|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 48 (9214 total) |
| |
Cifa.ac | |
Total: 920,051 Year: 373/6,935 Month: 373/275 Week: 90/159 Day: 1/31 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1758 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is why, while I admire libertarian thinking, I just can't get on board with libertarians. An unchecked free market has far more potential to rob us of our freedoms than our constitutional government. I'm not nearly as worried about the government taking my freedoms as I am about corporations doing it through monopoly and lobbying.
The new threat to democracy is not governments that won't be democratic; it's that business sees no profit in people making their own choices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Thanks for doing this analysis.
I tried to explain to monk in a more general way that this categorization system couldn't be very accurate, because clearly, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean though both put into the "hard Core Liberal" category, differed fundamentally on many issues. These included opposite positions on the death penalty, taxes, and gun law. Along with your examples, it shows that monk is just grasping at whatever superficial evidence seems to support what he believes, taking it out of context, instead of looking at all of the evidence. As others have said here, I guess we're all creationists about something. I just with he could have picked something else to be a Creationist about, like basketball. That way, his irrationality wouldn't affect my life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But I already did. I said that Kennedy and Pelosi were more liberal that the rest of the group you listed, and that Dean wasn't liberal at all, but a centrist, and that Clinton was a moderate. But anyway, you are seemingly purposefully entrenched in this misguided notion that I have ever been talking about legislators' conservativeness or liberalness relative to each other. That's where you go wrong and even though I have explained that you are missing the point, you persist in refusing to get the point. Monk, I explained this to you already. I am NOT talking about how liberal or consrevative people are relative to each other. I have NEVER been talking about how liberal or conservative legislators are relative to each other. I am talking about how liberal or conservative legislators are over the entire political spectrum. The entire political spectrum doesn't change. It is not affected by trends, or by changes in human perception. It uses precise definitions that do not change no matter how the conservative talk radio hosts misuse them. As my first illustration, I will repost my Barry Goldwater quote.
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.' "Congressional Record, September 16, 1981 He also said this:
And here we encounter the seeds of government disaster and collapse -- the kind that wrecked ancient Rome and every other civilization that allowed a sociopolitical monster called the welfare state to exist. Now, was Barry Goldwater a liberal or a conservative? He was a conservative. A very conservative conservative. A traditional conservative who also rejected the influence of the religious right, believed that government should stay out of the morals business, and believed in smaller government and individual rights. Do the NeoCons adhere to traditional conservative values such as these? Or, are they even farther to the right than Barry Goldwater, heading over into authoritarian, Fascist and laissez fair land, as they believe in a lot of centralized government power, unfettered business and strong business and governmental ties, and government-determined morality enforced by law? I used this next example before, but it's worth repeating. Socialists or Marxists are at the "extreme left" of the political spectrum, according to pretty much all the sources I could find. Likewise, for "extreme right" it generally lists "fascist" or "authoritarian" or "totalitarian". I do not think that we see much evidence of Democrats espousing or advocating for Socialism or Marxism. If you think they are espousing or advocating for these philosophies, please priovide specific examples. OTOH, I believe I have provided quite a few examples of current NeoCon lawmakers who are quite far to the right of even Godwater and who's actions and votes show a trend away from traditional conservatism and towards authoritarianism. So, as I have asked you at least 7 times now. Who are these "extreme left" people in our government? Please provide examples of the extremist votes or statements of belief. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-30-2005 09:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I'd just like to point out that monk asked me for this information but has never commented upon it's obvious implications:
Oh, and here's your link about the lobbying efforts of the FRC FRC's Principal Issues:* Since the early 1990?s, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing ?traditional family values? by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school ?vouchers,? abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. * FRC?s objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America?s domestic and foreign policy. * FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to ?disestablish? the Department of Education. So, the FRC is an active, powerful religious right lobbying group that seeks to impose it's religious morality upon all US citizens by power of law. Frist and Hastert were both endorsed by this group. Additionally, Frist appeared in a presentation by the FRC which was shown in evagelical curches on a sunday. How much more evidence do you need, monk, before you will admit that Frist is actively working to fulfill the FRC's religious agenda? This next bit was addressed by both crsh and I, but no response from monk: Did you catch that? Never in 214 years has a vote been denied. Wow, that is a bald faced lie, and you believed it. quote: Republicans have filibustered sure, but not to this extent and not with judicial nominees. Here's some history for you:
link The Republicans used committees and a host of since-discarded rules (like one requiring both home state senators to sign off on any judicial nominees) to hold up a large slate of Clinton judicial nominees. It was their preferred method of obstruction, which they gleefully wielded. Jesse Helms alone was a one-man obstruction machine. And yes, they even used the now-maligned filibuster to try and stop Richard Paez from the 9th Circuit. Sen. Smith, Republican of NH, even said on the floor of the Senate: But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000) Frist voted with Smith on his filibuster. Now, aren't you feeling lied to by Frist? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-30-2005 09:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Intolerant but clever
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 130 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In what way?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I've been trying to figure out a way to express myself better WRT this "where do politicians fall on the whole political spectrum vs where they fall relative to each other" thing, and over breakfast, Zhimbo came up with a beauty:
Imagine the entire congress and house assembled in a room, and aliens beamed into the room, much to everyone's surprise. Every single one of the Democrats were then transported to the alien's space station orbiting Saturn, so that only Republicans were left in congress and the house. I would say that there would be no left-leaning politicians left in the room if all of the Democrats were gone and only Republicans remained Now, if I'm reading Monk's position correctly, this would instead mean that because we can point to some Republicans who are less conservative and right-leaning than others, we should now call those Republicans "radical leftists". This is because he defines a member of congress or the house who is a "radical leftist" as leaning left relative to the other members of congress or the house, rather than rating them on a scale which includes the entire political spectrum, as I have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5445 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
If you're simply unsupportive of our current regime, you can be quickly labelled a radical leftist in today's 'neo-con' climate.
Forget that one might espouse certain conservative values oneself(e.g. fiscal responsibility, something so sorely lacking in this supposedly conservative administration) it seems that if you are not totally on-board ideologically with this administration you are on the hit list for being unpatriotic. Not a new strategy though. Consider the following. "Of course the common people don't want war,but they can be brought to the bidding of their leaders. Tell them they are under attack and denounce the pacificists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country." ReichMarshal Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg trials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5445 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
jar writes: It would revolve around organizing the world's population and laws for the benefit of Business. You don't see this pattern already !? Fascism is still alive and well and it is still sold with the same kind of snake oil to the uneducated plebes. The only difference is the class of beneficiaries.Now it is the business elite as opposed to the aristocracy. I particularly like the analysis in Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas."So much of America, living poor and voting rich. (edited to correct book title - EZ) This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-09-2005 11:16 PM This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-10-2005 09:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5968 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Ever get a job from a poor person?
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6111 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Ever get a job from a poor person? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the poor do give the rich? Those on top make money from the collection of those making less at the bottom. In order to just stay alive poor people will spend money and it is more of their total income than any rich person. Collectively they spend quite a bit and do form the fluid wealth of the nation. The rich on the other hand may have a lot of money and shift it around a lot, but are not actually creating as much need for jobs to exist as the poor are, because plain and simple... there are much less of them. If you want to run a McD's on the number of millionaires that will walk through your door, good luck. The number of poor people on the other hand... Ka ching! holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5445 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
I don't disagree that you obviously need some economic opportunity for jobs to be created by business.
Unfortunately, most current job growth is largely off-shore because of outsourcing. I am all in favor of wealth (within limits - the greed of the really wealthy appears to be limitless) - that was not my beef. I am opposed to the degree to which wealth can apparently buy political favors and influence the outcomes of elections in this country by devious means such as these '527 organizations'. We can't get campaign finance reform because it would reduce the power big money interests wield over politics.We can't get a decent health care system because too many wealthy interests are sucking at the tit of the existing one that, incidentally, spends more money trying to challenge and deny claims than it does actually paying for health care. Do we really have a democracy, or is it just a sham where we are manipulated into voting for puppets of wealth and privelidge (i.e. fascists) under the false assumption that they actually care about the interests of the general populace? This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-10-2005 09:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5968 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the poor do give the rich? No, the rich gives the poor person income. The Consumer is the person that gives to the rich.
Those on top make money from the collection of those making less at the bottom. That's a pyramid system. The reason a company exists is to maximize owner wealth. Whether that owner is a single business owner or millions of investors. Come on holmes, this is business 101 stuff.
The rich on the other hand may have a lot of money and shift it around a lot, but are not actually creating as much need for jobs to exist as the poor are, because plain and simple... there are much less of them. What's your conclusion here? Poor people create jobs?
If you want to run a McD's on the number of millionaires that will walk through your door, good luck. The number of poor people on the other hand... Ka ching! Not sure what your point is here. A person still used or borrowed money to start that franchise and gave the "poor" people jobs. And your leaving out middle class. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5968 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
I am opposed to the degree to which wealth can apparently buy political favors and influence the outcomes of elections in this country by devious means such as these '527 organizations'. Like Moveon.org?
We can't get campaign finance reform because it would reduce the power big money interests wield over politics Like George Soros?
Do we really have a democracy, or is it just a sham where we are manipulated into voting for puppets of wealth and privelidge (i.e. fascists) under the false assumption that they actually care about the interests of the general populace? Democracy. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5445 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Well, I am glad for your sake you are so sure about it.
You must sleep a lot better than I do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025