Should the Patriot Act be renewed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Birol

Around and About
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,759
Reaction score
2,998
Location
That's a good question right now.
BradyH1861 said:
If anything, I think that those of us who have taken part in this discussion have proven one thing. There is a middle ground out there. Maybe the country isn't as polarized as some would have us think. Perhaps if WE got together, then we could come up with a PACT that everyone could live with. How's that for a thought?

I would like to once again thank everyone who has taken part in this thread. The topic alone was one charged with strong feelings and emotion. I think we have shown that controversial issues can be debated in a calm, rational, respectful, and reasonable manner.

My experience has been that this is the case with most controversial matters. Those who have an opinion but do not adopt an extreme stance are much more able to come together and find solutions everyone can live with than those at the far right or far left. Life is often not black or white; those who see and can maneuver within the gray areas are much more likely to find mutual understanding.
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
Jamesaritchie said:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson.

Exactly. Because if we, the people are not vigilant, then the people in charge will run roughshod over us all.

There are certainly bad aspects to teh Patriot Act, but as a whole, it's a good bill, and you can bet it will be renewed, as it should be.

As a whole, no it is not a good bill. It's a very bad bill. There are a -few- redeemable aspects to it. Very few.

And it looks like those of you who think it should be reauthorized will get your wish.

PACT negotiations brought to a screeching halt.

You know what? I know that this particular article is an Op-Ed piece. But I watched this fiasco this morning on CSpan*. No commercial interruptions, no cutting or editing. It played out exactly as it happed IRL. The person who wrote this article understated what happened.

Mr. Sensenbrenner -rudely- admonished the people testifying on the actions that have occurred since the PACT was put in place, stating that they were all essentially liars, and not discussin the PACT, but their own agendas. He stated that nothing that any of the speakers brought up had anything to do with the PACT. And every single thing that was discussed was in direct relation to the PACT.

He made his little admonishment about the speakers going "off the subject", and gavelled the meeting closed. He did not bother to try to bring it back "on track" (It wasn't -off- track to begin with).

It's one thing to read it. You can just blow it off as overreacting, and editorializing.

But it's an entirely different thing to watch this travesty rebroadcaast, with no editing, no breaks, exactly as it played out. And let me tell you, it made me literally -sick-.

Yeah, our governemnt has been growing fat, happy, and decadant for many, many years. But there have always been checks and balances for the people to use, if any of our elected officials became too big for their britches. Unfortunately, this country got lazy.

They stopped being vigilant.

What's happening now is not just the fault of the politicians, but the fault of the complacent, and the blind sheeple who voted these crooks into office.

Adjust the Patriot Act where needed, but getting rid of it would be the height of fooloshness, and would, in the long run, bring in laws far worse, far more invasive.

Nope. Toss it, and start fresh, with the rights of the people in mind. The PACT -should- have been directed more towards communication between the different law enforcement organizations.

Instead, it's become a cudgel for the people.

As for a national ID card, well, we should have done this twenty years ago. Funny how people don't mind state ID cards that contain the exact same information, but somehow think a national ID card is the work of the devil.

The National ID card is one of the least of our worries, it's the absolute power for Homeland Security that was buried in that bill, that was buried deceptively in an appropriations bill that would not be voted down.

Before I comment on the things that are very -wrong- with the National ID, let me ask you this...Doesn't the fact that they buried this absolute power for DHS, and the N. ID in an appropriations bill concern you? Doesn't it make you suspicious? After all, if these were "good" bills, why didn't they put them on the floor on their own? Why did they hide them?

I have kids, and the one thing I learned, is that if my kid is trying to hide something like that, they're up to no good.

As for the N. ID? Keep this in mind...there is a blackmail clause buried in this NID. The states have the "choice" to participate. But if they do not, the residents of that state will not be allowed to travel by plane, train, or bus.

Another thing. With a centralized database like they're proposing, it makes it that much easier for identy theft.

And here's a question....If these NID cards are going to be embedded with a certain amount of information, what is to stop DHS from wanting more info...you know, like DNA? Orgianization affilliations? Political affiliations?

Where are the checks and balances?


*btw, if you have the stomach for it, or just want your eyes opened up, you can see this replayed on c-span.org.
 
Last edited:

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
robeiae said:
Pffft!

The continued growth of government bureaucracies, particularly those dealing with the social services sectors and the IRS, have sapped more freedoms from us since the 1930's than any of the people you're worried about could even dream of doing. Once upon a time, your vote mattered; people in office could actually change things. Now, I'm afraid we've almost lost/surrendered too much freedom to the bureaucrats..

Yes, I know. It's disgusting, IMO. We've become complacent. And look what happens when we abdicate our social responsibility.

Now Bill Clinton, I could deal with, since he was content to leave things alone (more concerned with getting his...well, you know).

Can't argue with the rest of that comment. And I agree with you about Clinton. I look at it this way...

1) What goes on below the belt is none of my business, and...

2) As long as he was smoking cigars with Monica, his hand wasn't on that red button.

Now my rant is done!

Love ya!

Rob :)

Love ya too, Rob. But I can't say I'm done with my rant. Just done for now. That might change in 5 minutes. ;)
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
I'm sorry I missed the program. From how you described things, it sounds like our city council meetings! (talk about people up to no good and drunk with their own power...)

:Shrug:

Brady H.
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
Roger J Carlson said:
drgnlvr, I apologized in private, but I want to do so publicly. I did not intend offense when I used the "name-calling and sloganing" line. I simply thought that calling the president the Commander in Thief was not relevant to the discussion.

You're very kind, but no apology was needed. :kiss:


You are certainly free to do so and I'll fight anybody who tries to stop you!:box:

Amen! And I've got your back, as well. I might not agree with you, but I -will- fight tooth and nail for you to be allowed your opinion.

However, in retrospect, I believe MY comment was uncalled for and inflammatory, and again I apologize. Thanks for not responding in kind.

Nonsense! I certainly didn't see it that way. This is a subject that arrouses alot of passion, on both sides. I don't think there's a single "luke-warm" opinion out there on this.

You have been a complete gentleman.

Even if you are misinformed! :wag:
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
robeiae said:
Hmmm...well, I must be hanging out in all the wrong places (or right places, orleft places, depending on your point of view). But that's cool, even if I was hearing analogies using Stalin and communism instead of Hitler and Nazism, I'd still think they were BS.

Rob :)

You know, I keep hearing the other side say this, but I'm wondering how you come to the conclusions that they're not similar?

After all, Hitler didn't wake up one morning and just decide right then to send 6 million people to their deaths. It was a gradual process, and the destruction of what was once a democracy.

Explain it to me. What are the differences? Please make me see that today, and what happened in Germany are not similar. I -want- to be convinced.
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Germany as we know it today is a relatively new country. They were unified in 1871. Prior to that, they were a collection of German states ruled by princes. The Prussians unified the country and installed their head of state as Kaiser. The Kaiser ruled Germany until the end of World War One. Only then were they a democracy under the Weimar Republic. However, with numerous factions fighting for control of the country (literally fighting in the streets on many occasions), the country did not really have a high opinion of "democracy." The rotten state of affairs, plus the lack of a democratic tradition made it relatively easy for a strongman like Hitler to assume power. Nazis were elected to offices in the Reichstag, as were other parties. However, once they got total control (after Hitler assumed the office of President AND Chancellor after the death of Hindenburg), they outlawed other parties.

If it hadn't of been the Nazis, there was a good chance that perhaps Germany would have become a socialist/communist state. So Germany was actually only a democracy for about 15 years before Hitler came to power. That is a fundamental difference between the United States and Germany. Here we have a long established tradition of freedom. That actually did not exist in Germany even before Hitler.

Brady H.
 

VOTE_BOT

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
435
Reaction score
94
Age
117
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Not to mention we haven't just lost a World War, after which our borders shrunk, and we're not rolling wheelbarrows of dollar bills into stores just to pay for basic foodstuffs because of ruaway inflation.

Those were crucial factors in creating an atmosphere in which a militant nationalistic party could rise.
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
Breaking Godwin's Law....

BradyH1861 said:
Germany as we know it today is a relatively new country. They were unified in 1871. Prior to that, they were a collection of German states ruled by princes. The Prussians unified the country and installed their head of state as Kaiser. The Kaiser ruled Germany until the end of World War One. Only then were they a democracy under the Weimar Republic. However, with numerous factions fighting for control of the country (literally fighting in the streets on many occasions), the country did not really have a high opinion of "democracy." The rotten state of affairs, plus the lack of a democratic tradition made it relatively easy for a strongman like Hitler to assume power. Nazis were elected to offices in the Reichstag, as were other parties. However, once they got total control (after Hitler assumed the office of President AND Chancellor after the death of Hindenburg), they outlawed other parties.

If it hadn't of been the Nazis, there was a good chance that perhaps Germany would have become a socialist/communist state. So Germany was actually only a democracy for about 15 years before Hitler came to power. That is a fundamental difference between the United States and Germany. Here we have a long established tradition of freedom. That actually did not exist in Germany even before Hitler.

Brady H.

Okay, I can understand where the idea that there is no similarity between the two.

Insofar as reaching a certain point in German history.

Now, start from the time the Reichstag burned down (Yes, yes, I know Hitler had no intention of remaining Chancellor anyway, but then, how do we know that Bush...or more likely Ashcroft or Chaney don't have dreams of ultimate power? No one has been able to prove otherwise to me, yet).

The first thing that happens, is a scapegoat is found. In this case, the Communists. And the next day, the German President signs a bill that suspends freedom of speech.

Now, it's been established that the Reichstag was actually burned by the Nazi's, and there is no way I want anyone to misunderstand that I even for a moment think 9/11 was caused by our own people.

At least not deliberately. There's evidence aplenty that the information and warnings were there, and everyone dropped the ball.

But the act of "terrorism" in Germany, and the subsequent loss of freedom, the scapegoating of certain groups, and the gaining of absolute power by the people in charge are all very familiar feeling. The names and faces are different, but the similarities are there, and it has the potential to become another Nazi Germany, if we are not very, very careful, and very, very vigilant. It creeps closer and closer to that line, every day.

Did you read that link I posted about Sensenbrenner shutting the PACT negotiations down? Did you see the replay on C-Span? Or go to c-span.org?

What he did was very frightening, IMO. The implications are disturbing.

So while I agree that what happened to Germany and what is happening here are not exactly the same, there are enough similarities to worry me.
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
When I was in grad school, I took a course in Modern Germany 1871-1945 as an elective. The professor said something very interesting that has stayed with me longer than the information learned in the class.

He said "Nazism is a uniquely German phenomenon. Fascism, however, can happen anywhere."

Oh, and after banning free speech, etc, Hitler also outlawed private ownership of firearms.....just thought I'd pass that along too :guns:

Brady H.
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
VOTE_BOT said:
Not to mention we haven't just lost a World War, after which our borders shrunk, and we're not rolling wheelbarrows of dollar bills into stores just to pay for basic foodstuffs because of ruaway inflation.

Those were crucial factors in creating an atmosphere in which a militant nationalistic party could rise.

And there are crucial factors in creating an atmosphere for a Fascist party to rise here.

  1. Fascism
    1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
  2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
What concerns me is the first definition. Remember last year? An election year? Do you recall all the people who demonstrated against Bush, and how they were treated? Corralled in "Free Speech Zones", far out of the sight of our illustrius POTUS. Often arrested, and held without being allowed their one phone call, frequently told that the Miranda was a "privledge" and they were undeserving of it.

Wouldn't you say that qualified as suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship? After all, the most vital part of our freedom of speech is the freedom to address the wrongdoing of our government. It's meant to keep them in line, and not allow them to get too big for their britches.

How are we able to do this, if we are not even allowed to demonstrate peacefully, where we can be seen and heard? How can we feel free to do so, if we're in fear of being arrested, and held without due process?

How can we even attempt to try to be vigilant, and fight for our freedom, when our current government -encourages- your neighbors to spy on you?
(btw, please note the part in the red box...knowing your rights, and being familiar with the US Constitution makes you a terror suspect)

And isn't the attempt at blacking out the photographs of the caskets of our dead soldiers also censorship?

And Altering History is another form of censorship.(Yes, the example was "mild", but indicative of the current atmosphere in this country)

If definition #1 isn't stopped, then definition #2 will become reality.
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
BradyH1861 said:
When I was in grad school, I took a course in Modern Germany 1871-1945 as an elective. The professor said something very interesting that has stayed with me longer than the information learned in the class.

He said "Nazism is a uniquely German phenomenon. Fascism, however, can happen anywhere."

Oh, and after banning free speech, etc, Hitler also outlawed private ownership of firearms.....just thought I'd pass that along too :guns:

Brady H.

Yup.

But see, there's a more "Cowboy" mentality here in the US. If the government tried to completely outlaw personal firearms, there would be rioting in the streets ASAP....most likely -with- their guns. You know this as well as I do, and it doesn't take a high IQ for anyone to figure that out, including the government.

Besides, by the time it gets to the point that personal firearms are outlawed, it'll already be too late.
 

parowley

Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
2
Location
Vancouver, BC
*Sigh*

I'm new to Absolute Write and the boards, and frankly I wasn't really planning on posting just yet (still a lurker at heart I guess), but I'm just a sucker for political debate and wanted to contribute a little something...

drgnlvr said:
No. Honestly? I think the -intended- goal of our current government is to create a Fascist state. And they're doing a darn fine job of it.

And sorry if I -do- seem overly cynical. But I'm seeing way too much going on that is ugly, and dangerous.

Laurence Britt wrote a little something a while back called "Fascism Anyone?" in which he outlines 14 points that are common to some of the great fascist regimes of history (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet were his case studies) and then sees how well the administration of George W. Bush matches up with the these other regimes.

The results are pretty darn scary....let's take a look shall we?

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.

Well, as one of America's neighbours to the north (you can even tell with my fancy shmancy spelling) I've always thought that Americans were an incredibly patriotic lot...almost pathologically so in fact. Ever since 9/11 however it was taken to a whole new level, understandably in my opinion, yet also disturbing. Case in point, quite often I'll take a look at CNN or Fox News, not for news but for entertainment (if I want news I'll take the BBC thankyouverymuch) and I'm shocked at how often debate is stifled by responses that basically amount to "if you disagree with the policy of our government you're 'Un-american' or 'un-patriotic.'" In my opinion the Bush's American clearly meets this point.

2) Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights.
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, 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.

Abhu Garib, GitMo, the leaked "torture memo." Need I say more?

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.

Well, I do believe that terrorists should be eliminated. Absolutely and whole heartedly. And while I do believe that the Bush administration is expending SOME of it's energy towards that end it seems that once they had the pretext of a war on terror they got a little bit side tracked onto other things...like a certain middle eastern country that shall remain nameless.

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 professions are glamorized.

There are serious, serious, serious domestic problems in the United States. Infrastructure is falling apart. Health care is a shambles (I realize that as a Canadian I'm a bit biased when it comes to that). Many regions still live in absolutely crushing, almost third world poverty. The proposed military budget for 2006 is $2.57 trillion dollars, yet many social programs are being cut. Does the US military, by far the MOST powerful military in the world, really need all that money? Frankly I kind of wonder...

As for the glorification of soldiers and military professions all you need do is take a look at a recruitment video and see that there's at least a little bit of truth to that...

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.

The big flap over gay marriage would seem to back up this criteria. So too would Bush's expressed desire to get rid of Roe v. Wade in regards to abortion.

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 sympathetic media spokepeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Look at the way Fox News covers a story. Compare it to the way that the BBC covers the story. If you want an even bigger contrast go and comapre it to the way that Al Jazeera covers the story. There will always be bias in the media. What's scary is the lack of alternative news sources in mainstream American culture these days. Also scary is the way in which the Bush administration and channels like Fox News went on the attack when Newsweek (it was Newsweek wasn't it?) ran their story about Koran desecration at GitMo. A wee bit ironic that after being dragged through the mud and accused of severely damaging US interests abroad that corroborating evidence came up in some leaked FBI documents...

File that under things that make you go "hmmmm"...

7) Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

I believe it was drgnlvr who commented on a startling connection between Bush taking a dive in the polls and the rainbow alert (or whatever the damn thing's called) goes up. Using fear for political gain? Naaaaah.

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.

Bush describing the war on terror as a "crusade" (talk about a poor choice of words). The on-going Creationism vs. Theory of Evolution debate in many southern school districts. Tom DeLay saying that "the US need not separate Church and state." The so-called "Judicial War on Faith" (yikes).

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.

I don't think that anyone can possibly deny that the Bush administration has some very, very close ties to big business. Some of these dealings are more than a little shady. Case in point, many of the Iraq reconstruction contracts going to Halliburton without a competitive bidding process. Or the supreme court overturning the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in regards to Enron. Smells fishy to me.

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.

Labor relations in the US is something I know next to nothing about, so I'm not going to comment too much asides from saying that given the government/big business ties I don't see how they possibly COULD be pro-Union as well...

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.

One need look only at the lack of open and spirited debate when it comes to policy to see a form of censorship (true people aren't being locked up, but it's not an atmosphere that lends itself to constructive debate). Bush has also repeatedly slashed funding for things like the National Endowment for the Arts and education.

12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment
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.

The Patriot Act fits very nicely into this niche.

13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes are almost always governed by by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental powers 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.

Big business connections again. The deep personal friendships and family ties (especially with George sr.) that many members of Bush's cabinet have.

14) Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

One word: FLORIDA!!!!!!


Does all this mean that the United States has devolved into a fascist regime?

I don't believe it's quite that bad. I do believe, however, that things have definitely, definitely, definitely taken a turn for the worse since Dubya has been Commander in Chief (to my mind the Patriot Act is a symptom of the underlying problems).

Terrorism was always with us and it will always be with us. Everyone has a right to protect themselves and those they love. What I think we should all ask ourselves is whether legislation like the Patriot Act and policy like the invasion of Iraq are making things safer or if they're moving us closer and closer to the brink...

Personally I'd say it was the latter...
 

parowley

Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
2
Location
Vancouver, BC
Thanks for the warm reception drgnlvr, all I have to say is that it's amazing what a bout of insomnia and a lively political debate can do...

Oh...and I wish I could take credit for all of that, but without Laurence Britt's wonderful article I would of had a much, much harder time expressing all of that in an organized, concise fashion...
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
parowley said:
Laurence Britt wrote a little something a while back called "Fascism Anyone?" in which he outlines 14 points that are common to some of the great fascist regimes of history (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet were his case studies) and then sees how well the administration of George W. Bush matches up with the these other regimes.

The results are pretty darn scary....let's take a look shall we?
Yes, let's. And let's further see how they can be correctly interpreted.

parowley said:
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.

Well, as one of America's neighbours to the north (you can even tell with my fancy shmancy spelling) I've always thought that Americans were an incredibly patriotic lot...almost pathologically so in fact. Ever since 9/11 however it was taken to a whole new level, understandably in my opinion, yet also disturbing. Case in point, quite often I'll take a look at CNN or Fox News, not for news but for entertainment (if I want news I'll take the BBC thankyouverymuch) and I'm shocked at how often debate is stifled by responses that basically amount to "if you disagree with the policy of our government you're 'Un-american' or 'un-patriotic.'" In my opinion the Bush's American clearly meets this point.
This was also fairly typical of the US during WWII, a time when the US lead the fight against Fascism. I guess it's sad to me when a love of one's country is equated to fascism.

parowley said:
2) Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights.
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, 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.

Abhu Garib, GitMo, the leaked "torture memo." Need I say more?
Yes, I think you do. Are you seriously comparing the abuses (and there were abuses) of Abhu Garib with the beheading in the Iraq? With the mass execution of Jews by the Nazis? With the physical and psychological torture inflicted by the North Koreans? Muslim clerics encouraging suicide bombings? You are measuring with the wrong scale.

parowley said:
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.

Well, I do believe that terrorists should be eliminated. Absolutely and whole heartedly. And while I do believe that the Bush administration is expending SOME of it's energy towards that end it seems that once they had the pretext of a war on terror they got a little bit side tracked onto other things...like a certain middle eastern country that shall remain nameless.
Unified? The US? If we're in such a unified frenzy, you certainly can't tell it by the news, radio, television, or this board. In fact, this country is split about in half between conservatives and liberals. I think that's rather healthy.

parowley said:
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 professions are glamorized.

There are serious, serious, serious domestic problems in the United States. Infrastructure is falling apart. Health care is a shambles (I realize that as a Canadian I'm a bit biased when it comes to that). Many regions still live in absolutely crushing, almost third world poverty. The proposed military budget for 2006 is $2.57 trillion dollars, yet many social programs are being cut. Does the US military, by far the MOST powerful military in the world, really need all that money? Frankly I kind of wonder...

As for the glorification of soldiers and military professions all you need do is take a look at a recruitment video and see that there's at least a little bit of truth to that...
You make a lot of claims with no proof. Infrastructure falling apart? I don't see that. Healthcare a shambles? I work in a very large health care system and it is not a shambles. Third world poverty? Ridiculous! Why then are Mexicans streaming into our borders? Yes our military budget is increasing. We ARE fighting a war pretty much alone. Thanks for your help. And glorification of the soldier in military recruitment. You find that disturbing? It's an AD! What should they say to try to encourage people to join?

parowley said:
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.

The big flap over gay marriage would seem to back up this criteria. So too would Bush's expressed desire to get rid of Roe v. Wade in regards to abortion.
Let's see: Condolezza Rice. She is in a very high position for a male dominated regime.

Yes, there is question in this country about gay marriage. This is a far cry from "anti-gay" legislation. Gay people are freer now than ever and this freedom is increasing. And Row v. Wade. Let's not forget that while Bush is against it, it HAS been the law in this land for 30 years.

parowley said:
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 sympathetic media spokepeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Look at the way Fox News covers a story. Compare it to the way that the BBC covers the story. If you want an even bigger contrast go and comapre it to the way that Al Jazeera covers the story. There will always be bias in the media. What's scary is the lack of alternative news sources in mainstream American culture these days. Also scary is the way in which the Bush administration and channels like Fox News went on the attack when Newsweek (it was Newsweek wasn't it?) ran their story about Koran desecration at GitMo. A wee bit ironic that after being dragged through the mud and accused of severely damaging US interests abroad that corroborating evidence came up in some leaked FBI documents...

File that under things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Illogic. Just because Fox doesn't report it the way the BBC doesn't make Fox wrong. You are assuming facts not in evidence. In fact, the fact that Fox reports things differently than CNN or MSNBC, is evidence that our media is NOT controlled in any way.

parowley said:
7) Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

I believe it was drgnlvr who commented on a startling connection between Bush taking a dive in the polls and the rainbow alert (or whatever the damn thing's called) goes up. Using fear for political gain? Naaaaah.
Well, forgive us for being concerned about a big hole at the Southern tip of Manhattan.

parowley said:
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.

Bush describing the war on terror as a "crusade" (talk about a poor choice of words). The on-going Creationism vs. Theory of Evolution debate in many southern school districts. Tom DeLay saying that "the US need not separate Church and state." The so-called "Judicial War on Faith" (yikes).
Yes. And the law of this land IS a "wall of separation" between church and state. It is also the tradition of this country for people to feel free to question and have opinions about this for and against.

parowley said:
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.

I don't think that anyone can possibly deny that the Bush administration has some very, very close ties to big business. Some of these dealings are more than a little shady. Case in point, many of the Iraq reconstruction contracts going to Halliburton without a competitive bidding process. Or the supreme court overturning the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in regards to Enron. Smells fishy to me.
No government can NOT have close ties to big business. John Kerry had close ties to big business. Even the Canadian government has close ties to big business. The reason is that government needs big business and big business needs the government. The surest way to drive your economy into the ground is to try to punish big business.

parowley said:
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.

Labor relations in the US is something I know next to nothing about, so I'm not going to comment too much asides from saying that given the government/big business ties I don't see how they possibly COULD be pro-Union as well...
Labor is losing ground in this country at the grassroots level, not by any surpression from above.

parowley said:
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.

One need look only at the lack of open and spirited debate when it comes to policy to see a form of censorship (true people aren't being locked up, but it's not an atmosphere that lends itself to constructive debate). Bush has also repeatedly slashed funding for things like the National Endowment for the Arts and education.
Since when is it a right for governments to fund the Arts? Preposterous! And I see a lot of open and spirited debate. Right here on this board in fact.

parowley said:
12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment
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.

The Patriot Act fits very nicely into this niche.
Police do not have limitless powers, even under th Patriot Act. And as seen by the dust up over Abhu Garib, people are not "willing to overlook police abuses".

parowley said:
13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes are almost always governed by by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental powers 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.

Big business connections again. The deep personal friendships and family ties (especially with George sr.) that many members of Bush's cabinet have.
Again, connection to big business does not equate to Saddam looting millions from Iraq. It's a comparison of apples to oranges.

parowley said:
14) Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

One word: FLORIDA!!!!!!
Sometimes elections have problems. That was one. But to equate this with the kind of wide spread abuse that fascist nations use is ludicrious and disingenuous. Oh, and who was assassinated in Florida?

It really looks to me like Laurence Britt simply looked for things he didn't like in the US and retrofitted them (stretching them quite a bit) to fit into the defintion of Fascism.
 

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
1,634
Age
59
Location
Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Or New Babbage, Second
Website
www.sherylnantus.com
considering that for the past decade, coming up on two, there has only been ONE political party running Canada (and extremely corrupt, as the recent headlines are detailing) and the country is rapidly becoming a Third World country, I'd take the "broken" US anytime...

jmo, ymmv.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
drgnlvr said:
But the act of "terrorism" in Germany, and the subsequent loss of freedom, the scapegoating of certain groups, and the gaining of absolute power by the people in charge are all very familiar feeling. The names and faces are different, but the similarities are there, and it has the potential to become another Nazi Germany, if we are not very, very careful, and very, very vigilant. It creeps closer and closer to that line, every day.

No, the similarities are not there, especially with regard to "the scapegoating of certain groups..." The Jews were easy targets for the Nazis for a number of very specific and unique historical conditions. A primary one is that the German defeat in WWI was attributed (by the Junkers and their political sympathizers) to the Jews at large. It was argued that the Jews did not support the country in the war, did not contribute their fair share, held back their wealth...all untrue, by the way. The defeat was thus becuase of a "stab in the back" by the Jews and their allies. Furthermore, because many Jews were successful, well-educated, and professional, it appeared to the general populace that this was a valid argument.

As Brady already noted, there was no history of democracy in Germany; it was a new thing to the Germans. And note that many of them were never happy about it from the start. It was forced down their throats...

Again, I would say our potential lies not on this raod, but on the opposit one of socialism (though they both end up in the same place). We are creeping closer to that line becuase of bureaucratic growth and the accompanying loss of freedom such growth engenders.

Yet, the real hole in your argument about our approach to fascism/Nazism is the very definition you cited-both require massive socioeconomic controls; the only people reaching for anyhting approaching this requirement are the same ones trying to increase taxes, increase entitlements, etc.

Rob :)
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
BradyH1861 said:
I'm sorry I missed the program. From how you described things, it sounds like our city council meetings! (talk about people up to no good and drunk with their own power...)

:Shrug:

Brady H.

Sorry I missed this earlier, Brady. You can see the travesty on c-span.org.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
parowley said:
Thanks for the warm reception drgnlvr, all I have to say is that it's amazing what a bout of insomnia and a lively political debate can do...
parowley,

I'm glad you found a welcome at AW. It's a pretty awesome place for writers. But one of the ground rules is respect for fellow writers. This doesn't mean we never disagree, but we do so without belittling or insulting each other.

It might interest you to know that there are some Americans here who love their country and support their President. Everyone here has a right to an opinion, but comparing the USA to a fascist state crosses the line from opinion into disrespect. Such name-calling is not in the spirit of this board.

I hope you stick around. There is no more supportive place on the web for writers.
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma
Roger J Carlson said:
It might interest you to know that there are some Americans here who love their country and support their President. Everyone here has a right to an opinion, but comparing the USA to a fascist state crosses the line from opinion into disrespect. Such name-calling is not in the spirit of this board.

Forgive me Roger, but if you are going to scold someone for comparing the US to a Fascist state, I deserve a ding too.

Let's be fair here.
 

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
The question isn't whether the Patriot Act should be renewed -- of course not. It shouldn't have been passed in the first place. The question is whether the Bill of Rights should be renewed. We've forgotten that.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
drgnlvr said:
Forgive me Roger, but if you are going to scold someone for comparing the US to a Fascist state, I deserve a ding too.

Let's be fair here.
Yes and no. You are a US citizen are you not? As such, you have a right to believe that YOUR government is becoming fascist and to be alarmed by that fact. But parowley is Canadian. It is an entirely different thing to tell us that OUR government is becoming fascist. She has a right to believe that and be alarmed by it. But it is disrespectful for him/her to come here, call MY President by an insulting name, and claim that MY country is becoming a fascist state.

I might call my brother a slob, but it is impolite for you to call my brother a slob.

Canadians should look to the problems in their own goverment and not comment on ours.

And if you are not a US citizen, then yes, my scold applies to you as well.

Aside: Why is it all right for Canadians to be proud of Canada, but it is not all right for Americans to be proud of the US?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.