is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

Is this on the air?
I've never once heard this show.
My family is a bit spread out and never once on any of the talk radio stations in any of these towns did I hear Air america.In fact, where I am, the talk radio station is STRICTLY conservative talk.The morning starts with two back to back local conservative shows until 1pm, Steve Gill and Phil Valentine, oh wait here's the daily line up, every day.Cumulus | WWTN-FM2 Liddy's a day!
The only one that isn't political is Dave Ramsey, but he is still VERY conservative and christian.I've never ever heard a non-Republican talk show on the radio, ever.

The positions of the Democrats you listed all screamed liberal to me.
At least they didn't scream conservative.All except for (would you believe it) Howard Dean.
Anti-hemp voting record, no federal gun laws, come on...But, there is a difference between liberal and "far left wing."I guess it's just a matter of perspective, but there is a big difference.Actually, I think if we are to call ourselves the land of the free, that would imply that our political stance with regard to, at least, social or personal choices would be liberal.To be liberal in this sense is to be American.
To be authoritarian (mislabelled "conservative" here) is un-American.And I never saw John McCain's record spelled out like this.
My opinion of him dwindled when he endorsed Bush, but now I really think he's the worst kind of phony. "straight-talk express" my ass.Yes, McCain the answer to crime is more prisons (what a moron). That way there's more room for all the abortion doctors. I think he was on the right track with campaign finance reform, but his law did nothing but make things worse with all the 527s and related garbage in the last election. The law made comapaigns worse not better. Nice try though.I'll keep this website in mind in future elections (that I won't be participating in).

I don't know any non-religious person that agrees with banning gay marriage. I think their logic is that it doesn't affect them, so what's the harm? That's also the way I see it. It will NEVER affect me if 1% of the population can now get legally married to their same sex partner. It doesn't affect me now that they get married without the paperwork, and I don't see how their filling out paperwork will change anything in my life.

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.