is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

Before this thread spirals to a few hundred angry posts, I have a historical question I'm sure someone can answer: were all public officials appointed during WWII in Germany and Italy, or were some freely elected? I doubt any where, but I'm curious.On the rest of the topic, some of scraf's list are pertinent (religion, nationalism, human rights), the others not so much. Does anyone else detect an epidemic of sexism or corruption? A few months ago, I would have agreed that the pendulum of politics has simply swung in favor of conservativism, which is a natural reaction to decades of democratic majority, and eventually it would swing back. But the disproportionate power of fundamentalist christians and the recent assault on judges is more than a little worrisome. Anyone catch this Sunday's special on satellite?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Hi Jar,I should have been more specific. I knew Hitler was freely elected, I meant after the Nazi party had free run of the country. As in, were there any public elections held at any level, or were all judges and governors and such appointed?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Hi Tal,Congress has been exercising its authority to check the judiciary-in the form of filibuster aimed to prevent some of Bush's appointments. I have a feeling that this isnt what you mean. I don't care much about that, Gingrich and Co. held up the same proportion of Clinton's nominees in the 90's. What isn't so hot is the idea of changing senate rules to do away with the filibuster. But, still, its constitutionally legal, just not a good idea.The real assault has yet to come. The Sunday broadcast is the beginning of a grass roots campaign to remove activist judges, whatever they are. This is the problem. The whole point of the courts is to protect the country from a rabid majority. The court is supposed to be above populist attacks.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Well put. (jar and dsv)Tal, the executive and legislative were WAY out of line passing the bill you mentioned. The judiciary in this case acted exactly as it was supposed to-it checked overzealous fundamentalist wannabes in congress.This message has been edited by Alexander, 04-26-2005 03:18 PM

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Honestly. If you're going to die on national tv, at least make it exciting for the rest of us. Terry Sciavo isn't really on topic here.And in case anyone was wondering, something like 70-90% of Americans disapproved of the actions taken by the Prez and Congress in this matter.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Whoops. Supposed to be 70-80%.This is a good example of why I don't see a totalitarian government on the horizon. Most Americans are apathetic to Bible-beating machinations most of the time, but when their policy clout is forcefully demonstrated, the silent majority is sometimes snapped out of apathy.Unfortunately, this counterweight is exercised only when the issues directly impact the lives of middle class americans.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Here's the link, just for public erudition. Bias is certainly possible.http://www.usatoday.com/...hington/2005-04-05-gop-poll_x.htm76% of Americans diasprove of the way Congress handled the case. Bush got off a bit better.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Good research, but the segue from "culture of life" into economic injustice doesn't quite fit. I would have juxtaposed the hypocracy of anti-abortionism with unflagging support for the death penalty and a lack of support for intervention in Darfur, N. Korea, etc., where life was being actively snuffed out.I agree that the Bush administration does promote policies that disproportionately affect the poor--like the bancruptcy bill, I still can't understand why any rank-and-file republican would support that. But, I don't see the Dems as a superior alternative on this issue. (Not really on topic.)Also, a fascinating (and surprising) entry by Mussolini .

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Just a note:I think you mean extra money in tax breaks. Most oil companies don't gain as significantly as you'd think from oil price spikes. (Especially from oil price spikes; a long ramping-up of prices helps the bottom line.)

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Let me see if I can clear this up a bit. Oil companies don't benefit from spikes and shocks because they hedge away pretty much all of their oil exposure in advance. In other words, theyve already sold the barrels of oil theyre going to pump in the next year.So really EZ you're looking for collusion in the wrong place. The price of oil is pretty much independent of what western governments and our oil majors want it to do. In other years I would have agreed that the Saudis could move the price to their liking, but without much slack in their refining capacity, that is no longer the case. Again, the place to look for malfeasance is in the newest tax breaks given to oil majors.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

That's a good example. I'd heard about the repatriation scheme but forgot about it. I'm glad you're not into conspiracy theories. They aren't really necessary when Bush and Co. don't go to great pains to disguise flagrant giveaways.Now that I think about it, this isn't really on topic, is it?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Yes.I feel that it is always better to err on the side of greater freedom. I don't see how it is possible to support rendition to foreign countries and discrimination against gays and claim to stand for freedom.Has anyone brought up the proposed bill that would regulate content on pay cable and satellite TV? The specifics of the legislation escape me, but that is a damn good example of suppression of free speech. Unlike most of the kids at my school, I wouldn't glibly declare us to be already under the yoke of a new Hitler, but a bill like this would go a long way towards convincing me.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'