is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

Agreed, those individuals are going to live they want to anyway so why shouldn't they have the same benefits as heterosexual couples. OTOH why couldn't they be granted all legal protections and government benefits as married couples, just call it a civil union instead of using the word "marriage".

Then there should be provisions in the PA that require terrorism to be the sole reason for intruding where the PA allows.AFAIK , there aren't. The PA has been used to shut down strip joints, and is mainly used to prosecute drug laws. I don't think a single terrorist has been convicted as a result of the PA. I agree, the gay marriage ban is stupid. Why put any FICA money into private accounts?
Private accounts already exist and anyone can go and get one today, voluntarily.
I'll tell you why he wants to divert FICA money toward Wall Street.
It would result in HUGE profits and commissions.First he did it with the Iraq war and defense contractors (which his family and his friends are huge investors) now he wants to do it with social security. He's basically the best president the rich could have hoped for.Anyway, here's a page that gives 12 reasons why privatization is a bad idea (not even mentioning the motives of our glorious leader).http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503And this graphic really spells out Bush's idea of "saving" social security. The bankruptcy bill basically makes the lives of credit card companies a whole lot easier and makes the lives of the fools that ran up their debt a lot harder (unless you're a millionaire, of course). We wouldn't have had the huge deficits we have now if it weren't for the tax cuts, which the rich benefited from the most. The Orwellian "Clear Skies" initiative relaxed a lot of pollution laws that were thought to be "crippling" to big business. I say if they can't do business without excessive pollution then they shouldn't do business. Live under a rock do we?
Never heard of that one?
Maybe you should listen to Air America?

Civil unions wouldn't grant certain rights that "marriage" would.
They are only recognized in states that recognize them for one thing.
It would be a state by state issue, with some states granting more rights than others. It wouldn't be full-on marriage in some cases, as in the partners may not be listed as "next of kin" which is what they want the most anyway.Page Not Foundoh and Hi Monk,didn't mean to be rude (you know it's a debate board thing).This message has been edited by gnojek, 04-29-2005 05:51 PM

He he, that's why I've never heard it.Well, it IS in Memphis (which I only drive through), but I would have never known since it only airs on AM. Republicans make sure they are on good ole FM.And that's just one show. Repugs have dozens.

I predicted this reaction from you.I don't think that those ratings at the bottom of the pages of that website are accurate.The issues that are rated to determine where they fall in the spectrum are not exhausive nor complete.Obviously, Howard Dean, who supports the death penalty, is pro-business, endorses not changing current gun laws, and strongly believes in a balanced budget is not a "hard-core liberal" like Ted Kennedy is a "hard core liberal", seeing as Kennedy would disagree with Dean's stance on the death penalty, gun laws, and much of his pro-business positions.OK, if you are done with this thread, but I must tell you that my general impression is that you refused to support your original claim that THEWRE IS NO DIFFERENCE between the behavior and tactics of the current NeoCon leadership and the Democrats.You gave only dismissive sentence fragments in response to the laws the NeoCons have passed which I have objected to. Some of the legislation you didn't even know about.You refused to budge one inch on even considering that the religious right just might have a good, tight hold of the leadership in congress right now, despite all of the evidence I have posted. You have ignored or dismissed nearly all of it without any explanation.I am disappointed, monk. You have behaved pretty much like every other republican I personally have discussed these things with.You really seem to me to be "defending the faith", or are being a good "team player", and not really considering issues from any perspective other than the one the politicians tell you to.I, like crash, don't feel like you are taking the issues seriously.

You can listen to AirAmerica live online. Just click the "Listen" link on their menubar.GuideWeb

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

You didn’t predict anything. A prediction occurs beforehand. You got caught recommending a website that is contrary to your preconceived firmly held political dogma. You had no choice but to eat crow or declare the source that you recommended to be inaccurate. You choose the later. That’s your opinion, I leave it the readers to make their own decisions. Again, readers can decide for themselves. They don’t need you to tell them whether my arguments have or have not been made. BTW did you budge on anything? Did you stop to consider how extreme your position is? Of course not. And you are the prototypical left wing partisan I always perceived you to be. Glad we understand each other.Good day

Just a quick question on the charts at the end of politician records on that site. Russ Feingold is listed as a populist leaning liberal though his position on the chart puts him squarely in the middle between libertarian and populist, only half a square from moderate. Dick Cheney is NOT listed as a populist leaning conservative even though his chart position is closer to populist than Feingold's. John Kerry is listed as a libertarian leaning liberal even though his chart position is exactly the same as Feingold's. Pat Buchanan is listed as populist leaning conservative even though his position is right on midline of the conservative side (same as Feingold on the liberal side) Al Gore is listed as moderate populist even though others are only listed as moderate if their chart position is on the line or within the moderate square. Ted Kennedy and the late Paul Wellstone are both charted at the same position but Kennedy is listed as a hard-core liberal and Wellstone is listed as a populist leaning liberal.I may be stupid, but it doesn't seem that their criteria for assigning a political philosophy matches with their criteria for assigning a chart position.This message has been edited by Asgara, 04-29-2005 06:15 PM

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I'd want to know. But you know what? I wouldn't have a right to know.

quote:

---

I guarantee you would want to know if your 13 year old daughter were pregnant let alone is going to have an abortion. Don’t deny that you would not want to know.

---

There should be a rule that whenever anyone claims to know how the other person in the debate feels, thinks, or how they would act, that person automatically loses the debate.

As my teenage daughter put it...the parents that understand the privacy issue are the parents who WOULD know about it because they are the parents who are trusted by their children.The parents who are up in arms about this are the parents that are not trusted anyway.The kids from liberal, open-minded, and generally NOT religious families are not the kids who are getting pregnant or getting in trouble in my daughter's school.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Your sig applies to whoever came up with that title for the effort. Fortunately, the current crop of Republican talking heads are too stupid to have taken advantage of the opening.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

You didn’t predict anything. A prediction occurs beforehand.

---

You can believe what you want, of course, but just because I didn't say it to you doesn't mean I didn't predict your reaction.To be completely accurate, Zhimbo, my husband, predicted you would do that as he was looking over my shoulder this morning.

quote:

---

You got caught recommending a website that is contrary to your preconceived firmly held political dogma.

---

Well, no, not really.It showed that the people you mentioned as being on the "extreme left" were, in fact, not Socialists or Marxists, which is what an "extreme leftist" would be.However, it did show that the people on the "extreme right" were, in fact, in power at the highest levels of government, which you denied.You also ignored the point that all of the Republicans on the list advocated for a constitutional amendment to allow school prayer in publicly funded schools, showing that if they get the right number of like minded people in high congressional office and in the SCOTUS, they could change the constitution to allow that.You even misquoted me shamelessly, Creationist style, to misrepresent the context of my point.Did you admit to it?No.Did you ever even attempt to show where Democrats have behaved just as reprehensibly as the NeoCons, which is what I have asked for at least 6 times now?No.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-29-2005 08:19 PM

Let's head back towards the topic.

---

there is no reason to think it would resemble Italy in the 1930s. The world today is a quite different place.IMHO should Fascism return, it would not have much of a Nationalistic side except as a tool to control the populus. The functional Fascism would be most likely international and trans-national in nature. It would revolve around organizing the world's population and laws for the benefit of Business. The most likely signs would be the elimination of tariff borders, the vast mobility of industry to relocate as needed on a short term basis, evolving communications and transportation infrastructure, loosening of restrictions on the exploitation of both human and natural resources.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion