Add to the list:Originally posted by: alchemize
I was thinking the same thing HS but got distracted by real life. Way to sucker them in
As I thought your post is a total fabrication. Not only does "everyone" not want to immigrate to the USA people immigrat to other countries in far greater porportions than the United States.
Owned?
Sounds like Dubya to me.Originally posted by: GrGr
THE IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Free Inquiry Magazine / Spring 2003
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.
The 14 characteristics are:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need". The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media-- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected-- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. [/u]Obsession with Crime and Punishment[/u] -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections-- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
---
Everybody now, let's sing God Bless...
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I think it's obvious to all he's 6/7th's fascist.
What I'd like to hear from the Bush supporters is, what's the remaining 1/7th?
Baffle em with bullsh1t, ad hom, ra ra ignore all the questions raised change the subject this is my last reponse on the subject to this idiot.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Baffle em with bullsh1t, ad hom, ra ra ignore all the questions raised change the subject this is my last reponse on the subject to this idiot.
your spelling is terrible.
your logic is worse.
Montserrat has a population of about 9000
it has an migration rate of +35%
that means 314 people/year migrate to montserrat
your trying to say that more people want to migrate to montserrat (314 people/year) than the U.S (1,000,000 people/year)?
i am terrible sorry that you consider multiplication "baffling" and that comparing whole numbers is "bullsh!t"
i find it appalling that any factual basis for debate in this forum is just written off as "ad hom, ra ra"
typical liberal, can't debate the facts, so start calling people names.....
For the record, you said:Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lets try this one more time..
over a million people a year migrate into the untied states.
name one other country that has a larger influx of migrants/year than the u.s.
if the u.s. is so "fascist" a country, why are more people trying to migrate here than any other country in the world?
Zebo is right again. Your own statistics prove your statement is false, though it is obviously another over-the-top claim in any case.if it sucks here so bad, how come everyone wants to come here?
I agree. That's one reason I have so little patience with people who cry about their taxes, or business regulations, environmental programs, welfare costs, or whatever -- especially since these things seem to be loosening lately, particularly taxes. They whine about how awful it is here, yet they don't want to relocate to some third-world hell-hole where they can indulge their unfettered capitalistic fantasies with abandon. No minimum wages, no safety regulations, no unions, no environmental constraints. It would seem every capitalist would be abandoning the U.S. on the first available corporate jet.
this statement is wrong. i should have stated "if it sucks here so bad, how come more people come here than any other country in the world" - stand corrected, "everyone" is an exageration.if it sucks here so bad, how come everyone wants to come here
I have stated repeatedly that what makes our country great is the dynamic tension that we have in our political systems. everything is in flux, the debate makes us great. nothing is written in stone (except for the constitution) and the debate will go on long after we are all dead. the system works best when everyone advocates for their their point of view vigorously. what i object to is the liberal tendency to avoid or ignore facts, and then claim the moral high ground in an argument about something which they have many "feelings" about, but little in the way of factual knowledge.I will also point out you avoided my comment:
the debate makes us great. nothing is written in stone (except for the constitution)
I can't fully agree. Both sides need to learn to reign in their exaggerations; too often it is a sign the person making the claim pulled it out of thin air without any factual basis. Demanding support for such claims is the only way to separate nonsense from real information. Unfortunately, the resulting attacks are often counter-productive and divert from real issues.Originally posted by: alchemize
Zebo and Bow, etc., you are all being lawyers with your "proportion" and "everyone" statements.
Why? Because the U.S. is still a great country. Because the U.S. still offers great opportunities. Because the U.S. still has excellent infrastructure and a high standard of living. Because the U.S. has relatively loose immigration policies.The US is the most popular country in the world to migrate into. Period. That says something. But you are of course both welcome to help reverse that trend personally j/k.
So back to the original premise of the thread, if we are such a fascist state, why do lots and lots and lots of people, more than anywhere else in the world, like to come to the US? Sheep?
Please recognize there is a conservative tendency to do exactly the same thing.Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I have stated repeatedly that what makes our country great is the dynamic tension that we have in our political systems. everything is in flux, the debate makes us great. nothing is written in stone (except for the constitution) and the debate will go on long after we are all dead. the system works best when everyone advocates for their their point of view vigorously. what i object to is the liberal tendency to avoid or ignore facts, and then claim the moral high ground in an argument about something which they have many "feelings" about, but little in the way of factual knowledge.I will also point out you avoided my comment:
A worthwhile goal, and one I share. We will both be more effective at it if we are more patient and treat our opponents with more respect. I know this can be frustrating at times. Some people here act like complete idiots, calling names and steadfastly refusing to understand simple concepts, recognize others' points of view, and accept simple, factual truths. Sometimes, you are one of those idiots. It would not surprise me at all to learn you're simultaneously thinking the exact same thing about me at those same times.the purpose of my posts, believe it or not, is to try and make some of you think a little more before you make fools of yourself in public. i am trying to encourage you to read articles, read what the other side believes in an issue, read historical facts, not someone else's interpretation of facts, read source material, and defend your positions with facts, not emotion.
See my response above to Alchemize. It isn't what we are today, it's our direction for the future.plainly put, to claim that the U.S. is a fascist state is laughable. we are a republic, we have strong political checks and balances in place, we have a free press, we have freedom of expression (look at this forum). If you believe we live in a fascist state, than the only political system that would suit you must be anarchy, and quite frankly, i believe anarchy is much worse.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Zebo and Bow, etc., you are all being lawyers with your "proportion" and "everyone" statements.
The US is the most popular country in the world to migrate into. Period. That says something. But you are of course both welcome to help reverse that trend personally j/k.
So back to the original premise of the thread, if we are such a fascist state, why do lots and lots and lots of people, more than anywhere else in the world, like to come to the US? Sheep?
\Europe gets alot of immigration to, just counting france alone - france has 6,000,000 muslims who have immigrated from the middle east and n.africa and continue to do so in record numbers. The UK, Ireland, Scandinavia and the rest of western europe have high numbers of immigrants to, especially ireland since 8% of its population is now of african origin since it opened its doors in the last 3 years.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
\Europe gets alot of immigration to, just counting france alone - france has 6,000,000 muslims who have immigrated from the middle east and n.africa and continue to do so in record numbers. The UK, Ireland, Scandinavia and the rest of western europe have high numbers of immigrants to, especially ireland since 8% of its population is now of african origin since it opened its doors in the last 3 years.
please look at the facts, not your perception of the facts.
...............population.........migration rate......actual number migrating/year
U.K..........60,270,708.....+2.2/1000..............132,595
ireland.......3,969,558....+3.57/1000..............14,171
norway......4,574,560....+2.09/1000..............16,331
sweden.....8,986,400....+1/1000.....................8,986
Finland......5,214,512.....+.63/1000.................3,285
U.S.A....293,027,571 ....+3.52/1000.........1,031,457
france.....60,424,213....+.66/1000................39,879
in actuality none of the countries you mentioned by name even remotely come close to accepting the total number of migrants that the U.S does yearly. Only Ireland accepts as many people on a per capita basis as the U.S. Of all major Western European countries, France has the lowest migration rate, lower than even Switzerland!
the "muslims...in record numbers" have not all migrated to France...i suspect that more have been born in France, than have migrated there. We call those native born citizen's in the U.S., they don't count as "migrants". This statement lays open european rascism...not really French unless Catholic and born in France? Moslem and born in France isn't French enough?
Don't get used to it. I'll probably be cranky again tomorrow.Originally posted by: alchemize
Bowfinger: We should have pissing matches more often. Conflict leads to understanding I concur that "both sides" like to do this, it's human nature.
I think the difference is I am attempting to examine the political ideology of facism from an intellectual perspective while you are associating facism with specific brutal governments and reacting emotionally. (I mean this not as an accusation, but as a suggestion to help improve communications.) I agree the fascist governments I'm familiar with were brutal regimes. I do not believe brutality is a mandatory component of facsim, however. I also do not equate fascism with Nazism. While the Nazis were fascists, it does not follow that fascists are necessarily Nazis or neo-Nazis.The "fascist" and other analogies just irk me to no end, because they truly make light of fascism. Calling someone a nazi endlessly dilutes really what a nazi is. It is as absurd as calling Dean a communist.
I agree this is largely true if we view each criteria as absolute black and white. I'm not convinced that this holds up when you look at the whole picture, considering both scope and scale, i.e., both the number of examples we find in the Bush administration and the extent to which they are present.Every single instance of "fascism" that has been fingered on the Bush adminstration can be 1) shown to have occurred in previous administrations 2) all have been subject to judicial review for constitutionality (and even some overturned). (and again, as I mentioned earlier even Dean can be called a fascist with this loose 14 point representation)
I don't agree that many of them were open at all, but I think that begs the point. I'll use Hitler as an example, only because it's easy and fairly well understood. Wasn't Hitler's rise to power achieved with public and lawmaker consent, through arguably "legal" means (initially, at least)? When was the appropriate time for German citizens to recognize what was happening and act to stop it? Ignoring emotional and paritisan considerations for a moment, what makes us different from the German people then? What do we have that they didn't that would prevent our government from becoming more and more fascist?You say it cannot happen without our blind consent? No, it cannot happen without our open willing interactive consent. The vast majority of Bush's actions have been with open willing interactive consent (approval of congress and the public). That which has not, is being challenged in the courts, and by candidates who would like something different.
I wish I shared your confidence. As I mentioned in the Hitler thread, while I don't think Bush is a Hitler-wannabe, I am concerned with some of the people around him. I also have little confidence in any professional politician's willingness to turn away from additional power if it's offered.I don't fear our country becoming fascist any more than I fear it becoming communist (well, it might become socialist, but likely will go bankrupt prior to that).
Yes, please send them home. France (and europe) were never intended to be melting pots, america was. If you love foreighners so much then maybe you wont mind inviting them over, since your the self proclaimed melting pot afterall.
Anyone?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Don't get used to it. I'll probably be cranky again tomorrow.Originally posted by: alchemize
Bowfinger: We should have pissing matches more often. Conflict leads to understanding I concur that "both sides" like to do this, it's human nature.
I think the difference is I am attempting to examine the political ideology of facism from an intellectual perspective while you are associating facism with specific brutal governments and reacting emotionally. (I mean this not as an accusation, but as a suggestion to help improve communications.) I agree the fascist governments I'm familiar with were brutal regimes. I do not believe brutality is a mandatory component of facsim, however. I also do not equate fascism with Nazism. While the Nazis were fascists, it does not follow that fascists are necessarily Nazis or neo-Nazis.The "fascist" and other analogies just irk me to no end, because they truly make light of fascism. Calling someone a nazi endlessly dilutes really what a nazi is. It is as absurd as calling Dean a communist.
Does this make sense, i.e., is it clear what I mean? Are there any Poli Sci experts here who can either reinforce or refute the difference between facism, the ideology, and the implementation of facism by specific governments? Can anyone recommend good on-line resources that might address this sort of topic clearly and without partisan bias?
I agree this is largely true if we view each criteria as absolute black and white. I'm not convinced that this holds up when you look at the whole picture, considering both scope and scale, i.e., both the number of examples we find in the Bush administration and the extent to which they are present.Every single instance of "fascism" that has been fingered on the Bush adminstration can be 1) shown to have occurred in previous administrations 2) all have been subject to judicial review for constitutionality (and even some overturned). (and again, as I mentioned earlier even Dean can be called a fascist with this loose 14 point representation)
For example, while all politicians appeal to patriotism at times, how many have so continually taken positions like "you're either with us or you support the terrorists," or hidden behind the claim that it's un-American to question their actions? As I went down the list, time and again I was struck by how many blatant examples one can find for the Bush administration. I don't have the same reaction when I consider other administations, Democratic or Republican.
I recognize this may be due to my dislike of Bush. It is also undoubtedly influenced by the slanted presentation of the items on the list. That is the purpose of the thread, to discuss the list and its applicability to the Bush administration.
I don't agree that many of them were open at all, but I think that begs the point. I'll use Hitler as an example, only because it's easy and fairly well understood. Wasn't Hitler's rise to power achieved with public and lawmaker consent, through arguably "legal" means (initially, at least)? When was the appropriate time for German citizens to recognize what was happening and act to stop it? Ignoring emotional and paritisan considerations for a moment, what makes us different from the German people then? What do we have that they didn't that would prevent our government from becoming more and more fascist?You say it cannot happen without our blind consent? No, it cannot happen without our open willing interactive consent. The vast majority of Bush's actions have been with open willing interactive consent (approval of congress and the public). That which has not, is being challenged in the courts, and by candidates who would like something different.
Let me emphasize again, I am trying to discuss this from an intellectual perspective. This is intended as questions, not accusations.
I wish I shared your confidence. As I mentioned in the Hitler thread, while I don't think Bush is a Hitler-wannabe, I am concerned with some of the people around him. I also have little confidence in any professional politician's willingness to turn away from additional power if it's offered.I don't fear our country becoming fascist any more than I fear it becoming communist (well, it might become socialist, but likely will go bankrupt prior to that).
The "fascist" and other analogies just irk me to no end, because they truly make light of fascism. Calling someone a nazi endlessly dilutes really what a nazi is. It is as absurd as calling Dean a communist.
Well I guess since Fascism is really a definition of how people have behaved in a government, rather than a defined political idealogy (i.e. communism, libertarian, socialism), it isn't something that really can be spelled out.I think the difference is I am attempting to examine the political ideology of facism from an intellectual perspective while you are associating facism with specific brutal governments and reacting emotionally. (I mean this not as an accusation, but as a suggestion to help improve communications.) I agree the fascist governments I'm familiar with were brutal regimes. I do not believe brutality is a mandatory component of facsim, however. I also do not equate fascism with Nazism. While the Nazis were fascists, it does not follow that fascists are necessarily Nazis or neo-Nazis.
Does this make sense, i.e., is it clear what I mean? Are there any Poli Sci experts here who can either reinforce or refute the difference between facism, the ideology, and the implementation of facism by specific governments? Can anyone recommend good on-line resources that might address this sort of topic clearly and without partisan bias?
Bow:Every single instance of "fascism" that has been fingered on the Bush adminstration can be 1) shown to have occurred in previous administrations 2) all have been subject to judicial review for constitutionality (and even some overturned). (and again, as I mentioned earlier even Dean can be called a fascist with this loose 14 point representation)
Pre-9/11, Bush wasn't doing much "nasty stuff". He was trolling in relatively safe waters of abortion, fetal tissue, tax cuts, etc.I agree this is largely true if we view each criteria as absolute black and white. I'm not convinced that this holds up when you look at the whole picture, considering both scope and scale, i.e., both the number of examples we find in the Bush administration and the extent to which they are present.
For example, while all politicians appeal to patriotism at times, how many have so continually taken positions like "you're either with us or you support the terrorists," or hidden behind the claim that it's un-American to question their actions? As I went down the list, time and again I was struck by how many blatant examples one can find for the Bush administration. I don't have the same reaction when I consider other administations, Democratic or Republican.
I recognize this may be due to my dislike of Bush. It is also undoubtedly influenced by the slanted presentation of the items on the list. That is the purpose of the thread, to discuss the list and its applicability to the Bush administration.
bow:You say it cannot happen without our blind consent? No, it cannot happen without our open willing interactive consent. The vast majority of Bush's actions have been with open willing interactive consent (approval of congress and the public). That which has not, is being challenged in the courts, and by candidates who would like something different.
We could probably write and read 20 books on how our politcal and legal system is different than Germany's of 193X. Germany wasn't much of a democracy prior to Hitler. What do we have that Germany didn't? Two term limitations. Veto override by congress. Judicial Review. 2/3 states to amend the constitution.I don't agree that many of them were open at all, but I think that begs the point. I'll use Hitler as an example, only because it's easy and fairly well understood. Wasn't Hitler's rise to power achieved with public and lawmaker consent, through arguably "legal" means (initially, at least)? When was the appropriate time for German citizens to recognize what was happening and act to stop it? Ignoring emotional and paritisan considerations for a moment, what makes us different from the German people then? What do we have that they didn't that would prevent our government from becoming more and more fascist?
Let me emphasize again, I am trying to discuss this from an intellectual perspective. This is intended as questions, not accusations.
bow:I don't fear our country becoming fascist any more than I fear it becoming communist (well, it might become socialist, but likely will go bankrupt prior to that).
Well, barring another 9/11 type attack or worse, I think Bush has gotten all he's gonna get Bush took a big gamble on the WMD claim. It's biting him in the butt.I wish I shared your confidence. As I mentioned in the Hitler thread, while I don't think Bush is a Hitler-wannabe, I am concerned with some of the people around him. I also have little confidence in any professional politician's willingness to turn away from additional power if it's offered.
Anyone?