ever listened to Obama's "Special Advisor for Green Jobs" Van Jones? I actually find him more interesting than Obama (political styrofoam imo) but he's a blatant communist who thinks the "greening of the ghetto" (his term) will save the planet and address social injustice. He says a car has 8000 parts but so does a windmill so we can make the latter instead of the former. It's weird stuff man.

Chairman O would bust up economy to kick one group of people to the curb to try to make a flaky pipe dream economy and move it over to another group - who are not very bright but will make good Greenshirts for Obama. If people were so smart they would have seen this coming during election because the guy was like was obviously a radical who had no biz being on FBI no less pres. The greenest thing about Obama is his slimey nature.

Will a 'red' help blacks go green?
White House appoints 'radical communist' who sees environment as racial issue


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i...PAGE.view&pageId=94771

Winnar?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't think we are in danger. The government isn't taking such an active role in order to control the companies for the long-term, but to provide a way out of this morass. It isn't a buy and hold strategy, it is a buy and sell strategy with the intent to cleanse and release in a better position. That isn't fascism, that is trying to manage a crappy situation.

Not to mention the other catalysts for a fascist government just aren't there.

I don't have problem with the buy and sell strategy the government is taking on, what I have a huge problem with is the treatment of the GM/Chrysler bondholders. To me, it is facism when the government together with the politically connected union use their power to takeover much bigger piece of the pie when the bondholders had more money invested with equal claim right. It is sheer political bullying with disregard of the rights of individual bondholders.

I thought this kind of facist deal could only happen in China, where government and the connected landlords force farmers out of their land so they can take over the land and make profit.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't think we are in danger. The government isn't taking such an active role in order to control the companies for the long-term, but to provide a way out of this morass. It isn't a buy and hold strategy, it is a buy and sell strategy with the intent to cleanse and release in a better position. That isn't fascism, that is trying to manage a crappy situation.

Not to mention the other catalysts for a fascist government just aren't there.

I don't have problem with the buy and sell strategy the government is taking on, what I have a huge problem with is the treatment of the GM/Chrysler bondholders. To me, it is facism when the government together with the politically connected union use their power to takeover much bigger piece of the pie when the bondholders had more money invested with equal claim right. It is sheer political bullying with disregard of the rights of individual bondholders.

I thought this kind of facist deal could only happen in China, where government and the connected landlords force farmers out of their land so they can take over the land and make profit.

You haven't a clue what fascism is.

To you, it is some term you read in a Republican talking points blog, and never bothered to check it out for yourself.

:thumbsdown:

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: IGBT
it's going to happen under the guise of enviromentalism. the green slime eco-KOOKS will have their way. For awhile.

Have you ever listened to Obama's "Special Advisor for Green Jobs" Van Jones? I actually find him more interesting than Obama (political styrofoam imo) but he's a blatant communist who thinks the "greening of the ghetto" (his term) will save the planet and address social injustice. He says a car has 8000 parts but so does a windmill so we can make the latter instead of the former. It's weird stuff man.

Chairman O would bust up economy to kick one group of people to the curb to try to make a flaky pipe dream economy and move it over to another group - who are not very bright but will make good Greenshirts for Obama. If people were so smart they would have seen this coming during election because the guy was like was obviously a radical who had no biz being on FBI no less pres. The greenest thing about Obama is his slimey nature.

Will a 'red' help blacks go green?
White House appoints 'radical communist' who sees environment as racial issue


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i...PAGE.view&pageId=94771

"the obama" is a liberal media creation supported by puppet liberal loyalists and willing accomplices drivin by socialist ideology. A cult leader for cult followers. The social decay he inflicts will be his legacy.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

Well there were no 13% of gdp deficits under bush, had there been I am sure there would have been tea parties.

The tea party protests were originally created in protest of the stimulus bill, not in protest of Obama's budget. Interestingly enough, the spending of $700 billion in 2008 for bank bailouts did not ignite a single tea party. The spending of $787 billion in 2009 did.

Gee, I wonder what changed?

There was quite a bit of protest about the bailouts, just not enough to stop it. Care to remember which party has had control of the house and senate during that time frame.

Care to remember which president started the bailouts, started the executive branch powergrab, started record deficits himself, started the iraq war, started spying on it's citizens, and started waterboarding?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't think we are in danger. The government isn't taking such an active role in order to control the companies for the long-term, but to provide a way out of this morass. It isn't a buy and hold strategy, it is a buy and sell strategy with the intent to cleanse and release in a better position. That isn't fascism, that is trying to manage a crappy situation.

Not to mention the other catalysts for a fascist government just aren't there.

I don't have problem with the buy and sell strategy the government is taking on, what I have a huge problem with is the treatment of the GM/Chrysler bondholders. To me, it is facism when the government together with the politically connected union use their power to takeover much bigger piece of the pie when the bondholders had more money invested with equal claim right. It is sheer political bullying with disregard of the rights of individual bondholders.

I thought this kind of facist deal could only happen in China, where government and the connected landlords force farmers out of their land so they can take over the land and make profit.

You haven't a clue what fascism is.

To you, it is some term you read in a Republican talking points blog, and never bothered to check it out for yourself.

:thumbsdown:

Text book definition like what Mussolini and Hilter created? Maybe not. But using a failure in the society as an excuse to consolidate power in favor of individual rights? Check
(banking crisis to insert government power in all sectors and favor politically connected over individual bond holder rights)

Social division? Check (using Main street vs. Wall St. mentality to take away the rights of those associated with Wall St.)

Government interventionism? Check (do i really have to explain?)

With democrats pretty much taking over all three branches and a chrismatic Obama who can make any speech sing, and you have an mob of society who will do many unthinkable things, at least in the financial market front right now.