Fascist America, in 10 easy steps [Archive]

Skeptic Ginger

11th October 2007, 10:26 PM

OK, OK, I know, the title is inflammatory and my reputation in the political threads is going to prevent some people from taking a serious look at this topic. However, the title isn't mine and I ask you all to leave your patriotic flags, your, "not in my America" and "you're full of it" comments out of the discussion.

Let me set this straight right here (even though it'll still be missed by some), I am not claiming this country is fascist, nor that Bush is, nor that the NeoCons are, nor that it is inevitable, or anything of the kind.

And Nazi Germany as well as the dictators of the time, including Hitler, are going to be mentioned in this thread. I only refer to these people for the historical record. Any correlation with people or events of today is up to each reader to determine for themselves but that is not what this thread is about.

Change of this nature is insidious. The politics of fear is very successful. Here is where this is all coming from: I heard author, Naomi Wolf, talk about her book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot" (http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/1933392797), which outlines 10 steps which in history preceded the development of fascists states. I almost went to hear her speak but I just couldn't spare the time.

Here are the steps from a web article discussing them in detail (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html): 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy 2. Create a gulag 3. Develop a thug caste 4. Set up an internal surveillance system 5. Harass citizens' groups 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release 7. Target key individuals 8. Control the press 9. Dissent equals treason 10. Suspend the rule of law

Some of you may have seen Wolf on the Colbert Report a couple days ago. Here's a link via the Crooks and Liars web site. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/20/the-colbert-report-naomi-wolf-on-fascism-in-america/) I didn't pay as much attention to her then as I did when she had an hour to explain her position and evidence in more detail.

Which brings me to where is my opinion of this all? I simply don't know. History tells us modern countries with reasonable democracies have changed into completely different countries over and over again. This country had its McCarthy era. We added, "one nation under God", to the Pledge of Allegiance in response to 'the red scare' in the 50s. The South was a dangerous place to live if you were "an uppity black" as recently as the early 70s. The point I am making here is people can act in some pretty scary ways regardless of how normal they seem otherwise.

I also have no way of judging where we actually are on the slippery slope and whether like in the McCarthy era, the pendulum will just swing back, or whether things could get scarier than they are now. It seems the pendulum is swinging back, but then all that talk about going to war with Iran and Bush having a year left really concerns me.

The above labels of the 10 steps lead one to say that isn't going on here in America. But if you read the examples described in the book you see that the same steps occurring here is not that far fetched. Here's one right wing response. (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/04/were_becoming_a_fascist_societ.php) It attacks the titles and ignores most of the examples Wolf used to explain her reasoning. I suppose it's a bit foolish to expect already mentioning these will head off the same replies here. But it would be nice if we didn't have to discuss the meaning of "gulag" and could instead talk about whether the secret CIA prisons and Gitmo were in any way similar to prisons which preceded the development of other fascist states in history.

While it's obviously hard to imagine this country changing in any extreme way, what is it that prevents it from happening? Did other people have the same beliefs before their countries became fascist? Did the Germans of 1930 really imagine the Germany they would find in 1945? And Germany isn't the only example. Wolf discusses fascist movements in a much broader way than oversimplifying it into Hitler's Nazis.

So forgetting the nonsensical arguments about the words: fascism, Nazis, Hitler and gulags, where are we when you consider secret prisons, legalizing torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Patriot Act, fear-mongering, private armies, and so on? "Are we there yet?" aside, I think when you start adding it up Wolf does make her case that the signs of possibility are there. Beware of insidious changes that sneak up on people before they realize it.

**latent aaaack actually started a similar thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95202) but it seemed like we needed a new one to discuss this author's book and because la's poll confused me. I told him I'd give him the credit.

KoihimeNakamura

11th October 2007, 10:31 PM

So, basically, you don't want us to dispute your evidence? Stunning assertion

ETA: I should really run a spell check on my posts when I'm sleepy. I could have SWORN it said dispute.

corplinx

11th October 2007, 10:56 PM

Pardalis

11th October 2007, 11:08 PM

lionking

11th October 2007, 11:15 PM

And why should we listen to Naomi Wolf?

From her Wiki biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf) she doesn't seem to have much of credentials... in anything relevant.
She's an unreconstructed leftie with a long history of anti-american rhetoric. And I am not american nor do I view all things american as bright and beautiful.

damien pastaume

11th October 2007, 11:24 PM

danielk

11th October 2007, 11:30 PM

We are moving towards unified law, unfied economies and ultimately unified world government.

Ah, well, if that's going to be the definition of "fascism" then the United States of America is definitely the worst example one could come up with.

Pardalis

11th October 2007, 11:33 PM

Miss Wolf in 2006:

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/naomi-wolf-encounters-jesus.html

Can I say woo?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13368/naomi-wolf-i-had-a-vision-of-jesus

CFLarsen

12th October 2007, 01:46 AM

I have skeptigirl on ignore because her opinions on politics are rarely skeptical ...

Which opinions on politics are skeptical?

Are you saying that politics can be determined skeptically? That we can examine the evidence and be able to vote for the politician with the best skeptically founded political agenda?

Wolfman

12th October 2007, 02:17 AM

corplinx

12th October 2007, 02:18 AM

Which opinions on politics are skeptical?

Are you saying that politics can be determined skeptically? That we can examine the evidence and be able to vote for the politician with the best skeptically founded political agenda?

I wasn't saying anything remotely like that. I was saying that this poster acts like a git when the subject is politics.

For instance, skeptigirl once opened a thread about a Bill Moyers documentary that made some fantastic claims about the news media in relation to the Iraq war. Instead of posting it as a matter of skeptical inquiry, it was posted as an accusation and/or fact. Out of boredom, I picked a few of the claims/evidence at random from the transcript of the documentary and found they were either incorrect or grossly out-of-context to the point of being outright deception with simple google searches verifying the facts or going back to original sources.

This revelation wasn't met with the attitude of a skeptic. It was met with the attitude of a believer. This person reacted with hostility to this sort of challenge on what they had accepted as fact.

Politicians and those who write about them can make claims that can be put under scrutiny. Otherwise this subforum would be sort of pointless.

CFLarsen

12th October 2007, 02:40 AM

I wasn't saying anything remotely like that. I was saying that this poster acts like a git when the subject is politics.

For instance, skeptigirl once opened a thread about a Bill Moyers documentary that made some fantastic claims about the news media in relation to the Iraq war. Instead of posting it as a matter of skeptical inquiry, it was posted as an accusation and/or fact. Out of boredom, I picked a few of the claims/evidence at random from the transcript of the documentary and found they were either incorrect or grossly out-of-context to the point of being outright deception with simple google searches verifying the facts or going back to original sources.

This revelation wasn't met with the attitude of a skeptic. It was met with the attitude of a believer. This person reacted with hostility to this sort of challenge on what they had accepted as fact.

Politicians and those who write about them can make claims that can be put under scrutiny. Otherwise this subforum would be sort of pointless.

Of course we should put claims made by politicians and those who write about them under scrutiny.

But where does opinions on politics come in?

Can you name one person whose opinions on politics are skeptical?

Kevin_Lowe

12th October 2007, 02:51 AM

Well, at least Wolfman responded to the points made rather than attacking Naomi Wolf or the original poster.

Myself I agree that the USA under GWB is far more like a fascist state than it was previously, but it's still very much unlike full-blown fascism, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to think the trend will continue after the next Presidential election. Anything's possible but I currently see no strong reason to believe it.

Darat

12th October 2007, 03:26 AM

TragicMonkey

12th October 2007, 03:33 AM

At least fascism comes with sexy uniforms. Every cloud has a silver lining, sort of thing.

Chaos

12th October 2007, 03:39 AM

Gurdur

12th October 2007, 04:02 AM

Meh³. Corplinx said it best, both as to topic and as to OP poster. This kind of overstated, hysterical **** really pisses me off; it destroys all the real criticism of the Bush regime by taking up all the space to make it in, and making all criticism look bad by association.

Wolfman

12th October 2007, 09:39 AM

OK, OK, I know, the title is inflammatory and my reputation in the political threads is going to prevent some people from taking a serious look at this topic. With all due respect...while our opinions on Bush are pretty much the same, if this is the kind of material that you think constitutes a thoughtful or substantive examination of the issues, I'd entirely disagree. And if this constitutes the kind of posts that you would typically make, I can understand why some people would stop taking a serious look at what you say.

There is no balance...where is the discussion of the significantly greater freedoms that Americans have than did the Germans under Hitler or the Italians under Mussolini? Where is the point that Hitler and Mussolini had no restrictions on how long they could remain in power, and were thus able to enact long-term policies that would be virtually impossible for an American president to enact?

And what of the very obvious -- and terribly lame -- attempts to make points in issues such as the "thug caste" thing? She seriously tries to draw a correlation between corporate bodyguards and mercenaries hired to protect industries in Iraq (which are under direct and immediate threat of attack) with Hitler's use of Brownshirts to suppress the populace in Germany...give me a freakin' break!!

A topic which simply discussed some of the losses of freedoms in the U.S., and some of the repressive/abusive policies that have been instituted under Bush Jr....that, I would have no problem with. But starting a topic by using such a terrible and anti-intellectual example as Wolf...its hardly surprising what peoples' responses are. Those who disagree with you politically will dismiss you entirely -- as they should (I would likewise dismiss entirely the argument of a pro-Bush apologist who used similar arguments to support their beliefs); the only ones who will find merit in it are the people who already agree with you, and who have no problem with distorting or ignoring facts in order to prove they are "right".

I like ya', skeptigirl; but I cannot really find any redeeming feature in this post.

Darth Rotor

12th October 2007, 10:01 AM

OK, OK, I know, the title is inflammatory
Ya think?
I am not claiming this country is fascist, nor that Bush is, nor that the NeoCons are, nor that it is inevitable, or anything of the kind.
Check.
And Nazi Germany as well as the dictators of the time, including Hitler, are going to be mentioned in this thread. I only refer to these people for the historical record.
I only ever read Playboy for the articles and jokes, really. Why not use Chile under Pinochet or Spain under Franco as analogues? Get out of the old paradigm, stretch a bit.
Change of this nature is insidious. The politics of fear is very successful.
Agreed.
I almost went to hear her speak but I just couldn't spare the time.
So it goes.
Which brings me to where is my opinion of this all? I simply don't know.
The future is indeed murky.
History tells us modern countries with reasonable democracies have changed into completely different countries over and over again.
Some examples that are not America would be helpful.
The point I am making here is people can act in some pretty scary ways regardless of how normal they seem otherwise.
AGreed. Anti fur fanatics throwing blood on people coming out of a shop, enviro idiots spiking trees, and idiots in Jasper Texas dragging a black man behind a pick up truck come to mind, in varying degrees of nuts and pretty scary.
I also have no way of judging where we actually are on the slippery slope and whether like in the McCarthy era, the pendulum will just swing back, or whether things could get scarier than they are now.
About to hit another mogul. The slope's a black diamond.
It seems the pendulum is swinging back, but then all that talk about going to war with Iran and Bush having a year left really concerns me.
Pan back toward your original big picture, the Iraq War is a subset of a huge undertaking that is "doing that American thing." It bleeds, to it leads, and thus acts as a smokescreen for some other stuff, like nanny state CA arresting people for smoking in their own cars.
But it would be nice if we didn't have to discuss the meaning of "gulag" and could instead talk about whether the secret CIA prisons and Gitmo were in any way similar to prisons which preceded the development of other fascist states in history.
The CIA secret spots tend to be overseas, so the comparison falls down a bit, and Gitmo is an attempt at something like a holding cell and a POW camp, on foreign soil again. Trying to shoehorn them into another model for the convenience of an example is a poor way to structure an argument, if that is what you are doing, rather than parroting Wolf's thoughts on the matter.
While it's obviously hard to imagine this country changing in any extreme way, what is it that prevents it from happening?
Vox populi, perhaps, which swung the pendulum away from decriminalizing dope in the 1980's. Too bad. NORML was, IMO, on the right track.
Did other people have the same beliefs before their countries became fascist?
Fascism and nationalism were cousins in Italy and Germany, and in Franco's Spain (ask a Basque) so why not look at where nationalism in the US is headed. As I see it, the US is balkanizing, not cohering under a national banner, and has been since the Berlin Wall fell. (perhaps since before that.) It may be that some factions in America wish to reverse this Balkanization, but given the memes and technology, that genie is out of the bottle. My two cents.
Did the Germans of 1930 really imagine the Germany they would find in 1945?
Of course not. No one starts a war with the intent of losing it, in 1939, and no one in 1930 had yet considered Hitler as Chancellor. Getting out of their economic mess was a huge factor, what with the stories of people taking a wheelbarrow full of Reichsmarks to buy some bread.
And Germany isn't the only example. Wolf discusses fascist movements in a much broader way than oversimplifying it into Hitler's Nazis.
I'd suggest you take a tip from her, and deflect the Godwin objections earlier in your presentation.
[B]So forgetting the nonsensical arguments about the words: fascism,
No. You put it into the post's title. Words are used for a purpose.
Where are we when you consider secret prisons, legalizing torture,
In a position to change it, now that it is out in the open.
suspension of Habeas Corpus,
Evidence, please? Lincoln did it, I am unaware of that writ being suspended in America, and certainly not in Texas.
the Patriot Act,
Needs fixing, and revision, or a major rewrite.
fear-mongering,
You will never get rid of that, it's part of politics. Reefer Madness. The War on Drugs. "Three Strikes and you are out!" policy. Ten Steps to Fascism is, wait for it, fear mongering. ;)
private armies
The mercs are, for the moment, mostly being hired to fight foreign wars, so your objection is to Empire, not Fascism. Please check the WN, Libertarian, and Chomsky offerings for some fine supporting material. See also antiwar.com for some stuff on anti Imperialist comments, or just visit Ron Paul's web site. ;) I tend to favor Lind's commentary on some of that stuff.
"Are we there yet?"
No, but I would not mind a course correction. I find the influence of multinational corporations vis a vis The State (and not just in the US) as an unhealthy political development. Not a fan of plutocracy, which we risk turning into far more quickly than a fascist state. Adding Bread and Circuses as a misdirection plays into your next point . . .
I think when you start adding it up Wolf does make her case that the signs of possibility are there. Beware of insidious changes that sneak up on people before they realize it.
Boiling a frog is not a thought original to Naomi Wolf.

DR

CFLarsen

12th October 2007, 10:58 AM

If there is one word that can stir up a greater **** storm than "gulag", and thus detract more from a reasonable discussion, it is "concentration camp".

Try saying that in Russia.

Besides, using the term "concentration camp" is 100% guaranteed to cause one or more patriotic zombies to respond "But we´re not imprisoning and murdering millions of jews, so how DARE you use this term, you anti-American terrorist-hugging scum?".

Therefore, it makes sense to use the term "gulag".

It doesn't make sense to use any of the terms. First, concentration camps is not a Nazi invention:

The English term "concentration camp" was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during the 1899-1902 Second Boer War[5]. Allegedly conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were used to confine and control large numbers of civilians as part of a Scorched Earth tactic. The term "concentration camp" was coined at this time to signify the "concentration" of a large number of people in one place, and was used to describe both the camps in South Africa (1899-1902) and those established by the Spanish to support a similar anti-insurgency campaign in Cuba (circa 1895-1898 [6]), although at least some Spanish sources disagree with the comparison.[7]
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camp)

Second, gulags were a special kind of concentration camp, where primarily political enemies of the state were sent:

It was the branch of the State Security that operated the penal system of forced labour camps and associated detention and transit camps and prisons. While these camps housed criminals of all types, the Gulag system has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet state. Though it imprisoned millions, the name became familiar in the West only with the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 1973 The Gulag Archipelago, which likened the scattered camps to a chain of islands.

The word "Gulag" has also come to signify not only the administration of the concentration camps but also the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women's camps, children's camps, transit camps., Even more broadly, "Gulag" has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself, the set of procedures that prisoners once called the "meat-grinder": the arrests, the interrogations, the transport in unheated cattle cars, the forced labor, the destruction of families, the years spent in exile, the early and unnecessary deaths.[2]
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag)

Gitmo can in no way be described as a "gulag", since the prisoners are not there for political reasons, nor is Gitmo a slave camp.

shemp

12th October 2007, 11:02 AM

I have skeptigirl on ignore because her opinions on politics are rarely skeptical and honestly remind me of those of a high senior in all-black mad at the establishment.

Did you mean "high school senior", or an elderly weed smoker?

SpaceMonkeyZero

12th October 2007, 01:29 PM

Did you mean "high school senior", or an elderly weed smoker?

I think he meant a high school senior weed smoker.

corplinx

12th October 2007, 01:32 PM

I mean that kid in high school wearing combat boots, all black, and carrying around a black notebook full of their poems and musings with an anarchy symbol poorly drawn on with a ball point pen and then traced over with a sharpie.

You know the type.

Heck, it used to be me....

Beerina

12th October 2007, 01:37 PM

A senior citizen in all black is probably just back from attending a funeral. As the baby booom generation moves into retirement, there will be more and more such black-attired weed smokers.

I have skeptigirl on ignore because her opinions on politics are rarely skeptical

Libertarians are the skeptic of politics. Let the flames commence. (Some long string of words) and therefore you should obey me, God's representative, and (some long string of words) and therefore you should obey me, The People's representative, are eerily similar for more than just surface reasons. As with religion, in politics let people be free, such that your crazy (religious or political idea) is fine, but don't tell me I have to obey it, too. You and a hundred million of your closest buddies are free to go Do What Thou Wilt, but leave me out of it, thanks.

Silly Green Monkey

12th October 2007, 02:32 PM

Pardalis

12th October 2007, 02:38 PM

I saw this on the Sluggy Freelance boards earlier. Strangely enough, respondents there were able to debate the ideas there without any references to either the characters of the author or the original poster. On a board for a webcomic!

Maybe they, like Skeptigirl, gobble up anything that comes from a liberal source as gospel truth and don't bother to check if that source has any viable knowledge of political science and history to be making such a list in the first place?

Paris Hilton's grocery list would have been as much informative.

Silly Green Monkey

12th October 2007, 02:46 PM

Maybe they, like Skeptigirl, gobble up anything that comes from a liberal source as gospel truth and don't bother to check if that source has any viable knowledge of political science and history to be making such a list in the first place?

Paris Hilton's grocery list would have been as much informative.

I was unclear. They clearly and logically analyzed the claims, then clearly and logically showed how they were false. Nothing about liberals, conservatives, or gospel truth. Nothing about gullible fools, nothing about sources, they used knowledge of current events and history to show up every claim. Really, I thought people here were supposed to be better debators than webcomic fans!

Pardalis

12th October 2007, 02:49 PM

It's already been debated, more than enough thank you.

Silly Green Monkey

12th October 2007, 02:50 PM

Is that any excuse for rolling out the ad hominems?

brodski

12th October 2007, 02:53 PM

Libertarians are the skeptic of politics.
Apart from their nutty anti-government CTs...

Pardalis

12th October 2007, 02:55 PM

Is that any excuse for rolling out the ad hominems?

I'm just saying I could be making a list like that and it wouldn't be worth discussing.

Anybody can make up lists of things that are vaguely reminiscent of eachother, are we supposed to discuss every idea that pops up in everyone's minds, especially when it comes to subject matters the person coming up with the list has no expertise in?

Shall we discuss how similar I think the Chinese and the Japanese look like?

CFLarsen

12th October 2007, 03:12 PM

Libertarians are the skeptic of politics. Let the flames commence.

No flames. Just hysterical laughter.

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 03:55 PM

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

1. Invoke or create? Not sure which has been done here.
2. No. We don't have this. Sorry, Gitmo hardly counts. Thats a POW camp, pure and simple, and it's not internal, anyway. If you mean the prisons, with the exception of people imprisoned for things like substance abuse, how is imprisoning violent and economic criminals political? That's what the Soviet Gulag was for. Regular criminals went there too, but it was created for political dissenters.
3. This is America. We've always had thugs. Or do you mean the Hip Hop/Rap culture? The government did not create these people.
4. Yes, that's been done and is advancing anon.
5. Yes, that's being done. It was when the Ds were in power, too. And will be even more so when the Billary is back in power. They are already doing that, and they aren't even back in full power, yet.
6. Perhaps this is being done. If so, on a very limited basis. It's not like the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chicom where the trucks pull up out front and you hear the heavy tread of the backboots on your front walk, no matter what fearmongers on the left like to pretend.
7. Yep. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Tancredo...being targeted, to be sure. But that's not by the "fascists."
8. The media has been controlled fully since about 2001. Before that it was only left-biased, now it is fully left-advocacy. So yeah, that's certainly taken place.
9. Funny...I haven't seen any trials for this. The biggest traitor in the country sits in the Oval Office, to be sure.
10. ...such as?

Tokie

corplinx

12th October 2007, 04:05 PM

Really, I thought people here were supposed to be better debators than webcomic fans!

That a webcomic forum debated a silly idea by a silly author doesn't surprise me. Taking silly topics by neophytes seriously enough to discuss is how we wind up with Loose Change ideas rampant in the populace.

latent aaaack

12th October 2007, 05:22 PM

Let me set this straight right here (even though it'll still be missed by some), I am not claiming this country is fascist, nor that Bush is, nor that the NeoCons are, nor that it is inevitable, or anything of the kind.

Can anynoe offer an explanation for the at least four posts in this thread that referenced a supposed view in the OP that America is fascist? This board rules but it confuses me greatly sometimes. Wolfman? Someone at good at english as you making this mistake multiple times? Seriously, this has become more interesting to me than the topic. If skeptigirl is as good at predicting the future of the country as she is at predicting the responses in the thread before they were made, then time to start digging a shelter.

rtalman

12th October 2007, 05:34 PM

Can anynoe offer an explanation for the at least four posts in this thread that referenced a supposed view in the OP that America is fascist? This board rules but it confuses me greatly sometimes. Wolfman? Someone at good at english as you making this mistake multiple times? Seriously, this has become more interesting to me than the topic. If skeptigirl is as good at predicting the future of the country as she is at predicting the responses in the thread before they were made, then time to start digging a shelter.I read Wolfman's posts as an erudite rebuttal of the article referenced in the OP, not a reference to Skeptigirl's personal views.

Darth Rotor

12th October 2007, 05:39 PM

I read Wolfman's posts as an erudite rebuttal of the article referenced in the OP, not a reference to Skeptigirl's personal views.
That would be due to you having excellent reading comprehension, and reading the link. :)

"A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias' power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.
I tend to agree with this criticism, as I objected to Rummy's last acts on reorg of the National Guard, who are the States' Governors' troops.

DR

rtalman

12th October 2007, 05:42 PM

That would be due to you having excellent reading comprehension, and reading the link. :)

DRAnd I only scored 470 on my SAT Verbals.:p

latent aaaack

12th October 2007, 10:48 PM

I read Wolfman's posts as an erudite rebuttal of the article referenced in the OP, not a reference to Skeptigirl's personal views.

The article doesn't say America is fascist either. Hence the 'warning,' 'steps,' and the entire closing paragraph. So where are all the "America is not fascist" responses coming from? The reasoning aside, the points made in the article were very clearly made, this seems like a mental block being employed against an emotionally distressing arguement.

Gurdur

12th October 2007, 10:54 PM

latent aaaack

13th October 2007, 12:04 AM

No, it's more like pointing out that whatever the bloody USA is, it's not developing in any such genuinely fascist direction, and that the entire train of thought is an absurd over-stretch. It did look a bit like that under Nixon, but the USA has improved a hell of a *********** lot since Nixon. Whatever ills the USA has, in all plentitude, they don't include national fascism or any direction towards it at this time.

</End of reality check>

You can say there are nasty developments. True. You can say surveillance is getting really bad over there. True. You can say they're a pack of bloody bloodthirsty incompetent twats. Often or sometimes true. But you cannot meaningfully say there is any direction towards organised, national fascism.

Not without looking like a bloody idiot, anyway.

Right because however bad it gets we can just vote in a new candidate in that isn't taking the country in an authoritarian direction and is less extreme than the current president. Have you watched the republican debates? In your opinion are the leading candidates more, less, or equally idealogically extreme compared to Bush?

The damage the Bush administration has done to the country is much worse than what Nixon's did. That suggests the trend is in fact away from improvement.

Serious question: how long would 'nasty developments' have to sustainably go on accross different administrations before you would accept that it's not a coincidence and that successive administrations are getting worse, without any percievable mechanism to stop it?

Gurdur

13th October 2007, 12:13 AM

Right because however bad it gets we can just vote in a new candidate in that isn't taking the country in an authoritarian direction and is less extreme than the current president.
No, actually it's a hell of a lot more than that, including the fragmented sociopolitical nature of the USA. Pointing only to POTUS elections would be simplistic. The USA simply is too fragmented (or democratic, whichever you prefer) at this time politically for any such national fascism.

Have you watched the republican debates?
Some. In case I missed any of my brain cells when I squirted malathion up my nose, just to kill the rest.
In your opinion are the leading candidates more, less, or equally idealogically extreme compared to Bush?
Depends. Mostly they're simply different. Too many differences to make an easy comparison of extremism. BTW, Bush, while a total twat, is not such an extremist. Do compare him with Mussolini one day. Bush is far less of a danger.
The damage the Bush administration has done to the country is much worse than what Nixon's did.
I completely disagree, excepting on the economic level.
That suggests the trend is in fact away from improvement.
I completely disagree, excepting on the economic level.
Serious question: how long would 'nasty developments' have to sustainably go on accross different administrations before you would accept that it's not a coincidence and that successive administrations are getting worse, without any percievable mechanism to stop it?
12 years, or 5 very dramatic years, on considering all practicable possibilities.

And it's still not fascism. Have you ever actually visited a genuine police state or similar? I have. The USA, for all its faults, is not there and not going there yet no matter how many wetdreams Cheney or various posters have.

CFLarsen

13th October 2007, 12:27 AM

Sorry, Gitmo hardly counts. Thats a POW camp, pure and simple...

I thought the point was that they were not prisoners of war?

latent aaaack

13th October 2007, 01:19 AM

12 years, or 5 very dramatic years, on considering all practicable possibilities.

Again "Bush is as extreme as Mussolini" isn't in my post, only that Bush is extreme.

12 years starting when the "nasty developments" begin or starting after the initiator of the developments has left office? The frontrunners of the Rebuplican candidates and the war and terrorism prognosis makes it likely that the next four to eight years will contain at least as many "nasty developments" so maybe your opinion isn't that different from mine.

Gurdur

13th October 2007, 07:05 AM

Again "Bush is as extreme as Mussolini" isn't in my post, only that Bush is extreme.
Whereas my point is that as disgusting as he is, he is not as extreme as you think.
12 years starting when the "nasty developments" begin or starting after the initiator of the developments has left office?
From when events begin.
The frontrunners of the Rebuplican candidates and the war and terrorism prognosis makes it likely that the next four to eight years will contain at least as many "nasty developments"
Not really. As gawdawful as some of their policy wants are, on the road to fascism they're not.
so maybe your opinion isn't that different from mine.
I suspect we differ greatly indeed, more than you think. You see, I see far more danger from large business in the USA than from the government. And I prefer my analyses less based on fashionable but false equations, and more based on concrete and specific aspects.

latent aaaack

13th October 2007, 09:06 AM

Whereas my point is that as disgusting as he is, he is not as extreme as you think.

From when events begin.

Not really. As gawdawful as some of their policy wants are, on the road to fascism they're not.

I suspect we differ greatly indeed, more than you think. You see, I see far more danger from large business in the USA than from the government. And I prefer my analyses less based on fashionable but false equations, and more based on concrete and specific aspects.

A boundless progression towards worse presidents in the same vein as Bush/Cheney is in my view indiscernable from a direction towards the break down of our system of government.

The speaker of the house ("Bush administration is the closest to a dictatorship the US has even been"), General Tommy Franks (a Bush supporter who believes the consitution will not survive a WMD attack on a US city), the Comptroller General of the US ("us government is facing long term collapse"), Al Gore (believes American democracy in jeopardy), and Newt Gingrich ("the way we elect leaders is bordering on insane" and believes a wmd attack on a major city would cause massive erosion of civil liberties), are all stupidly fashionable and wrong that America's democracy is in danger?

Note I don't believe any of this is definitely going to happen but the movements that have already been made towards it mean that one should take notice and process it honestly.

Gurdur

13th October 2007, 09:15 AM

A boundless progression towards worse presidents in the same vein as Bush/Cheney is in my view indiscernable from a direction towards the break down of our system of government.
Yeah, well, we bloody differ in opinion.

Al Gore (believes American democracy in jeopardy),
Al Gore has a point. But it's not fascism which is the pressing danger.
and Newt Gingrich ("the way we elect leaders is bordering on insane"
Quoting Newt on this is more than a bit of shooting yourself in the foot, seeing as to all the anti-democratic measures Newt took in various practices around Congress back when he possessed some power.

Note I don't believe any of this is definitely going to happen but the movements that have already been made towards it mean that one should take notice and process it honestly.
Oh, I process all the information honestly. I hope very much that you are not trying to insinuate that I am being dishonest in any way, otherwise I shall say something very sharp indeed about that.

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 02:43 PM

So, basically, you don't want us to dispute your evidence? Stunning assertion

ETA: I should really run a spell check on my posts when I'm sleepy. I could have SWORN it said dispute.Excuse me? Where do you see anything about not wanting the evidence discussed?

I don't want wasted thread space with unsubstantiated denials of the evidence if that's what you mean.

Pardalis

13th October 2007, 02:46 PM

I don't want wasted thread space with unsubstantiated denials of the evidence if that's what you mean.

The evidence must be presented in the first place.

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 02:50 PM

I have skeptigirl on ignore because her opinions on politics are rarely skeptical and honestly remind me of those of a high senior in all-black mad at the establishment.

I took a chance on "view post" and got burned. She linked a Naomi Wolf article/book that has about the same level of intellect and the same sophomoric attitude.For example, this is an unsubstantiated claim Wolf's book isn't valid. Not one single attempt here to address any of the historical events which Wolf specifically correlates to current events.

Those events would be facts. If you refute the facts, provide your evidence. If you disagree with the conclusions, that's to be expected. People are going to fall on a continuum regarding their conclusions about where we are on the slippery slope from 'not at all' to 'beyond the point of no return'. Those conclusions are open to debate but I don't think any of us are going to be very convinced about someone else's conclusions just because they posted they don't like someone else's opinion.

And frankly I am getting sick of it. So here's your notice boys, any further attacks on my character will be reported. The mods can decide if it belongs in the dungeon.

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 02:51 PM

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 02:52 PM

She's an unreconstructed leftie with a long history of anti-american rhetoric. And I am not american nor do I view all things american as bright and beautiful.Care to address anything more specific?

Pardalis

13th October 2007, 02:53 PM

Care to address anything more specific?

Care to provide any reason why anybody should take this list seriously?

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 02:58 PM

Which opinions on politics are skeptical?

Are you saying that politics can be determined skeptically? That we can examine the evidence and be able to vote for the politician with the best skeptically founded political agenda?
Many of the things I have posted on involving politics involve specific incidents and facts. Not everything is an opinion. For example, I posted evidence in the Gonzales attorney firings which was very specific. While a few people replied to the evidence and addressed the evidence, a fair number of folks merely replied with irrelevant ad homs. It's too bad because it does nothing to further our knowledge.

Pardalis

13th October 2007, 03:02 PM

Still waiting for the evidence. What you say is evidence (Wolf's list) is just the opinion of an uneducated person (uneducated in the relevant field, that is).

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 03:10 PM

Well, my responses:

A) I believe there are very legitimate criticisms of U.S. policy under G.W. Bush, in fact I believe he is the worst president the U.S. has ever had, I consider him a political and religious bigot who believes that the combination of overwhelming power and his religious beliefs give him the right to do whatever he wants.

B) That said, there is one whoppingly huge difference between Bush (and the U.S.) and Hitler's Germany (or any other fascist system), and that is the fact that Bush will be out of power in a short time, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. More and more Americans are themselves expressing their distrust/dislike of Bush, and of his party.

That is a crucial difference; it is entirely impossible within a democratic system to guarantee that you do not sometimes get terrible leaders. But you can remove them relatively easily.

C) I also find Wolf's writing to be terribly immature and partisan. Take the example of her section on "Develop a Thug Caste"; she really, really has to stretch to make even a weak argument in this category. This isn't a rational, logical discussion that looks at both sides of the question in an effort to find reasonable answers; it is a politically motivated and partisan effort wherein conclusions have been made before it was begun, and facts are twisted and abused to make them fit that "truth".

D) Following on point 'C', Bush's administration has proven incredibly skilled at utilizing the very same tactic over and over and over. They decide what result they want, or what 'truth' they think is best, and then simply twist the facts in whatever way they can to get people to follow them.

Which brings me to E) how can someone who claims to oppose Bush turn around and use the very same dishonest and unethical tools that Bush and Co. have used? The very first standard that I will use in judging anyone who claims to be 'better' than Bush is whether or not they hold themselves to a higher moral/ethical standard.

Sure, in the words and principles she uses, Ms. Wolf claims a higher moral ground; but in her actions -- in her willingness to abuse or distort truth, or to present only those truths that fit her argument and ignore all others, in order to manipulate people to accept her arguments -- I see little or no difference whatsoever.This is an example of a reply to the evidence. Thank you WM for actually replying to the OP.

I also think Bush leaving power in 08 will mean the pendulum is indeed swinging back into line and things will be fine. What worries me is the rhetoric increasing about evil Iran and Bush having a year left.

And the followers of that rhetoric also concern me. The number of people in that mob is key. I don't think it is that big right now. I do wonder how big it would get under a number of different scenarios such as another 9/11 or Bush invading Iran despite what the Congress wants.

John Hagee (http://www.jhm.org/) was on Glen Beck yesterday going on about his absolute certainty we are in the "End Times". Beck was gleefully (and I mean that literally) saying how pleased he was Hagee was saying, "all the things [Beck had] been saying." It was frightening not knowing how many people in addition to Hagee's claimed 18,000 member church were also "absolutely certain" we are in the "End Times". There could be enough in such a group to create a critical mass should they become convinced the US attacking Iran is part of God's plan.

Pardalis

13th October 2007, 03:14 PM

This is an example of a reply to the evidence.

Again, what is your definition of "evidence"? :confused:

Pardalis

13th October 2007, 03:20 PM

John Hagee (http://www.jhm.org/) was on Glen Beck yesterday going on about his absolute certainty we are in the "End Times". Beck was gleefully (and I mean that literally) saying how pleased he was Hagee was saying, "all the things [Beck had] been saying." It was frightening not knowing how many people in addition to Hagee's claimed 18,000 member church were also "absolutely certain" we are in the "End Times". There could be enough in such a group to create a critical mass should they become convinced the US attacking Iran is part of God's plan.

And Naomi Wolf thinks Jesus is following her around in the shape of a cat (http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/naomi-wolf-encounters-jesus.html). So what's your point?

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 03:21 PM

Miss Wolf in 2006:

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/naomi-wolf-encounters-jesus.html

Can I say woo?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13368/naomi-wolf-i-had-a-vision-of-jesusYes, I see Wolf is flakier than I had known when I heard her on the radio. But I wasn't going by her opinions. And, I said in the OP I wasn't sure where I thought we were on the slope.

I was going by Wolf's description of historical events which preceded other fascist states forming and the correlating events which have occurred in this country under Bush. I am not the only one disturbed about arrests without charges, torture, and the level of spying on citizens which we hadn't seen since the Nixon era. Those are very ominous events, they aren't simply politically unacceptable.

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 03:24 PM

I wasn't saying anything remotely like that. I was saying that this poster acts like a git when the subject is politics.

For instance, skeptigirl once opened a thread about a Bill Moyers documentary that made some fantastic claims about the news media in relation to the Iraq war. Instead of posting it as a matter of skeptical inquiry, it was posted as an accusation and/or fact. Out of boredom, I picked a few of the claims/evidence at random from the transcript of the documentary and found they were either incorrect or grossly out-of-context to the point of being outright deception with simple google searches verifying the facts or going back to original sources.

This revelation wasn't met with the attitude of a skeptic. It was met with the attitude of a believer. This person reacted with hostility to this sort of challenge on what they had accepted as fact.

Politicians and those who write about them can make claims that can be put under scrutiny. Otherwise this subforum would be sort of pointless.Link to your supposed post and we can see whether we agree with your conclusions. Moyers is hardly a person known to produce documentaries based on unsubstantiated evidence.

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 03:26 PM

Pardalis

13th October 2007, 03:28 PM

Yes, I see Wolf is flakier than I had known when I heard her on the radio. But I wasn't going by her opinions. And, I said in the OP I wasn't sure where I thought we were on the slope.

I was going by Wolf's description of historical events which preceded other fascist states forming and the correlating events which have occurred in this country under Bush.

And given her somewhat odd beliefs, doesn't it concern you of her ability to be taking these events and circumstances out of context and comparing them?

I am not the only one disturbed about arrests without charges, torture, and the level of spying on citizens which we hadn't seen since the Nixon era. Those are very ominous events, they aren't simply politically unacceptable.

And rightly so, but please leave the obvious appeal to emotion out of it.

Comparisons with fascism and Hitler are a turn off for rational debates.

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 03:29 PM

I don't think you can consider that Gitmo is a gulag, it is not a prison for internal "enemies of the state" i.e. USA citizens convicted of political crimes against the state.

(Also does no one else find it slightly ironic that something so associated with the form of communism of the defunct USSR is being used as a sign of fascism...)I asked that the term, Gulag, be ignored. That is not the term I would use either and I hate to see us waste time over defining Gulag rather than discussing for example, whether or not suspending habeas corpus is an ominous sign.

As for Gitmo, there was one American citizen held there and, Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856).

Many Held at Guantanamo Not Likely Terrorists (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-gitmo22dec22,0,2294365.story)

And there was one US citizens in Gitmo (http://www.drbilllong.com/CurrentEventsV/Gitmo.html), and another held without trial for a couple years in the US. People like to discount that fact by seeing these two guys as "not like me."The cases relate to the rights of: (a) an American citizen designated as an "enemy combatant" and captured in the theater of War and held subsequently in the US (the Hamdi case); (b) an American citizen designated as an "enemy combatant" but captured in the US and held subsequently in the US (the Padilla case);

Skeptic Ginger

13th October 2007, 03:44 PM

Temporarily out of time, so I'll be back later.

Pardalis

13th October 2007, 03:49 PM

Skeptigirl, here's an hypothetical scenario:

There's a war. US troops capture the people firing at them. What do you suggest we do with them, American or otherwise?

Kevin_Lowe

14th October 2007, 03:16 AM

And Naomi Wolf thinks Jesus is following her around in the shape of a cat (http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/naomi-wolf-encounters-jesus.html). So what's your point?

What was yours, other than an ad hominem attack on NW? I thought we'd already pointed out repeatedly in this thread that ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for intelligent arguments.

Please note that Skeptigirl's post about Christian nutters was not an ad hominem attack in place of an argument.

The Painter

14th October 2007, 08:46 AM

What was yours, other than an ad hominem attack on NW? I thought we'd already pointed out repeatedly in this thread that ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for intelligent arguments.

Please note that Skeptigirl's post about Christian nutters was not an ad hominem attack in place of an argument.

I don't think this an ad hominem attack. It links an article. I think you missed the link. Look at the word "cat".
It addresses her character and sanitey.

Kevin_Lowe

14th October 2007, 09:28 AM

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

Pardalis

14th October 2007, 11:00 AM

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

The problem here, as I have said many times, is that Skeptigirl states these arguments as facts. I'm still waiting to see her definition of the word "evidence" she uses to describe Miss Wolf's opinion piece.

We can argue her opinion, but her opinion is not evidence.

And as far as attacking the argument and not the source, just look at what happened when Pomeroo posted and article from FrontPage Magasine in the other thread. It didn't take long before she attacked that source and vilified it, whithout adressing the arguments. It works both ways.

corplinx

14th October 2007, 11:16 AM

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

That is simply sigworth.

Pardalis

14th October 2007, 11:17 AM

Please note that Skeptigirl's post about Christian nutters was not an ad hominem attack in place of an argument.

I fail to see what John Hagee or Glenn Beck have anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Gurdur

14th October 2007, 11:24 AM

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

And the argument she presents is pure crap. Pure woo. Why don't you try all over again? I love the unintentional ironies in your statements. I'ld really love it if you tried making anything serious out of her crap.

Go on, make my day. :)

geggy

14th October 2007, 12:46 PM

there are several types of dictatorship and there's no question that corporate dictatorship is making its presence felt in america. i could provide links and evidence to back up my asserttation. but as for military dictatorship...it is entirely possible it could happen.

latent aaaack

14th October 2007, 05:59 PM

Stupid, fashion-conscious conservative republican Major Generals, vainly wrecking their careers.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/about/ut/index.html
Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition

excerpts:
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

Military historians say that before the Iraq conflict, only a handful of active or retired U.S. military officers had publicly criticized civilian leaders' conduct of a war. Some examples:
[In 1864, former Union Army Gen. George McClellan declared the Civil War a failure, called for a peace convention that would leave slavery intact, and ran for president against President Lincoln.

When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.
It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.

“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”

Eaton said he wrote the piece because he believed that three pillars of our democratic system had failed:

The Bush administration ignored alarms raised by him and other commanders on the ground; the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to exercise oversight; and the media had abdicated its watchdog role.

“As we look back, it appears that without realizing it, we were reacting to a constitutional crisis,” Eaton said in a recent interview."

Kevin_Lowe

14th October 2007, 06:37 PM

The problem here, as I have said many times, is that Skeptigirl states these arguments as facts. I'm still waiting to see her definition of the word "evidence" she uses to describe Miss Wolf's opinion piece.

We can argue her opinion, but her opinion is not evidence.

It seems to me that other people have made a credible attempt to discuss NW's claims on their own merits. If all that is holding you back from doing so is concern over the precise evidentiary value Skeptigirl assign's to NW's claims, why not just flag that as a matter of concern then move on to a more substantial discussion?

And as far as attacking the argument and not the source, just look at what happened when Pomeroo posted and article from FrontPage Magasine in the other thread. It didn't take long before she attacked that source and vilified it, whithout adressing the arguments. It works both ways.

If you don't like people doing that then isn't it a good idea to set a better example, rather than sinking to their level?

(Mind you, I'm not sure it counts as villifying in the perjorative sense if it's true, and I would never trust any factual claim that came from FrontPage without corroborating sources).

gumboot

14th October 2007, 08:23 PM

The article seems deeply flawed.

-Gumboot

Elind

14th October 2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (ignore any real ones)
2. Create a gulag (treat all terrorists like common criminals)
3. Develop a thug caste (don't train the military or police adequately)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system (don't spy on our self declared enemies)
5. Harass citizens' groups (let the looey tunes crowd dominate any assembly)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release (tell the world everything you know)
7. Target key individuals (don't target any key suspects)
8. Control the press (encourage the press to print any and all damaging secrets)
9. Dissent equals treason (don't allow the concept of treason, as difficult as it is to prove anyway)
10. Suspend the rule of law (treat all enemies as common domestic hoodlums)

latent aaaack

14th October 2007, 10:05 PM

You know, I don't think I like Tommy Franks anymore, I bet he's wrong about this because he has such bad character. What would someone with such bad character and who probably smells bad be doing acting like they know how war and politics works?

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

gumboot

14th October 2007, 10:30 PM

You know, I don't think I like Tommy Franks anymore, I bet he's wrong about this because he has such bad character. What would someone with such bad character and who probably smells bad be doing acting like they know how war and politics works?

...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

I'll refrain from comment on Tommy Franks' character, as you clearly have a much better grasp on that than me :D However I think he's probably wrong about what he's saying.

In the time that I've come to be more familiar with Americans, I've grown to admire their dedication to the ideological values upon which their society is built. I can't see the American people discarding the Constitution, no matter the seriousness of the threat. Japan inflicted much more damage on the USA than any terrorist network ever could, yet the constitution was not threatened.

-Gumboot

Darth Rotor

15th October 2007, 09:11 AM

You know, I don't think I like Tommy Franks anymore, I bet he's wrong about this because he has such bad character. What would someone with such bad character and who probably smells bad be doing acting like they know how war and politics works?

...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
Franks and ex House Speaker Gingrich both are worried/predict, that a significantly more serious attack than 9-11 would, based on the data points of
the US polity permitting the DHS formation, Patriot Act the sheep like acceptance of the illusion of security at airports to turn into the farce that it is and other stuff
that a greater appeal to Uncle Sugar to protect them would open the door for higher authoritarianism being tolerated.

See Civil War and WW II for examples of how such things were put into place with a graver threat, and they are not totally out to lunch in their assessment. They are presenting a possible slippery slope.

What isn't clear is how far down that slippery slope the people are willing to ski. If enough are sheep, Franks is right. If enough aren't, then he is wrong.

DR

Ion

16th October 2007, 05:49 PM

Skeptigirl, here's an hypothetical scenario:

There's a war. US troops capture the people firing at them. What do you suggest we do with them, American or otherwise?
What war, a just war or an unjust war?

The just war is for democracy and liberation from an oppressor.

The injust war sold to you through lies and the guise of spreading democracy and liberation, is for oil and hegemony in the Middle East benefiting a few lobbies like Freedom Watch while the majority of Americans oppose it.
(so much for democracy in U.S.: the majority of Americans oppose the war, but a dictatorial government lies to start and enforce the war)

The war in Iraq is unjust and Fascist.

Mussolini defined Fascism as corporatism.

Bush's war in Iraq is Fascist-corporatist, since corporations like Boeing, Cubic, General Atomics, S.A.I.C., Titan, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and lobbies made of special interests millionaires like Freedom Watch -but not the majority of Americans- make their meat grinding profiteering from it.

Elind

16th October 2007, 07:29 PM

Hoo boy. Haven't heard such a good commie rant since my college days in Europe. Sure brings back the memories.

Travis

17th October 2007, 01:39 AM

Yes America is now so fascist that the brownshirts have already been dispatched to pick up Ion and take him to a "reeducation camp" where he will be used as slave labor until he dies.

latent aaaack

17th October 2007, 02:57 AM

KoihimeNakamura

17th October 2007, 07:12 AM

Ion's posts are consistantly about why the US is Fasisct. Like his last one.

latent aaaack

17th October 2007, 10:06 AM

Even his over the top melodramatic post doesn't say anything about the US being fascist. It's clear in describing the Bush admin as 'dictatorial' he's not saying Bush is dictator. He's also not describing the US as fascist by saying the war is 'fascist' but making some other point.

Tailgater

17th October 2007, 10:41 AM

Ion

17th October 2007, 05:21 PM

Hoo boy. Haven't heard such a good commie rant since my college days in Europe. Sure brings back the memories.
Elindus,

I showed in my post common ground between Bush's Capitalism, Fascism and Communism.
The common ground is the reign of corporatism over citizens, but not the citizens's will commanding national matters -like the war-.
(yes latent aaaack, with the risk of disappointing you, my stance is that Bush's Capitalism, Fascism and Communism have things in common)

I include L3-Communications too in the list of companies that milk the war.

KoihimeNakamura

17th October 2007, 06:30 PM

Travis

17th October 2007, 10:51 PM

Travis? Care to explain yourself? Where did you find "america is fascist" in this thread? This is like a highway pile up where one car after another unwittingly makes the same mistake despite waving and yelling by bystanders.

If you read of enough of Ion's posts you will begin to understand his very.....how to put this politely....unique opinion of America and its citizens.

But in case you don't believe me:

(yes latent aaaack, with the risk of disappointing you, my stance is that Bush's Capitalism, Fascism and Communism have things in common)

Amongst Ion's little tantrums/rants he has indicated that he feels that Americans are stupid because there aren't any American mathematicians in certain text books.

Apparently he also saw a fat American in bad clothes once.

WildCat

18th October 2007, 05:42 AM

I thought the point was that they were not prisoners of war?
True and not true. POW has a specific legal meaning under the Geneva Conventions, but the GC sets standards for achieving that legal status that those in Gitmo haven't met. In a colloquial sense, they are POW's, but not in a legal sense as defined by the GC.

Oliver

18th October 2007, 09:51 AM

*snip* While it's obviously hard to imagine this country changing in any extreme way, what is it that prevents it from happening? Did other people have the same beliefs before their countries became fascist? Did the Germans of 1930 really imagine the Germany they would find in 1945? And Germany isn't the only example. Wolf discusses fascist movements in a much broader way than oversimplifying it into Hitler's Nazis.

So forgetting the nonsensical arguments about the words: fascism, Nazis, Hitler and gulags, where are we when you consider secret prisons, legalizing torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Patriot Act, fear-mongering, private armies, and so on? "Are we there yet?" aside, I think when you start adding it up Wolf does make her case that the signs of possibility are there. Beware of insidious changes that sneak up on people before they realize it.

**latent aaaack actually started a similar thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95202) but it seemed like we needed a new one to discuss this author's book and because la's poll confused me. I told him I'd give him the credit.

I suspect that most parts of America have no Idea what's going
on behind their backs - thanks to the poor coverage, "national
secrecy security" and blind trust (Patriotism).

Funny enough, FRONTLINE once again sheds a lot of Light into
this issue. The question still is: Where's the rest of the Media?

PBS / FRONTLINE / CHENEY'S LAW
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

Review: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/335542_tv16.html

Darth Rotor

18th October 2007, 10:11 AM

I suspect that most parts of America have no Idea what's going on behind their backs - thanks to the poor coverage, "national
secrecy security" and blind trust (Patriotism).

Nope. Poor coverage? Nope. It's covered a plenty, otherwise you'd not have a clue.

Blind trust? Not hardly, see the President's, and the Congressional, abysmal approval ratings of late.

You don't seem to know the difference between that and patriotism, so you are once again dead in the water.

Care to try again?

DR

Travis

18th October 2007, 01:30 PM

I suspect that most parts of America have no Idea what's going
on behind their backs - thanks to the poor coverage, "national
secrecy security" and blind trust (Patriotism).

Funny enough, FRONTLINE once again sheds a lot of Light into
this issue. The question still is: Where's the rest of the Media?

PBS / FRONTLINE / CHENEY'S LAW
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

Review: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/335542_tv16.html

If only America had a free press. Alas, we don't, and Bush is enjoying 80% approval ratings, congress is still firmly run by the Republicans, there was no investigation of the collapse of Enron, the response to Katrina was hailed as efficient and thorough, Walter Reed Hospital is tip top as far as anyone knows and the invasion of Iraq is still widely supported since it has been such an unmitigated "success."

If only, Oliver, if only.

Elind

18th October 2007, 02:28 PM

Elindus,

I showed in my post common ground between Bush's Capitalism, Fascism and Communism.
The common ground is the reign of corporatism over citizens, but not the citizens's will commanding national matters -like the war-.
(yes latent aaaack, with the risk of disappointing you, my stance is that Bush's Capitalism, Fascism and Communism have things in common)

I include L3-Communications too in the list of companies that milk the war.

Good for you, including L3 and all. I suspect you just learned of them. Why don't you just quote the NY stock exchange listings and save us a lot of time?

Ion

18th October 2007, 05:55 PM

That's because the US is a representative nation (a republic) and the congress decides such matters. Go try writing your congressperson a nice polite letter. It'll be much more effective than flailing at the mouth about fascism. :|
It doesn't work.

Americans oppose the war, Congress is corrupt and doesn't stop the war, Bush over rules the citizens like a dictator.

Ion

18th October 2007, 05:56 PM

If you read of enough of Ion's posts you will begin to understand his very.....how to put this politely....unique opinion of America and its citizens.
...
Not so unique.

Europe is with me on this.

Ion

18th October 2007, 06:08 PM

I posted this in another thread:
...The book Taking Back America by Katrina van den Heuvel has a chapter titled Rolling Back the Twentieth Century, written by William Greider -who also wrote The Soul of Capitalism-.

An excerpt is:

"GEORGE W. BUSH, PROPERLY understood, represents the third and most powerful wave in the Right's long-running assault on the government order created by twentieth-century liberalism.
The first wave was Ronald Reagan,...
...
They do not expect any of these far-reaching goals to be fulfilled during Bush's tenure, but they assume that history is on their side and that the next wave will come along soon...
..."

The right-wing agenda of government favoring concentration of the wealth, started by Goldwater, pursued by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II is:

.) eliminate federal taxation of private capital, as the essential predicate for dismantling the progressive tax;

.) gradually phase out the pension-fund retirement system, starting with Social Security privatization;

.) withdraw the federal government for a direct role in housing, health care, assistance to the poor;

.) restore churches and private education by giving them public money;
(this point is similar to Hitler's position)

.) strenghten the hand of business against regulatory obligations;
(this point is similar to Hitler's position)

.) smash organized labor;
(this point is similar to Hitler's position)

.) instill fear to opposing the right-wing agenda;
(this point is similar to Hitler's and Goebbels' positions)

.) militarize U.S. by nationalizations and subsidies with public money, which makes only the U.S. military managed in a Socialist manner, everything else to be managed through fearmongering for Socialism.
(this point is similar to Hitler's position)

It's pushing for a return to McKinley Republicans, before Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s.

What this has in common with Mein Kampf by Hitler, is an equally driven idealogy that is loony and primitive, forcing most people's lives into miserable submission

Had I known this push for the Medieval ages that Bush II is pursuing right now, I wouldn't have made the effort to come to U.S..

I also condemn the jocksters in this thread who take Bush II lightly and for simpleton, as these jocksters being themselves brain dead about their own country.
Bush II is a small pawn in U.S. right-wing's Mein Kampf, but he is the most dangerous so far.

For example Bush II started the war in Iraq for oil and lies about it, doesn't want to cover with health insurance 6,000,000 children in U.S. because that's government controlled healthcare (what's wrong with government controlled healthcare that is better than U.S.'s healthcare?), but government controlled war (including lies and taxpayer money funding the war like if the U.S. Army is run in a Communist regime) that's peachy...

Sunday September 30 2007 The San Diego Union Tribune had such a right-wing group (including Ari Fleisher and a Jewish lobby) who pour millions into the U.S. right wing Mein Kampf.
(and hypocritically invoking fighting against the historical Hitler's Mein Kampf)

I guess that for about 200 years, soon after Jefferson, U.S. is screwed up and screws up the world.

This statement includes the next President, maybe Hillary Clinton, who inherits facts on the ground from Bush II.
It shows that the U.S. right wing agenda has commonalities with Fascism and Communism.

Bush II is a temporary pawn in this agenda.

Ion

18th October 2007, 06:12 PM

Good for you, including L3 and all. I suspect you just learned of them...
Your suspicion is wrong.

I work in high tech, and know of them.

latent aaaack

18th October 2007, 06:15 PM

Is this true Ion? If this is how you feel when America is only a little fascist, what are you going to do when it really becomes authoritarian, curl up in a fetal ball and whimper?

There's really nothing to be so afraid of yet, I can still do this with two police cars in sight of me:

If you read of enough of Ion's posts you will begin to understand his very.....how to put this politely....unique opinion of America and its citizens.

But in case you don't believe me:

Amongst Ion's little tantrums/rants he has indicated that he feels that Americans are stupid because there aren't any American mathematicians in certain text books.

Apparently he also saw a fat American in bad clothes once.

Ion

18th October 2007, 06:18 PM

If only America had a free press. Alas, we don't, and Bush is enjoying 80% approval ratings,...
Brain dead into lying, Travis?

Today's The San Diego Union Tribune in page A6 under

Poll drops Bush support to 24%

writes:

"...Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll..."

Note "...record low..." in it, meaning the polls never got another President (including Nixon) this low.

You really spread your brain dead lying propaganda here, Travis.

Ion

18th October 2007, 06:25 PM

Is this true Ion? If this is how you feel when America is only a little fascist, what are you going to do when it really becomes authoritarian, curl up in a fetal ball and whimper?

There's really nothing to be so afraid of yet, I can still do this with two police cars in sight of me:
I don't know what I will do when is more authoritarian.

I grew up in Communist Romania until 18, lived in France for 10, Canada 6, and U.S. 11.

U.S. disappoints me.

What I took for granted in civilization in France (like critical thinking against religious dogmas, science and hedonism in a democratic society), are not here.

shuize

18th October 2007, 06:52 PM

Travis

18th October 2007, 07:02 PM

Not so unique.

Europe is with me on this.

If Europe is truly full of people with the same opinions as you then I need to cancel my plans to visit all the old castles along the Rhine River. There is no way I'm going to vacation somewhere surrounded by such deeply unpleasant individuals.

Travis

18th October 2007, 07:08 PM

Brain dead into lying, Travis?

Today's The San Diego Union Tribune in page A6 under

Poll drops Bush support to 24%

writes:

"...Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll..."

Note "...record low..." in it, meaning the polls never got another President (including Nixon) this low.

You really spread your brain dead lying propaganda here, Travis.

Apparently my point went right over your head. How, if the press is controlled by those in power, is it that an approval rating of those in power could be at 24%?

Now I'm not surprised that the approval rating is that low. I dislike Bush and so do the majority of Americans. This popular dislike is largely because of the Press reporting the failures of Bush. Yet this myth that the American Press treat Bush like some sort of saint continues to persist. It makes no sense.

Elind

18th October 2007, 07:37 PM

I don't know what I will do when is more authoritarian.

I grew up in Communist Romania until 18, lived in France for 10, Canada 6, and U.S. 11.

U.S. disappoints me.

What I took for granted in civilization in France (like critical thinking against religious dogmas, science and hedonism in a democratic society), are not here.

Thank you for the background update. I suspect the Romanian part plays a role. I have a neighbor from there. Best damned pessimistic cynic I know. Talks trash about everything; probably his mother too if I'd let him go that far.

The frogs are their own people and would be the only ones if their fantasies came true (yes I've lived there too).

The Canadians, bless their hearts, all wish they could retire to Florida as long as they could take their national health care with them, which they can't anymore 'cause their younger compatriots who now pay the bills say they can't afford it.

Be thankful that we let you stay here for 11 years. Now that you are presumably reaching the point where you need others to pay your way, perhaps you can explore if the the French, Canadians, or Romanians will take you back and pay for your care there. I hear they have good programs for chronic pessimists and grouches.

You disappoint me, for what little that is worth.

KoihimeNakamura

18th October 2007, 08:10 PM

So, after that try, we're back to harder than diamond..

"don't feed the troll."

gumboot

18th October 2007, 09:04 PM

Elind

18th October 2007, 09:43 PM

So, after that try, we're back to harder than diamond..

"don't feed the troll."

:D sometimes one scratches the bottom of the barrel, but I pretend it clears out some gunk anyway.

danielk

19th October 2007, 05:50 AM

Europe is with me on this.

I'm not, and I have a full-sized EU flag "flying" in my living room.

Gurdur

19th October 2007, 05:52 AM

I'm not, and I have a full-sized EU flag "flying" in my living room.

Yeah well, just leave it to Elind and Ion to get it on together, call it a day on this one, and the rest of us can do sensible things together instead.

jsiv

19th October 2007, 06:03 AM

I'm not, and I have a full-sized EU flag "flying" in my living room.

I have a EU flag too!

On my toilet paper!!!

Gurdur

19th October 2007, 06:08 AM

OK, leave it to Elind, jsiv, Ion and Oliver. The rest of us can party together then. :p

danielk

19th October 2007, 06:15 AM

I have a EU flag too!

On my toilet paper!!!

Bah. Will you come quietly or do we really have to invade Norway? ;)

Gurdur

19th October 2007, 06:20 AM

Bah. Will you come quietly or do we really have to invade Norway? ;)

Again? One more time? Bugger that for a lark, it's too cold.

jsiv

19th October 2007, 06:55 AM

Whatcha gonna do, send Captain Euro (http://www.captaineuro.com/) after me?

http://www.captaineuro.com/images/group.gif

Pardalis

19th October 2007, 11:05 AM

So I take it Skeptigirl has abandoned her thread?

Gurdur

19th October 2007, 11:16 AM

Don't be picky, be happy.

Ion

19th October 2007, 01:56 PM

But as bad as you seem to think it is in the U.S., you don't seem to be in any big hurry to leave.
I am not a coward like you to leave.

I stay and fight U.S. Fascism.

Ion

19th October 2007, 02:00 PM

Apparently my point went right over your head. How, if the press is controlled by those in power, is it that an approval rating of those in power could be at 24%?
...
I don't know.

The fact is that the U.S. media is concentrated in the hands of a few like Murdoch.

Maybe Republicans like Murdoch are disenchanted with Bush and publish this poll, I don't know.

Or maybe the U.S. media is afraid of Zogby, I don't know.

The fact also is that you lie:

Bush's approval rating is not 80% like you stated;
it was 29% for about a year -so there was plenty of time for you to register that, you registered that it was low in the 20s but you lie that Bush's approval rating is 80%-;
now Bush's approval rating is a record low of 24% (beating Nixon's lowest).

I expect right wingers like you -who distort facts and revisit history- to declare anytime soon:

"We all know the earth is flat. Countless studies show it..."

Ion

19th October 2007, 02:06 PM

Thank you for the background update. I suspect the Romanian part plays a role...
The biggest part in my education is played by France.
I went from studying in high school to an Engineering degree there.

I admire former French President Chirac who:

1.) banned religious displays in public places;

2.) opposed Bush on the war in Iraq (and offered the peaceful alternative of Saddam's exile, which Bush rejected because Bush is interested in waring Iraq in order to occupy and control the Middle East, while the killing of people in the process be damned to Bush);

3.) attempted to draw a Secular European Constitution;

4.) is atheist himself, scientifically minded.

Contrast 1.), 2.), 3.) and 4.) with Bush's religious Fascist lunacy.

Then contrast 1.), 2.), 3.) and 4.) with Bush's support in this alleged skeptics's forum, in this alleged skeptics's thread.

I like the new French President Sarkozy less than Chirac.

Ion

19th October 2007, 02:10 PM

So, after that try, we're back to harder than diamond..

"don't feed the troll."
I know Toku.

I am not feeding you.

latent aaaack

19th October 2007, 04:47 PM

So I take it Skeptigirl has abandoned her thread?

The consensus seems to be that Wolf bogarted the topic for now by not doing all that good a job on her analysis and being a feminist author who oddly now tackles an un-related topic she's not an expert in. Plus people keep mistaking people who believe the US is turning authoritarian for people who think the US is now authoritarian.

Elind

19th October 2007, 05:08 PM

somebody else feed him, please.

jsfisher

19th October 2007, 05:12 PM

somebody else feed him, please.

He is rather obese already.

shuize

19th October 2007, 07:35 PM

I am not a coward like you to leave.

I stay and fight U.S. Fascism.

I see. You've packed up and left other places, but the real reason you stay in the U.S. is not because it offers you the most comfortable lifestyle. No. No. It's so that you can stay and fight "U.S. Fascism."

Funny.

You sound like a spoiled college kid who constantly whines about how "fascist" his parents are while living at home eating their food and sleeping under their nice warm roof. When presented an opportunity to leave, he of course declines. Not because life is so much easier at home. No. No. It's because he really needs to show them how wrong they are about everything.

Tell us, Ion. Besides posting on internet message boards, what exactly are you doing to "fight U.S. Fascism" that requires you stay there?

gumboot

19th October 2007, 08:12 PM

I admire former French President Chirac who:

1.) banned religious displays in public places;

Yeah, let's not have any of that freedom crap!

-Gumboot

Travis

19th October 2007, 09:32 PM

I don't know.

The fact is that the U.S. media is concentrated in the hands of a few like Murdoch.

Maybe Republicans like Murdoch are disenchanted with Bush and publish this poll, I don't know.

That's right. You don't know, but as long as speculation is going on let me offer up the idea that leprechauns are in control of nuclear missile silos in Russia.

Or maybe the U.S. media is afraid of Zogby, I don't know.

"Couric, Williams run, it's Zogby! Run for your lives!"

The fact also is that you lie:

Bush's approval rating is not 80% like you stated;
it was 29% for about a year -so there was plenty of time for you to register that, you registered that it was low in the 20s but you lie that Bush's approval rating is 80%-;
now Bush's approval rating is a record low of 24% (beating Nixon's lowest).

Here's what I wrote:

If only America had a free press. Alas, we don't, and Bush is enjoying 80% approval ratings, congress is still firmly run by the Republicans, there was no investigation of the collapse of Enron, the response to Katrina was hailed as efficient and thorough, Walter Reed Hospital is tip top as far as anyone knows and the invasion of Iraq is still widely supported since it has been such an unmitigated "success."

Is Congress still run by the Republicans? No.
Was the collapse of Enron investigated? Yes.
Was the response to Katrina hailed as "efficient" and "thorough?" No.
Were the conditions at Walter Reed reported? Yes.
Is the war in Iraq still popular and considered a success? No.

So, considering all that context, should a person seeing the statement about Bush having an 80% approval rating think that it is true or that I'm invoking sarcastic humor?

I expect right wingers like you -who distort facts and revisit history- to declare anytime soon:

"We all know the earth is flat. Countless studies show it..."

I'm a right winger only if you're some sort of ultra-Marxist. I'm a lifelong Democrat that voted against Bush and will be glad to see him gone.

Elizabeth I

19th October 2007, 10:12 PM

If only America had a free press. Alas, we don't, and Bush is enjoying 80% approval ratings,...

Brain dead into lying, Travis?

Today's The San Diego Union Tribune in page A6 under

Poll drops Bush support to 24%

writes:

"...Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll..."

Note "...record low..." in it, meaning the polls never got another President (including Nixon) this low.

You really spread your brain dead lying propaganda here, Travis.

Um, Ion, go back and check Travis' post. It's called sarcasm.

Travis

19th October 2007, 10:28 PM

Um, Ion, go back and check Travis' post. It's called sarcasm.

Thanks for understanding me.:p:)

Ion

20th October 2007, 12:03 PM

I see. You've packed up and left other places, but the real reason you stay in the U.S. is not because it offers you the most comfortable lifestyle. No. No. It's so that you can stay and fight "U.S. Fascism."
...
shuizy,

I make the most comfortable lifestyle for myself by taking away from you.

Ion

20th October 2007, 12:05 PM

The consensus seems to be that Wolf bogarted the topic for now by not doing all that good a job on her analysis and being a feminist author who oddly now tackles an un-related topic she's not an expert in...
And how are you are more of an expert than she is to be condescending like you are?

...
Plus people keep mistaking people who believe the US is turning authoritarian for people who think the US is now authoritarian.
I didn't know that I am mistaking.

Seems to me, I am right and you are wrong.

Ion

20th October 2007, 12:06 PM

somebody else feed him, please.
You mean that you are destitute without food in U.S., Elindus?
He is rather obese already.
Look in a mirror.
Yeah, let's not have any of that freedom crap!

-Gumboot
Let's gummy? You are not in U.S., you are in New Zealand and you brown nose U.S..

What are you doing in a skeptics forum since for you banning religious display in government places is "...freedom crap!" -in your words-?

Go to a religious forum, preferably in New Zealand.

Ion

20th October 2007, 12:20 PM

That's right. You don't know, but as long as speculation is going on let me offer up the idea that leprechauns are in control of nuclear missile silos in Russia.
...

Your diversion won't escape you.

...
Is Congress still run by the Republicans? No.
...
Republicans oppose Democrats in Congress so that Democrats can't over ride Bush in retreating U.S. soldiers from Iraq, in covering 6 million of children with government healthcare.

There are too many Republicans, and not enough majority of Democrats in Congress in order to over ride Bush.

As for you being Democrat, big deal:

Democrats Kennedy and Johnson started the war in Vietnam, Democrat Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and is chummy with the weapon industry lobby -whose companies I listed above- and is corrupted.

By European standards, U.S. Democrats are right wingers like the U.S. Republicans.

jsfisher

20th October 2007, 12:29 PM

Your diversion won't escape from the fact that:

you lied that Bush's approval rate is 80%.

You are a Bush lover.

Grasshopper, when you can pluck this sarcasm from my hand, then it will be time for you to go....

Ion

20th October 2007, 12:30 PM

Um, Ion, go back and check Travis' post. It's called sarcasm.
I read this:
If only America had a free press. Alas, we don't, and Bush is enjoying 80% approval ratings, congress is still firmly run by the Republicans, there was no investigation of the collapse of Enron, the response to Katrina was hailed as efficient and thorough, Walter Reed Hospital is tip top as far as anyone knows and the invasion of Iraq is still widely supported since it has been such an unmitigated "success."

If only, Oliver, if only.
It's an attempted sarcasm, mixing true and false.

.) Bush doesn't have 80% approval ratings, but 24%, reported in the U.S. "...free press...";

.) Congress is barely run by Democrats, who cannot over ride Bush because there are too many Republicans in Congress;

.) the investigation of Enron was botched, because Lay was convicted then he died and cleared;
that's 'justice' in Capitalist U.S.;

.) the response to Katrina hurricane is acknowledged lame even by Republicans, who nonetheless support Bush like crooks;

.) Iraq's is botched, but Bush needs more time say Republicans;
no mentioning in there of lies and oil.

Ion

20th October 2007, 12:32 PM

Grasshopper, when you can pluck this sarcasm from my hand, then it will be time for you to go....
Fish,

when you can pluck my sarcasm from my hand, go.

Ion

20th October 2007, 12:51 PM

I comment on these:

...
History tells us modern countries with reasonable democracies have changed into completely different countries over and over again.
...
I also have no way of judging where we actually are on the slippery slope and whether like in the McCarthy era, the pendulum will just swing back, or whether things could get scarier than they are now. It seems the pendulum is swinging back, but then all that talk about going to war with Iran and Bush having a year left really concerns me.
...
While it's obviously hard to imagine this country changing in any extreme way, what is it that prevents it from happening?...
First point is that U.S. is not a democracy.
It was intended to be, see "We the people..." in the Constitution, but Bush waring against the will of Americans that's anti-democratic, and that's one example of anti-democracy amongst many.

Second point is that the pendulum is not swinging back, it was always like this in U.S. for at leats 50 years.
See the right wing agenda that I posted in this thread, from a book.

Thirdly, U.S. is already extreme.
It has army all over the world, for Capitalist ''American interests'.

KoihimeNakamura

20th October 2007, 02:15 PM

To correct you, once again, before I bow out:

It was not intended to be a democracy. I posted several things in a thread ago about how the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule.

Secondly, you missedt he sarcasm again. All of what he said was false.

Yeah, let's not have any of that freedom crap!

-Gumboot

Ever heard of religion of freedom? Maybe? Possibly? Just because he lives in NZ doesn't mean he's concerned about freedom worldwide.

shuizy,

I make the most comfortable lifestyle for myself by taking away from you.
Classy.

Ziggurat

20th October 2007, 06:22 PM

Fish,

when you can pluck my sarcasm from my hand, go.

You didn't get the reference, did you?

Schneibster

20th October 2007, 06:52 PM

I don't generally expect Ion to get references. YMMV.

stilicho

20th October 2007, 07:19 PM

And why should we listen to Naomi Wolf?

From her Wiki biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf) she doesn't seem to have much credentials... in anything relevant.

ETA: does she even have any authority and knowledge in politics or history to be making such a list?
That list reminds me very much of Scott Peck's list (q.v. The Road Less Travelled guy) that defined an "authoritarian" political structure--something like one person at the top, subdued criticism only allowable, claims of infallibility, stuff like that--and then went on in the book to explain that this was the definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know rather a few people who profess to be Roman Catholics and some of them are more "liberal" than I am. Regardless of what they think the "authoritarian" structure entails, they tend to act and react according to their own interests. Perhaps that's modified by their faith but not by much.

That said, there definitely seems to be a more rigid structure in American politics that tends to marginalise opposition. But the fact is that American electors don't vote in droves (as they say they did in Iraq, for example) because they don't actually care who runs the country as long as their better interests are served. Women's and minority rights are guaranteed there in a way that would make a Saudi prince or a Chinese bureaucrat shiver in contempt.

I maintain to this day that most of the criticism leveled against the USA is borne of jealousy that they have been so successful and not because they are innately "fascist" or exclusive. It's the same as I see Scott Peck's partisan Protestantism against the Roman Catholic Church. Success begs, somehow, an unrealistic comparison to Hitler.

gumboot

20th October 2007, 08:51 PM

Let's gummy? You are not in U.S., you are in New Zealand and you brown nose U.S..

I'm not that big a fan of the US, or France. Actually I like France less, but that's because they attacked us. I don't overly like any large countries, because none of you give a fig for us small countries.

What are you doing in a skeptics forum since for you banning religious display in government places is "...freedom crap!" -in your words-?

Go to a religious forum, preferably in New Zealand.

You're the one who admires a politician for banning religious practises in public, not me.

Personally I despise all religion. But I also think anyone and everyone should be free to practise (or not practise) whatever religion they see fit. In public or private.

The benefit of freedom is you get to protect the things you like. But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like. And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits.

-Gumboot

Travis

20th October 2007, 09:51 PM

Your diversion won't escape you.

Republicans oppose Democrats in Congress so that Democrats can't over ride Bush in retreating U.S. soldiers from Iraq, in covering 6 million of children with government healthcare.

Yeah, that's a little thing called politics. It can be a pain when policies you support aren't adopted but what are you going to do?

There are too many Republicans, and not enough majority of Democrats in Congress in order to over ride Bush.

So you want to what? Abolish the Republicans? Have the Democrats lead some sort of Coup and seize power absolutely?

I may not agree with Republicans but, if elected, they have the right to their offices.

As for you being Democrat, big deal:

Well you stated that I was a right winger. Should I have produced a leather bound issue of The Communist Manifesto instead?

Democrats Kennedy and Johnson started the war in Vietnam, Democrat Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and is chummy with the weapon industry lobby -whose companies I listed above- and is corrupted.

So your point, if I were to acknowledge all those listed items as mistakes, is that both sides can make mistakes. So what? Are you advocating anarchy now?

By European standards, U.S. Democrats are right wingers like the U.S. Republicans.

I'm for Gay Rights, for universal health care, for protecting the environment, for drug legalization and against religion in government. Are you saying in Europe I'd be a conservative? That is interesting.

Skeptic Ginger

21st October 2007, 12:57 AM

With all due respect...while our opinions on Bush are pretty much the same, if this is the kind of material that you think constitutes a thoughtful or substantive examination of the issues, I'd entirely disagree. And if this constitutes the kind of posts that you would typically make, I can understand why some people would stop taking a serious look at what you say.I shouldn't have started this thread when I didn't have time to reply to all the issues, so I apologize. But then the topic was started by latent aaaack, I just wanted a more clear discussion and was confused by his poll questions.

I have already said I wasn't aware the author of the reference in my OP was not what I had thought, but let me reiterate that point. This woman was very logical and made coherent arguments in her radio interview. I never posted the citation as some expert in the field and never said I fully supported her views. I merely posted the material as a question for discussion. I have mixed feelings about where this country might be on the continuum of fascist or not fascist.

On the one hand, the public has grown tired of the fear mongering and has begun to speak up. On the other hand there seems to be simply no outrage whatsoever (in the mainstream public) to secret renditions, suspension of habeas corpus, widespread domestic spying, legalized torture, outright refusal by the President to respect Constitutional checks and balances and other government actions which should outrage any person with common sense of democracy. It is similar to the McCarthy era when the general public didn't at first stand up to the outrages of that time.

And that is my reason for the thread.

There is no balance...where is the discussion of the significantly greater freedoms that Americans have than did the Germans under Hitler or the Italians under Mussolini? Where is the point that Hitler and Mussolini had no restrictions on how long they could remain in power, and were thus able to enact long-term policies that would be virtually impossible for an American president to enact?Groups like the Aryan Nations have been around long before all this recent stuff. But there does seem to be a growing trend of acceptable right wing hate speech in the mainstream broadcast media. The Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/intrep.jsp) notes a worrisome trend in radical right wing groups. The report states in an an editorial: (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=808)Scattered throughout this issue of the Intelligence Report are numerous reminders of how radical-right ideas and personalities continue to make their way from the political margins to the mainstream. Too often, they are aided by self-interested politicians and pundits who ignore well-known evidence of the extremism of those they embrace.

There haven't yet been thugs at the anti-war rallies I've been to, just a lot of filming and photo taking by men in black. I have seen a few of those men in black at the rallies wearing uniforms which were not recognizable other than they were some official government department and they were police of some kind. I talked to one who refused to say which government department he was with. At the time I looked into it and thought they were a new police group out of the Office of Homeland Security. Now I think they could have even been Blackwater or some other private security contractor. It bothered me they refused to say who they were.

And while the "thugs" weren't there, a return to the Nixon era attack on dissent certainly is: Criminalizing dissent : left wing groups put on terrorist watchlist. (http://newsmine.org/archive/security/criminalizing-dissent/left-wing-groups-put-on-terrorist-watchlist.txt)

And what of the very obvious -- and terribly lame -- attempts to make points in issues such as the "thug caste" thing? She seriously tries to draw a correlation between corporate bodyguards and mercenaries hired to protect industries in Iraq (which are under direct and immediate threat of attack) with Hitler's use of Brownshirts to suppress the populace in Germany...give me a freakin' break!!While I agree with you in regards to the reference, there is a little more to Blackwater than simply guarding diplomats. Did you see the Bill Moyers' interview with Jeremy Scahill (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10192007/transcript1.html) last Friday about the reaches of Blackwater and the ties to radical right wing causes and connections to government officials the owner of the company, Erik Prince, has?

A topic which simply discussed some of the losses of freedoms in the U.S., and some of the repressive/abusive policies that have been instituted under Bush Jr....that, I would have no problem with. But starting a topic by using such a terrible and anti-intellectual example as Wolf...its hardly surprising what peoples' responses are. Those who disagree with you politically will dismiss you entirely -- as they should (I would likewise dismiss entirely the argument of a pro-Bush apologist who used similar arguments to support their beliefs); the only ones who will find merit in it are the people who already agree with you, and who have no problem with distorting or ignoring facts in order to prove they are "right".I imagine most of the responses wouldn't be that much different had I posted no reference material and my experience is a lot of people post their opinions without ever considering (and usually not even reading) the citations I post anyway. I get tired sometimes of the thread clutter with posts from people who have nothing to say except I'm a radical leftist. It is an anti-intellectual level discussion and a complete waste of time. However, it is the thoughtful replies and discussion such as yours I seek. If only the people with nothing but ad homs to post would just go away it would be nice.

I like ya', skeptigirl; but I cannot really find any redeeming feature in this post.The reference was not meant to be the focus of the discussion. I was interested in historical parallels, but not necessarily unsubstantiated ones. We are in a different historical time. I imagine some of the parallels might not be that obvious without hindsight.

And with that, I will try to get up to speed in the thread tomorrow, my first whole day off in the last 14.

brodski

21st October 2007, 04:06 AM

I'm for Gay Rights, for universal health care, for protecting the environment, for drug legalization and against religion in government. Are you saying in Europe I'd be a conservative? That is interesting.

In the UK you could, just about, fit into the Conservative party with those views, it would depend on how you wished to see them implemented as policy and to what degree.

Although "religion in government" isn't really a political issue in the UK (outside of NI).

Elizabeth I

21st October 2007, 11:41 AM

Nominated for this paragraph:

The benefit of freedom is you get to protect the things you like. But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like. And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits.

-Gumboot

Chaos

21st October 2007, 02:58 PM

In the UK you could, just about, fit into the Conservative party with those views, it would depend on how you wished to see them implemented as policy and to what degree.

Although "religion in government" isn't really a political issue in the UK (outside of NI).

That same position would probably land him in the Green Party (Die Grünen) in Germany, which are considered left-wing.

Weird, isn´t it, how such things differ from country to country?

Dorian Gray

21st October 2007, 03:19 PM

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Compare that list to what Goering said:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

danielk

21st October 2007, 03:28 PM

That same position would probably land him in the Green Party (Die Grünen) in Germany, which are considered left-wing.

Weird, isn´t it, how such things differ from country to country?

True, to some extent. I think the example with the Tories is a bit of a stretch, though. I mean, he would still fit in, but I think it would be an unlikely choice of party if these were his main rallying points.

It's true, however, that religion doesn't play much of a political role in many European countries. There are exceptions, though -- like Poland for instance, where catholicism is a matter of national identity to some extent. However, I'm not Polish and thus don't really know how much it matters in daily life.

danielk

21st October 2007, 03:46 PM

Compare that list to what Goering said:

It should be noted that he said this to a reporter in an interview in his jail cell in Nuremberg. He's trying to pass off his crimes as business as usual. Of course, real-world democracies are unfortunately far from perfect. But when it comes to equating the US with fascism, we aren't going to take Hermann Göring's word on the matter, are we?

Travis

21st October 2007, 04:03 PM

Growing up, it is a bit weird, as I was always denounced as a Liberal. The guys I went to school with would travel into the city to find a gay bar, lure someone out to their truck, and beat the crap out of him. They were gay-bashers, pure and simple. They wanted me to join them I refused and eventually placed a tip to the cops who ended their "recreation." The Klan used to recruit at my school. We had four bible study clubs but the one attempt at an Atheist club (which I was a part of) got shut down after the school got some threating mail and then an actual bomb threat. The environmental club went well for me until I suggested nuclear power as an alternative to coal and gas power plants they just told me I probably shouldn't return. I didn't return but I still helped another group set a local nature reserve with and interpretive trail through it.

Whether one wants to label me Liberal, Conservative, a Tory or a Green it doesn't really matter to me. Those are just labels. Ultimately I've seen extremists of all types on both sides of these issues and formulated my own opinions, independent of peer pressure, through good old critical thinking.

Ion

22nd October 2007, 01:49 PM

To correct you, once again, before I bow out:

It was not intended to be a democracy...

Tokyo,

when Jefferson draw "We the people..." in the Constitution, the intend was to make U.S. ruled by a government elected from majority's will like in a democracy.

Bush thinks U.S. is a democracy.
He stated that Muslims "...envy our democracy.".

Condi Rice thinks U.S. is a democracy.
A few days ago, in Russia he gave the example of U.S. 'democracy'.

So, Tokyo,

U.S. was intended to be a democracy.

But it is not.

Bush lying in order to get the war in Iraq going, then waring Iraq against the will of the majority of U.S. citizens -and many such examples- show that U.S. failed as a democracy.

Ion

22nd October 2007, 01:51 PM

...YMMV.
YVIG.

Ion

22nd October 2007, 01:55 PM

Ayatollah gummy has spoken:

...
You're the one who admires a politician for banning religious practises in public, not me.
...
-Gumboot
Religious practices and displays in taxpayer's funded public buildings, that's mixing church with state.

Banning this like Chirac (France) did, that's separation of church and state.

Bush the religious doesn't do this with the U.S. Christian Fascist right-wing (see his Faith-based policies), but then he wars Iraq and threatens to war Iran (including their religions) for greedy Capitalism.

By all means take your beliefs out of a skeptics forum, and into a religious forum.

Ion

22nd October 2007, 02:02 PM

...
So your point, if I were to acknowledge all those listed items as mistakes, is that both sides can make mistakes. So what? Are you advocating anarchy now?
...

Like someone said in infidels.org, choosing between U.S. Democrats and Republicans, is like choosing between thiefs and rapists.

Dean and Obama in the Democrat party might change it a little, but Dean got corrupt too, and Obama probably will.

The one Democrat who is not yet corrupt too much is Kucinich.

Outside these two parties, there are the Greens and Nader, and Chomsky.

There should be more choices than two parties corrupt by lobbies of special interests of the few rich.

Albeit, the emergency now is to slam the Republicans though.

Ion

22nd October 2007, 02:13 PM

Too ealry for this:
Nominated for this paragraph:

gumboot
The benefit of freedom is you get to protect the things you like. But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like. And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits.

-Gumboot

Pompous grandstanding won't cut.

For example to counter "...But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like..." I posted in What's the Iraq War about anyway? that Bush had a censorship book written to become U.S. policy.

For example again, to counter "...And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits...", Bush and the Americans started a war based on lies and lack of responsability.

Freedom is what I fight for.

Not what Bush, gummy, Lizzy do.

Ion

22nd October 2007, 02:17 PM

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Compare that list to what Goering said:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Good analogy 'Dorian'.

There was also the quote by a U.S. General at the beginning of the 20th. century where the concept that war is racket for a few rich while the poor suffer was shown.

dudalb

22nd October 2007, 02:21 PM

Well you stated that I was a right winger. Should I have produced a leather bound issue of The Communist Manifesto instead?

In Ion's world view,Yes.
And I have to echo the comments on the incredible hypocrisy of Ion's eternal badmouthing of America and it's economy,while staying here and reaping the benefits thereof.
By all means take your beliefs out of a skeptics forum, and into a religious forum.

Apparently you did not read Randi's statement that JREF is NOT a organization to promote Atheism. And it is possible to be a skeptic about the Paranormal and still beleive in a supreme being or force of some sort.
You are just as intolerent of other's opinions as the worse Religious Fundy.

Ion

22nd October 2007, 02:30 PM

In Ion's world view,Yes.
And I have to echo the comments on the incredible hypocrisy of Ion's eternal badmouthing of America and it's economy,while staying here and reaping the benefits thereof.
...

Is it hypocrysy duddy?

Or rather courage to fight.

...
Apparently you did not read Randi's statement that JREF is NOT a organization to promote Atheism. And it is possible to be a skeptic about the Paranormal and still beleive in a supreme being or force of some sort.
You are just as intolerent of other's opinions as the worse Religious Fundy.
Is it possible, duddy?

By all means believe in a supreme being after it is proved in a scientific setting (like FREF's challenge) first.

Otherwise you are full of baloney.

Pardalis

22nd October 2007, 02:38 PM

It's JREF

dudalb

22nd October 2007, 02:49 PM

All I can say is that consdering the number of people..many on the political left....that Ion has managed to piss off with his "fighting for Freedom" on this page, I would say he is a very incompetent tactician. He basically denounces Americans as a bunch of idiots,and thinks that is a way to win them over to his point of view.

Darth Rotor

22nd October 2007, 02:51 PM

Good analogy 'Dorian'.

There was also the quote by a U.S. General at the beginning of the 20th. century where the concept that war is racket for a few rich while the poor suffer was shown.
I will put the E into JREF, once again, for the benefit if I=mor.

The General did not so write in the beginning of the 20th century. He was, at the beginning, embarking on his career as a warrior, which profession earned him the sobriquet Old Gimlet Eye.

After he had served various the Banana Wars and Progressive ventures:

Boxer Rebellion
Occupation of Veracruz (1914)
Occupation of Haiti
World War I

and had earned

The Medal of Honor (2)
The Marine Corps Brevet Medal
The Army Distinguished Service Medal
The Navy Distinguished Service Medal
The French Order of the Black Star

he left the service somewhat bitter for not having been selected Commandant. With the benefit of an insider's view of many of the things that went on "over the horizon" before the Good Neighbor Policy overtook the Progressive and Conservative ventures in Latin America, and elsewhere in the world, he wrote and had published War Is a Racket.

His name: Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, United States Marine Corps.

For a summary of his views on non interventionism/isolationism, see here.

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

You can get a copy of his book, War is a Racket, first printed in 1935 -- not in the beginning of the 20th century, but almost two generations into it -- at your local library, or book store.

I suggest you read it, I=mor, if you intend to refer to it. It's a most enjoyable exploration of the interface between war and politics, and what's behind politics.

DR

KoihimeNakamura

22nd October 2007, 06:31 PM

when Jefferson draw "We the people..." in the Constitution, the intend was to make U.S. ruled by a government elected from majority's will like in a democracy.

Bush thinks U.S. is a democracy.
He stated that Muslims "...envy our democracy.".

Condi Rice thinks U.S. is a democracy.
A few days ago, in Russia he gave the example of U.S. 'democracy'.
Bush and Rice are paying lip service, but are, in matters of fact, wrong.

Many people wre uncomfortable with the term democracy becuse it implied a direct democracy that conjured up Hobbesian fears of the people and mob rule.
(O'Conner and Sabato,pg 12.)

Funny, how political science texts get this right.

Oh, and Jefferson?

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Disagrees.

Bush lying in order to get the war in Iraq going, then waring Iraq against the will of the majority of U.S. citizens -and many such examples- show that U.S. failed as a democracy.

As I said before, only Congress can do it, and so far they are not reflecting the will of the people. This is not Bush's fault. (well, it is, but not stopping it is primarily the Democrats responsbility as they were elected on that feeling.)

Incidently, if you mistype my name ONE more time, I will report you. Stop poking.

Is it possible, duddy?

By all means believe in a supreme being after it is proved in a scientific setting (like FREF's challenge) first.

Otherwise you are full of baloney.

See the thread: JREF is not an atheist organization.

Elizabeth I

22nd October 2007, 08:41 PM

Too ealry for this:

Pompous grandstanding won't cut.

For example to counter "...But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like..." I posted in What's the Iraq War about anyway? that Bush had a censorship book written to become U.S. policy.

For example again, to counter "...And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits...", Bush and the Americans started a war based on lies and lack of responsability.

Freedom is what I fight for.

Not what Bush, gummy, Lizzy do.

Gosh, I don't believe I was talking to you. And do you really consider name-calling an adult form of debate?

Elizabeth I

22nd October 2007, 08:42 PM

His name: Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, United States Marine Corps.

DR

Was there really someone named Smedley or did you make that up? ;)

Ziggurat

22nd October 2007, 09:54 PM

Was there really someone named Smedley or did you make that up? ;)

Not just Smedley, but Smedley Darlington. Did his parents hate him?

gumboot

23rd October 2007, 12:22 AM

Ayatollah gummy has spoken:

Religious practices and displays in taxpayer's funded public buildings, that's mixing church with state.

Banning this like Chirac (France) did, that's separation of church and state.

Bush the religious doesn't do this with the U.S. Christian Fascist right-wing (see his Faith-based policies), but then he wars Iraq and threatens to war Iran (including their religions) for greedy Capitalism.

By all means take your beliefs out of a skeptics forum, and into a religious forum.

What a load of nonsense. Banning religious practices in public places is religious oppression, plain and simple. It's the absolute antithesis of freedom.

-Gumboot

Schneibster

23rd October 2007, 12:43 AM

No, Darth didn't make it up. Smedley Butler also was the leader of the march on the capitol of the veterans from WWI who had been screwed by the government, and was approached by two men allegedly working for a cartel of business people who wanted to overthrow Roosevelt during his first hundred days in office. The details are speculative since the two men could not be positively connected to the business leaders (who included John Jacob Raskob of the Morgan Guarantee Trust, and Irenee DuPont- yes, THAT DuPont) that Butler testified they had told him were funding the adventure, and they denied everything.

Further connections, albeit somewhat tenuous, exposed in a BBC documentary, lead through Morgan to Brown Bros. Harriman, UBC, and Prescott Bush, who were all involved in trade with Fritz Thyssen and the Nazis until shortly after Pearl Harbor when the Trading With The Enemy Act was passed and the whole thing was shut down by the US government. They were selling steel to the Nazis that they built tanks with.

Darth Rotor

23rd October 2007, 11:57 AM

Not just Smedley, but Smedley Darlington. Did his parents hate him?

His dad might been upset with him, since he went against his father's wishes and joined the Corps -- him being a Quaker, that's a bit off -- at age 16. On the other hand, this might have been the old "Boy Named Sue" dynamic at work: give your kid a sissy name and he'll be a fighter his whole life. ;)

DR

Darth Rotor

23rd October 2007, 12:00 PM

Further connections, albeit somewhat tenuous, exposed in a BBC documentary, lead through Morgan to Brown Bros. Harriman, UBC, and Prescott Bush, who were all involved in trade with Fritz Thyssen and the Nazis until shortly after Pearl Harbor when the Trading With The Enemy Act was passed and the whole thing was shut down by the US government. They were selling steel to the Nazis that they built tanks with.
IIRC, the Bonus marchers were dealt with by a General named MacArthur, CSA, and two of his staff officers, Patton and Eisenhower.

As to the steel, Schneibster, how do you know the Germans didn't build U Boats with it? :cool:

Likewise, as a neutral, the US could sell to either and any belligerent, based on the laws of war as they existed at the time. Neutrality was good for business, and indeed, protecting the rights of neutrals who did not deal in armaments is one of the purposes for the rules of war as they evolved, and were practiced, from the 1700's to the 1900's.

DR

Ion

23rd October 2007, 12:22 PM

...that Ion has managed to piss off with his "fighting for Freedom" on this page,...
No kidding, duddy:

Bush and fans don't jeopardize U.S., do they?

Ion

23rd October 2007, 12:24 PM

...The General did not so write in the beginning of the 20th century. He was, at the beginning, embarking on his career as a warrior, which profession earned him the sobriquet Old Gimlet Eye.

After he had served various the Banana Wars and Progressive ventures:

Boxer Rebellion
Occupation of Veracruz (1914)
Occupation of Haiti
World War I

and had earned

The Medal of Honor (2)
The Marine Corps Brevet Medal
The Army Distinguished Service Medal
The Navy Distinguished Service Medal
The French Order of the Black Star

he left the service somewhat bitter for not having been selected Commandant. With the benefit of an insider's view of many of the things that went on "over the horizon" before the Good Neighbor Policy overtook the Progressive and Conservative ventures in Latin America, and elsewhere in the world, he wrote and had published War Is a Racket.

His name: Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, United States Marine Corps.

For a summary of his views on non interventionism/isolationism, see here.

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

You can get a copy of his book, War is a Racket, first printed in 1935 -- not in the beginning of the 20th century, but almost two generations into it -- at your local library, or book store.

I suggest you read it, I=mor, if you intend to refer to it. It's a most enjoyable exploration of the interface between war and politics, and what's behind politics.

DR
Anyway, Butler made the point that war is racket.

Chaos

23rd October 2007, 12:25 PM

IIRC, the Bonus marchers were dealt with by a General named MacArthur, CSA, and two of his staff officers, Patton and Eisenhower.

As to the steel, Schneibster, how do you know the Germans didn't build U Boats with it? :cool:

Likewise, as a neutral, the US could sell to either and any belligerent, based on the laws of war as they existed at the time. Neutrality was good for business, and indeed, protecting the rights of neutrals who did not deal in armaments is one of the purposes for the rules of war as they evolved, and were practiced, from the 1700's to the 1900's.

DR

Nevertheless, dealing with the Nazis, of all people, and feeding their war machine, is not what I would call ethically unproblematic behavior. Somehow I doubt that even the most naive person (and industrial tycoons tend to be anything but naive) could have thought that the Nazis were building all those tanks, planes and submarines just because they look so pretty.

Ion

23rd October 2007, 12:29 PM

Bush and Rice are paying lip service, but are, in matters of fact, wrong.
...
See the thread: JREF is not an atheist organization.
Tokyo is paying lip service.

Bush and Rice are not paying lip service, they send U.S. to war.

As for JREF not being an atheist organization, it challenges to prove the supernatural in a scientific setting.

No supreme divinity passes the test since the beginning of history.

Every human achievement is done with scientific evidence.

So there is no proof for the belief in a supreme divinity baloney.
...As I said before, only Congress can do it, and so far they are not reflecting the will of the people. This is not Bush's fault. (well, it is, but not stopping it is primarily the Democrats responsbility as they were elected on that feeling.)
...

Congress cannot over ride Bush on withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and on covering 6 million children with government healthcare because the Republicans in Congress support Bush and don't vote with the Democrats in Congress to over ride Bush.

Ion

23rd October 2007, 12:34 PM

What a load of nonsense. Banning religious practices in public places is religious oppression, plain and simple. It's the absolute antithesis of freedom.

-Gumboot
Banning religious practices in taxpayer funded places is separating church and state.

Religion is to be practiced in private places.

That's ensuring freedom.

KoihimeNakamura

23rd October 2007, 12:38 PM

Tokyo is paying lip service.

Bush and Rice are not paying lip service, they send U.S. to war.

As for JREF not being an atheist organization, it challenges to prove the supernatural in a scientific setting.

No supreme divinity passes the test since the beginning of history.

Every human achievement is done with scientific evidence.

So there is no proof for the belief in a supreme divinity baloney.

Congress cannot over ride Bush on withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and on covering 6 million children with government healthcare because the Republicans in Congress support Bush and don't vote with the Democrats in Congress to over ride Bush.

Reported.

Schneibster

23rd October 2007, 01:25 PM

IIRC, the Bonus marchers were dealt with by a General named MacArthur, CSA, and two of his staff officers, Patton and Eisenhower. I knew it was MacArthur. I didn't know Patton and Eisenhower were involved.

As to the steel, Schneibster, how do you know the Germans didn't build U Boats with it? :cool: LOL, yeah, I suppose so.

Likewise, as a neutral, the US could sell to either and any belligerent, based on the laws of war as they existed at the time. Neutrality was good for business, and indeed, protecting the rights of neutrals who did not deal in armaments is one of the purposes for the rules of war as they evolved, and were practiced, from the 1700's to the 1900's. While this is true, it's also true that the trade continued after early 1941, when Nazi Germany declared war on the US. Not only that, but there was public outcry when the trade was discovered, and amendments were passed to the Trading With the Enemy Act that eventually resulted in the seizure of UBC, after Pearl Harbor and the formal declaration of war. Not, of course, until October of 1942; and Bush, his father in law Herbert Walker, and Averill and Roland Harriman all continued to make money from and sell materiel to the Nazis until then, nine months after Pearl Harbor.

There have been allegations made in open court, substantiated by recently declassified documentation from the US National Archives, that UBC helped finance slave mining in Poland on the site of Auschwitz both prior to and after the construction of the death camp, and two Polish former slave miners for the Nazis filed suit against the US government and the heirs of Prescott Bush at The Hague in 2004. They were denied a hearing when they attempted to file in the US, on the assertion of sovereignty.

John Loftus, a former prosecutor for the Office of Special Investigations of the US Department of Justice, the department responsible for finding, charging, and deporting Nazi war criminals hiding in the US in the 1970s and 1980s, has stated that he would not hesitate to charge Prescott Bush, Averill Harriman, and Herbert Walker with providing aid and comfort to the enemy. You will recognize that phraseology as part of the legal specification of an act of treason.

All of this is public information, freely available, much of it from documents recently declassified, and available at the National Archives and the Library of Congress. It's often dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" by the Bush family and their supporters, and until the release of that documentation, it might have been- but not any more.

jsfisher

23rd October 2007, 04:24 PM

As for JREF not being an atheist organization....

Stay on topic much?

Ion

24th October 2007, 08:05 PM

Stay on topic much?
Fishy,

you mean that you have a hard time to follow the topic:

I say that people who post support for Bush's endeavors in this alleged skeptics forum are religious moles.

As shown in that goofy post one page ago, where the belief in a "...supreme being or force of some sort..." is asserted but cannot pass testing in a scientific setting (offered in the JREF challenge, and elsewhere).
(see:
...it is possible to be a skeptic about the Paranormal and still beleive in a supreme being or force of some sort...
)

Shades of Son of Sam, who believed his dog was barking at him commands to kill people, Americans -the eternal scientifically illiterate plebe of the modern world- are putting loony words into nature's ways in hopes of getting crutches in life to supersede a painstaking learning of science, rational thinking and human responsability.

Ion, stop altering members' names. Continuing to do so past the time-stamp of this warning will cause you to be subject to further action.

jsfisher

24th October 2007, 08:50 PM

Fishy,

Yes, Irony?

you mean that you have a hard time to follow the topic:

You may want to work on your grammatical skills, but, no, I don't mean that at all. I mean exactly what I implied. You veered off just to cast general slurs on the JREF forums participants. Here's an example, and thank you for providing it.

I say that people who post support for Bush's endeavors in this alleged skeptics forum are religious moles.

Ion

25th October 2007, 05:03 PM

...
You may want to work on your grammatical skills,...
Who? Me?

No way.

Rather you "...may want to work on your..." analyical skills which are gravely lacking in life:

people supporting Bush's endeavors in a skeptics forum are religious moles.

Ion

25th October 2007, 05:14 PM

I saw this post -supporting my stance-:
Curious. Mussolini defined fascism thusly:

...the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century

Replace "fascist" with "conservative" above and I would have no trouble believing those words came from Coulter, Hannity, Robertson, Cheney, etc...

"Islamofacism" is pure hyperbole and intended to incite hatred and fear while simultaneously hindering true open discourse. Nice.

in the thread Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96831

In this thread I stated my stance that Bush's Capitalism, Fascism and Communism have things in common.

Mussolini's quote proves it.

I think the threat to world's civilization that U.S.S.R. was posing in the 80s, is now being posed by U.S. Capitalism and Islamic fundamentalist ethnities.

ChaoticLimbs

25th October 2007, 06:37 PM

ChaoticLimbs

25th October 2007, 06:38 PM

delete that "because". It doesn't belong there.

Ion

27th October 2007, 01:36 PM

# 3. Develop a thug caste
# 4. Set up an internal surveillance system
# 5. Harass citizens' groups
# 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
# 7. Target key individuals
# 8. Control the press
# 9. Dissent equals treason
# 10. Suspend the rule of law

Right at number 3 it gets difficult, because without some extremely believable propaganda supporting an ideology which requires this imprisonment/harassment of the general population for some reason. In the USA this would be difficult because the military is volunteer and our economy is not absolutely hopeless. It would be difficult to find enough people motivated to do such a thing.
...

Nah.

I posted earlier exactly your "...extremely believable propaganda supporting an ideology which requires this imprisonment/harassment of the general population...", when I posted in this thread the U.S. right-wing agenda.
Bush II is a temporary pawn in it, others started it, Bush II and his successors implement it.
Note that U.S. has the highest population on earth in trouble with the law -1 adult in 32- (hence your "...imprisonment/harassment of the general population..." takes place), not for political reasons since the Americans in Capitalism don't have a social conscience, but Capitalism is the cause of social unrest in U.S..

Read it first.

Talk afterwards.

Not before.

Today's The San Diego Union Tribune writes on page A21:

"Torture complaint
European rights groups filed a legal complaint in France accusing former U.S. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of responsability for torture in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay.
The complaint was filled with the Paris prosecutor's office as Rumsfeld arrived in France for a visit, according to the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights and two Paris-based groups, the International Fedaration of Human Rights and the League of Human Rights."

You shouldn't deny Fascist practices by U.S..

So much for Bush deriding "...old Europe..." in 2003:

Bush resorts to old Fascism to lecture and grandstand "...old Europe..." which evolved way past Fascism since 1940s.

I can't wait until Bush is out of the office, and like Rumsfeld now, becoming prone to lawsuits for his Fascism.

...
The other problem is who does this benefit? Having your population imprisoned doesn't make the government more powerful, it takes away valuable members of the workforce and creates civil unrest...
Rich American lobbies.

Not the American people at large, who according to the polls, overwhelmingly reject the war.

The San Diego Union Tribune of Sunday September 30 2007 writes:

"Conservatives flexing wallets with group
Freedom's Watch finds raising voice
By Don Van Natta Jr.
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

Freedom's Watch, a deep pocketed conservative group began a $15 million advertising campaign destined to maintain congressional support for President Bush's troop increase in Iraq.
The nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda.
Its next target: Iran.
...
Some members have advocated a more confrontational policy with Iraq...
...
"If Hitler's warnings were heeded when he wrote 'Mein Kampf' he could have been stopped," said Bradley Blakeman...
...
"Ahmadinejad...wants the destruction of United States and the destruction of Israel."
...
The idea for Freedom's Watch was hatched at the winter meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Manalapan, Fla., where Vice President Dick Cheney was the keynote speaker.
One benefactor who spoke on condition of anonimity, said the group was hoping to raise as much as $200 million by Novemeber 2008. Raising big money "will be easy," the benefactor said, adding that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million...
...
But many of its donors and organizers, including Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary, are well-connected to the administration...
..."

Note how it hijacks blaming Mein Kampf on others but not on themselves, note the Republican Jewish Coalition and speaker Cheney, note its concentrated wealth that it pursues, note Ari Fleischer, the U.S. Fascist who worked for the White House, in this.

This Jewish lobby is not the only lobby pursuing the U.S. Fascist right-wing agenda which Bush II is implementing right now, there are plenty of Christian right Fascist lobbies pursuing the U.S. Fascist right-wing agenda with bribes to the government.

Pardalis

28th October 2007, 12:31 PM

Thanks Skeptigirl for abandoning this thread to the loon.

Care to answer my questions now (on page two) ?

Pardalis

28th October 2007, 12:52 PM

Naomi Wolfe's methodology: or how to work your way backwards and teach yourself to confirm your hypothesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

ETA: and poof! Off line skeptigirl goes.

Why do you ignore this thread? At the first bump you abandon it?

JEROME DA GNOME

28th October 2007, 04:01 PM

bump

Ion

29th October 2007, 05:28 PM

Thanks Skeptigirl for abandoning this thread to the loon.
...
And who is your so-called "...loon..."?

Answer and justify with evidence your name calling, or be exposed as a troll.

(I am fed up with right wingers like Pardalis who lack responsability, but are full of hypocrisy.

In this thread, in this post -typical of how he is-, he singled out Skeptigirl in order to attack her without evidence supporting him on October 12:
Maybe they, like Skeptigirl, gobble up anything that comes from a liberal source as gospel truth and don't bother to check if that source has any viable knowledge of political science and history to be making such a list in the first place?

Paris Hilton's grocery list would have been as much informative.
but in this post from October 28:
Thanks Skeptigirl for abandoning this thread to the loon.
...
he denies himself regarding the attack on Skeptigirl and tries to make up for a buddy coalition with her, in order to single out a so-called "...loon..." for another unsupported attack.

That's hypocrisy in plain view.)

Pardalis

29th October 2007, 05:34 PM

There, there.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 05:34 PM

I am fed up with right wingers like you who lack responsability.

Left wingers who lack responsibility are more to your liking, then?

Ion

29th October 2007, 05:43 PM

Left wingers who lack responsibility are more to your liking, then?
No.

But the danger to today's peace are right wingers.

Not left wingers.

To each their dues in time and circumstances.

Ion

29th October 2007, 05:44 PM

There, there.
So you don't say who is your "...loon..." and don't have evidence.

You troll with hypocrisy.

Pardalis

29th October 2007, 05:47 PM

You troll with hypocrisy.

Says the one who edits his posts twenty minutes after the fact.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 05:49 PM

No.

But the danger to today's peace are right wingers.

Not left wingers.

To each their dues in time and circumstances.

Must be nice to live it a world where things are so clearly polar and monolithic. None of that pesky gray. I'd bet the sun sets and rises quickly for you, too.

Ion

29th October 2007, 05:54 PM

Says the one who edits his posts twenty minutes after the fact.
The administrators and me, we consider editing within a time frame -2 hours I think- as valid.

Complain to the administrators.

But no, you won't complain either, you troll only.

Nowhere do I see your perceived "...loon..." and evidence.

You troll hypocritically.

Pardalis

29th October 2007, 05:58 PM

Take a nap or something.

Ion

29th October 2007, 05:59 PM

Must be nice to live it a world where things are so clearly polar and monolithic. None of that pesky gray. I'd bet the sun sets and rises quickly for you, too.
Well, it's nice.

You lost your innocence.

The innocence of right and wrong that kids have.

Adults are often corrupt.
Physically (becoming overweight) and intellectually (becoming cowards).

I maintain my kid innocence.

Waring and stuffing wealth after throwing lies like Fascist America does, that's a clear cut wrong.

Ion

29th October 2007, 06:00 PM

Take a nap or something.
Like I said, you troll:

you make assertions without evidence and without responsability.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 06:13 PM

I maintain my kid innocence.

Ok, but since you admit you are out of touch with reality, why should we pay attention to your histrionics?

Ion

29th October 2007, 06:15 PM

I am not "...out of touch with reality...".

You are.

Pardalis

29th October 2007, 06:17 PM

I maintain my kid innocence.

I am not.

You are.

I see you retained the rhetoric as well.

Ion

29th October 2007, 06:18 PM

I see you retained the rhetoric as well.
You see in reality that you troll about a "...loon..." whom you cannot substantiate.

Pardalis

29th October 2007, 06:21 PM

You see that you troll about a "...loon..." which you cannot substantiate.

Everytime you post you prove my point. Relax.

Ion

29th October 2007, 06:22 PM

I am not "...out of touch with reality...".

You are.
I was cut off.

The entire post there is that kids maintain their innocence.

I maintain my innocence like a kid.

Adults like you jsfisher are corrupt.

Take for instance your "...since you admit that you are out of touch with reality...":

you are corrupt because I admitted that I have innocence and integrity in touch with the reality more than you do, not the opposite;
you fake the opposite of what I said, when you try to put words in my mouth in "...since you admit...".

There is not one single post by you in this thread that I didn't counter, often with data, after which you retreated.

Ion

29th October 2007, 06:24 PM

Everytime you post you prove my point. Relax.
But when prompted about your points (the "...loon..." and evidence, the fake complaint about editing posts which you won't submit to administrators here to show that you are genuine instead of trolling, and more), you run away from your assertions without supporting evidence, like in hit and run, the mark of a troll.

In contrast to you, what did I just prove?

I did prove that you troll.

Now relax, and take a hike to a religious right wing forum, will you?

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 06:58 PM

I was cut off.

The entire post there is that kids maintain their innocence.

I maintain my innocence like a kid.

Adults like you jsfisher are corrupt.

Take for instance your "...since you admit...":

you are corrupt because I admit that I have innocence and integrity more than you, not the opposite which you fake in "...since you admit...".

That's an interesting grasp on language you have there. You describe yourself has having childlike innocence, a term that means you are shielded from some of the less pleasant aspects of reality. Yet, you believe that translates to integrity. Fascinating.

Be that as it may, exactly what point are you trying to make?

There is not one single post by you in this thread that I didn't counter, often with data, after which you retreated.

If by "counter, often with data" you mean taunted with incivility and grammatical errors, then yes. Otherwise, you merely flatter yourself.

Ion

29th October 2007, 07:04 PM

That's an interesting grasp on language you have there. You describe yourself has having childlike innocence, a term that means you are shielded from some of the less pleasant aspects of reality. Yet, you believe that translates to integrity. Fascinating.
...

You mean that you are not overweight and wronged by my data?

Prove it.

...
Be that as it may, exactly what point are you trying to make?

If by "counter, often with data" you mean taunted with incivility and grammatical errors, then yes. Otherwise, you merely flatter yourself.
I taunted you with analytical skills that you don't have.

You never stood my data.

Prove me wrong, counter my data with counter-data if you can.

As for my "...grammatical errors..." in English, beyond your own grammatical errors in your native language (shades of the all-American pot calls kettle back), why don't you expand your capabilities to foreign languages and analytical skills taught in mathematics?

You sorely need these in modern life, because the work that I am brought to do in U.S. displaces you from U.S. as we speak now.

Ah, corruption and extinction of the local sub-humans, I see...

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 07:30 PM

Are you done editing your post? I don't want to respond before your done.

...personal attacks skipped...
Prove me wrong if you can.

Ok, you said: I maintain my innocence like a kid.

According to Webster, innocence has simplicity and ignorance as synonyms. I don't see any meaning that connects to integrity. Perhaps you see something there I missed. Or, more likely, you are proven wrong.

You sorely need these in life because the work that I am brought to do displaces you from U.S. as we speak.

Whatever did you mean by this sentence?

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 07:31 PM

Are you done editing your post? I don't want to respond before your done.

Nope, he's still at it.

Ion

29th October 2007, 07:36 PM

Nope, he's still at it.
Because it's considered valid.

If you have a problem complain to the administrators.

But you only troll.

So you won't complain to the administrators.

Ion

29th October 2007, 07:37 PM

...
According to Webster, innocence has simplicity and ignorance as synonyms. I don't see any meaning that connects to integrity. Perhaps you see something there I missed. Or, more likely, you are proven wrong.

Whatever did you mean by this sentence?
Get an education beyond Webster.

A real one.

One that teaches you that innocence is honesty.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 07:39 PM

Get an education beyond Webster.

A real one.

One that teaches you that innocence is honesty.

Your claim, so where is your evidence?

Ion

29th October 2007, 07:39 PM

...
Whatever did you mean by this sentence?
I mean that the U.S. Department of Labor considers me skilled.

But the unskilled they go poorer and poorer in Capitalism, until they don't have money for life and become extinct.

Ion

29th October 2007, 07:41 PM

Your claim, so where is your evidence?
In my dictionary.

Also in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence

It starts with:

"Innocence is a term that describes the lack of guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime..."

Ah, teaching the native language to a native speaker.
Pot calls kettle back applies here.

A native speaker without a real education in his native country.

And for him this is even not as high as foreign languages, and mathematics...

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 07:42 PM

I mean that the U.S. Department of Labor considers me skilled and you unskilled.

The unskilled they go poorer and poorer in Capitalism, until they don't have money for life and become extinct.

Upon what basis do you claim I am considered "unskilled" by the US Department of Labor?

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 07:50 PM

In my dictionary.

Also in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence

It starts with:

"Innocence is a term that describes the lack of guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime..."

Ah, teaching his native language to a native speaker.
Pot calls kettle back applies here.

A native speaker without a real education in his native country.

And for him this is even not as high as foreign languages, and mathematics...

What has that to do with your claim?

Texas

29th October 2007, 07:51 PM

That list reminds me very much of Scott Peck's list (q.v. The Road Less Travelled guy) that defined an "authoritarian" political structure--something like one person at the top, subdued criticism only allowable, claims of infallibility, stuff like that--and then went on in the book to explain that this was the definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

.

That said, there definitely seems to be a more rigid structure in American politics that tends to marginalise opposition. But the fact is that American electors don't vote in droves (as they say they did in Iraq, for example) because they don't actually care who runs the country as long as their better interests are served. Women's and minority rights are guaranteed there in a way that would make a Saudi prince or a Chinese bureaucrat shiver in contempt.

I maintain to this day that most of the criticism leveled against the USA is borne of jealousy that they have been so successful and not because they are innately "fascist" or exclusive. It's the same as I see Scott Peck's partisan Protestantism against the Roman Catholic Church. Success begs, somehow, an unrealistic comparison to Hitler.

It appears that Wolfe has taken a page from the John Birch Society playbook by replacing the left's boogie man, Fascists, with the JBS boogie man, the Reds. This scary" call to arms from the far right has been around for 50 years and is almost a mirror image of Wolfe's screed http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

Ion

29th October 2007, 07:53 PM

What has that to do with your claim?
From the innocence in wikipedia, namely from:

"Innocence is a term that describes the lack of guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime..."

this:

...
The entire post there is that kids maintain their innocence.

I maintain my innocence like a kid.

Adults like you jsfisher are corrupt.
...

applies in the sense that:

.) innocence is a term that describes the lack of guilt of a kid and the lack of guilt by me, with respect to a crime, like the war in Iraq by Fascist America;

.) jsfisher is not innocent, he is corrupt with respect to a crime, like the war in Iraq by Fascist America.

Like I said, you struggle with analytical skills.

And on a more basic note, you struggle with your own native language, when you don't know what innocence means in your native language.
Pot calls kettle back applies here to you, again.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 08:00 PM

From the innocence in wikipedia, namely from:

"Innocence is a term that describes the lack of guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime..."

this:

applies.

Like I said, you struggle with analytical skills.

You have provided no connection from innocence to integrity. You have provided no connection from innocence to honesty.

Those were your claims. Where is your evidence?

By the way, your wikipedia article gets rather specific when focusing on the innocence of children:

People who lack the mental capacity to understand the nature of their acts may be regarded as innocent regardless of their behavior. From this meaning comes the term innocent to refer to a child under the age of reason, or a person, of any age, who is severely mentally disabled.

Thank you for providing further support of my position.

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:01 PM

No.

But the danger to today's peace are right wingers.

Not left wingers.

To each their dues in time and circumstances.

Did not the left wing win the mid-term elections and choose to fund the war?

:confused:

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:06 PM

It appears that Wolfe has taken a page from the John Birch Society playbook by replacing the left's boogie man, Fascists, with the JBS boogie man, the Reds. This scary" call to arms from the far right has been around for 50 years and is almost a mirror image of Wolfe's screed http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

Just to set the record straight. Fascists are leftist.

Ion

29th October 2007, 08:13 PM

You have provided no connection from innocence to integrity. You have provided no connection from innocence to honesty.
...
No kidding.

The illiterate in his native language thinks that there is no connection between innocence, integrity, and honesty.

So maybe Bush is innocent, without integrity and honesty.
He didn't know December 2000 that invading Iraq for oil was being discussed with him in a cabinet meeting, and he used the connection 9/11-Iraq regardless, because he is innocent without integrity and honesty.
Suuure.

Or he has integrity, but no innocence and no honesty.

And so on.

Only in America there are loonies like jsfisher post shows, I tell you...

...
By the way, your wikipedia article gets rather specific when focusing on the innocence of children:
...

There are multiple facets af the word innocence.
wikipedia shows them all.

The one I used, I proved it.

Learn your native language, guy.

Texas

29th October 2007, 08:19 PM

Just to set the record straight. Fascists are leftist.
Well if you want to use the "Socialist" moniker in the "National Socialist Party" I guess you could interpret that but, given Hitlers response to the Communists in Germany I would not do so.

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:20 PM

I bumped this thread to have a talk about the topic.

Flame wars over the definition of innocent are boring.

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:22 PM

Well if you want to use the "Socialist" moniker in the "National Socialist Party" I guess you could interpret that but, given Hitlers response to the Communists in Germany I would not do so.

Factions of the same ideology.

Do not the Catholics and Protestants war?

Texas

29th October 2007, 08:26 PM

Factions of the same ideology.

Do not the Catholics and Protestants war?
Let's put it this way, they were both totalitarian movements. It matters not which wing of the political spectrum they started from. They both sucked.

Ion

29th October 2007, 08:29 PM

I bumped this thread to have a talk about the topic.

Flame wars over the definition of innocent are boring.
They might be boring, but useful to right wingers.

Remember how the facts were distorted in the 2004 Presidential campaign when Kerry -a Vietnam veteran- was being trashed by right wing chickenhawks.

With flame wars over the definition of what is a decorated veteran.

With flame wars over the definition of who is responsible for 9/11.

With flame wars over the definition of family values as espoused by the killers themselves, and with flame wars of who combats Hitler's legacy.

Here:
That's an interesting grasp on language you have there. You describe yourself has having childlike innocence, a term that means you are shielded from some of the less pleasant aspects of reality. Yet, you believe that translates to integrity. Fascinating.

Be that as it may, exactly what point are you trying to make?

If by "counter, often with data" you mean taunted with incivility and grammatical errors, then yes. Otherwise, you merely flatter yourself.
jsfisher starts a flame war over innocence (after unsuccessfully trying his hand at my "..grammatical errors..."), then when that fails he shifts it into integrity and honesty.

Beware of the ethics and 'education' of right wingers.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 08:30 PM

No kidding.

The illiterate in his native language thinks that there is no connection between innocence, integrity, and honesty.

You seem to be having trouble making the connection. Why is that?

...irrelevant attempt at a distraction snipped...
Only in America there are loonies like jsfisher post shows, I tell you...

So, when logic and reason fails you, you resort to insult? Excellent debate strategy.

There are multiple facets af the word innocence.
wikipedia shows them all.

Perhaps not all facets, but many, I'll give you that. It even covered the meaning of innocence in the context you used it, childhood innocence.

The one I used, I proved it.

No, the one you used was a diversion, and a poor one at that. On the one hand, it didn't establish the connections you'd claimed; on the other, it was not for the meaning of innocence as you had used it.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 08:32 PM

I bumped this thread to have a talk about the topic.

Flame wars over the definition of innocent are boring.

Well, since Ion doesn't seem to be able to focus on what should have been a simple side issue, I'll stop now. He can claim victory, albeit an empty one.

Ion

29th October 2007, 08:38 PM

Well, since Ion doesn't seem to be able to focus on what should have been a simple side issue, I'll stop now. He can claim victory, albeit an empty one.
You don't focus.

You started with my grammatical errors.
It didn't work.

Then innocence.
It didn't work.

Then honesty.
Then integrity.

Keep on lying.

I have time for you.

Ion

29th October 2007, 08:40 PM

You seem to be having trouble making the connection. Why is that?
...
You seem to have trouble making the connection, not me.

Innocence involves integrity and honesty.

Here:

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/honesty.htm

it is shown how they are linked together in children and corrupted in adulthood.

Learn your native language first things first, guy.

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:45 PM

jsfisher starts a flame war over innocence (after unsuccessfully trying his hand at my "..grammatical errors..."), then when that fails he shifts it into integrity and honesty

You allowed yourself to be baited.

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:47 PM

Let's put it this way, they were both totalitarian movements. It matters not which wing of the political spectrum they started from. They both sucked.

Agreed!

What do to think about the trans-Texas corridor?

Ion

29th October 2007, 08:48 PM

You allowed yourself to be baited.
I want to be baited by him.

I pull the teeth out of chickenhawks this way.

jsfisher

29th October 2007, 08:50 PM

You allowed yourself to be baited.

I have a prediction about what's going to happen next....

ETA: Oops, too slow. Already came true.

Elizabeth I

29th October 2007, 08:52 PM

You troll hypocritically.

Yeah, you guys, could you start trolling sincerely? I'm tired of all this hypocritical trolling.

Only sincere trolls need apply.

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:52 PM

I want to be baited by him.

I pull the teeth out of chickenhawks this way.

Chickens do not have teeth.

http://202.139.150.50/ftproot/images/Hen%20with%20trimmed%20beak.jpg

Ion

29th October 2007, 08:53 PM

I have a prediction about what's going to happen next....

ETA: Oops, too slow. Already came true.
I have a prediction too.

You will drop.

After grammatical errors which didn't work well for you, innocence which didn't work well for you, you will drop from the thread, toothless.

Ion

29th October 2007, 08:54 PM

Chickens do not have teeth.

http://202.139.150.50/ftproot/images/Hen%20with%20trimmed%20beak.jpg
Chickehawks do.

I pull them.

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:55 PM

Neither do hawks for that matter.

http://www.hiltonpond.org/images/HawkRedShoulderedHead03.jpg

JEROME DA GNOME

29th October 2007, 08:56 PM

Also, Chickenhawks do not have teeth.

http://www.petcaretips.net/foghorn_henery.jpg

Elizabeth I

29th October 2007, 09:05 PM

Also, Chickenhawks do not have teeth.

http://www.petcaretips.net/foghorn_henery.jpg

There's actually no such thing as a chickenhawk:

In the US, "Chickenhawk or Chicken Hawk" is an unofficial designation for three species of North American hawks -- the Cooper's Hawk, the Sharp-shinned Hawk and the Red-tailed Hawk. The term Chicken Hawk, however, is inappropriate. Although Cooper's and Sharp-shinned Hawks may attack other birds, chickens do not make up a significant part of their diet; Red-tailed Hawks have varied diets, though they too would be unlikely to attack poultry.

Historically, misinterpretation of the name "Chicken Hawk" has labelled these birds as pests, hence justifying their slaughter. Officially, per the American Ornithologists' Union's list of bird names, the term has become obsolete as applied to birds, but still enjoys widespread colloquial use in many rural areas of where any of the three species has been seen as a threat to small outdoor animals kept as pets or livestock, especially chickens.

While the term is still widely used by those who keep such animals, it is too ambiguous to be of any scholarly usefulness, especially since the meaning of hawk differs between America and Europe; thus, the term's propriety (or lack thereof) depends entirely upon context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28bird%29