is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

All of the top republicans currently in power support a constitutional amendment to allow state-sanctioned school prayer.Frist, for example, is closely associated with Family Research Council, a right-wing religious lobby group which is striving to get it's particular religious morality instated as the law of the land.

quote:

---

I detest the revisionist redefinitions of rights and freedoms for starters, terms which have been co-opted by the Left and made to apply to personal behaviors, such as homosexuality, which is not the business of government to force on people who have moral objections to it.

---

Nobody is forcing you to be a homosexual.

quote:

---

Freedom means leaving them alone to do as they please in their private lives, but what we are starting to get is a police state tyranny which forces all to legitimize and even subsidize such behavior.

---

Nobody is asking you to consider it legitimate for yourself.However, I am against the war in Iraq, yet I am forced to subsidize it. Living in a democracy where people have civil rights means that you and I will pay taxes which support some things we do not personally agree with, but are protected by the constitution.Believing in "civil rights" means that you believe in supporting someone's right to do what what you disagree with.

quote:

---

More and more the idea of freedom is being twisted to apply to formerly criminalized behavior. While in many cases I can support decriminalization, I can't support official legitimization that requires Christians, for instance, and other likeminded groups, to violate Biblical precepts by treating something as right that the Bible condemns.

---

You don't have to treat it as personally right.You just aren't allowed to discriminate against people because what they do or are is against your religion if you are an employer, for example.

quote:

---

That is unAmerican and an unconscionable misuse of government power.

---

You can be a bigot about anything you want to in your personal life.You just can't be a bigot if it breaks the law in employment, housing, or other legal matters.

quote:

---

THIS is the police state, what YOU are supporting.

---

So, why should an employer's particular religious bigotry hold sway over the civil rights of all Americans, and why should this bigotry be protected by law?

quote:

---

The Sixties generation basically, now in power, even the terrorists among them, God help us all.

---

Yeah, Frist, DeLay and Hastert are all a bunch of hippies.

quote:

---

Who is working to pass such laws?

---

Frist, Hastert, DeLay, Santorum, Cheney, Bush, and many other prominent Republicans all strongly support a Constitutional ammendment to allow state-led prayer in state-funded schools.

quote:

---

The trend has been in the opposite direction for generations now, from originally Christian schools to militant secularism.

---

What's wrong with secularism?Isn't the US government founded upon secularism?

quote:

---

However, I don't support official prayer in public schools and don't know who you are talking about.

---

Only the Republican leadership of the country.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 05-12-2005 08:47 AM

quote:

---

My opinion, based on nothing but common sense and speculation, is that Iraq has definitely had limited weapons of mass destruction and that these weapons have drifted out into the general sympathetic militia in that region.

---

Are you thinking of WMD or conventional arms, Phat?We've long known that Iraq had bunkers full of conventional explosives that were sealed and inspected by the international weapons inspectors in the run up to the war. The US forces came across them during the invasion, opened them, and then left them unguarded. It has been reported that likely some, if not many, of the explosives being used by the current insurgency have come from those previously secure bunkers.By WMD, I specifically mean what the Bush administration claimed Iraq had; vast stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and also nuclear weapons.WMD have never been found.

quote:

---

Where did anyone (besides liberals) say imminent threat?

---

Mar. 6, 2003 George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people."Mar. 14, 2004 Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser
"I believe to this day that it (Iraq) was an urgent threat. This could not go on and we are safer as a result because today Iraq is no longer going to be a state of weapons of mass destruction concern."Rumsfeld: (9/19/02) "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.""No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.""Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03Aug. 6, 2002 Dick Cheney
"What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve."Dan Bartlett, White House spokespersonOn January 26, 2003, when asked on Wolf Blitzer if Saddam was ?an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?? Bartlett responded: ?Well, of course he is.?2 On September 18, 2002, Rumsfeld said: ?Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.?President George Bush:?The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.? (October 2, 2002)?There?s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.? (October 2, 2002)?The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.? (October 16, 2002) [Emphasis added.]?There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.? (October 28, 2002)?The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.? (November 23, 2002)?I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.? (November 1, 2002)?This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.? (September 26, 2002)Vice President Cheney:On August 29, 2002, Vice President Cheney said: ?Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.?On January 30, 2003, Vice President Cheney said: Iraq poses ?terrible threats to the civilized world.?On January 31, 2003, Cheney said: Iraq is ?a serious threat to our country, to our friends, and to our allies.?

quote:

---

1st of all we have the 1.77 TONS

---

tons of what?

quote:

---

and 1,000 "Radio Active items"

---

Like what?Nuclear warheads attached to rockets, sitting in silos, able to reach the US?

quote:

---

BUT besides that we still don't know where they went.

---

Or if they were ever there in the first place.Just before 9/11 both Powel and Rice seemed to think that Iraq had no significant WMD capability, yet they completely reversed this view immediately after 9/11.Why did they do that?

quote:

---

And they went somewhere. Not finding something is not proof that it wasn't there. You can't prove a negative.

---

So, why didn't Bush allow the inspections to continue until we found them. if they were there?

quote:

---

WMD was only 1 reason.

---

It was by far the most influential reason.And it turned out to be either a lot of lies or some pretty severe incompetency.Also, quote mining Blix is not useful to your case.I can (and have in the past) give you the text of a whole interview with Blix which says that Bush pretty much just ignored much of what the inspections team told him.

Here's that photo that holmes mentioned, just in case you were doubting that it exists.

Page 8, please

I know, I know, sorry for taking so long.There is a big culinary event going on in town and I have been trying to get my section at work looking fabulous, so I've been only able to do the "small post" threads I'm involved in.The event is pretty exciting, actually: link to infoMs. Bluestein is dedicating her large collection to the library.Anyway, many, many food writers, chefs, and other culinary people (some of them famous (at least to me ) are going to be coming through my little world and I want it to look fabulous.

All of the messages from me on page 8.Or, at least all of the issues I raised if they span several messages.

What I'd most like to discuss is the difference between what I have always meant when referring to "liberal" and "conservative" and what you have refused to ackowledge.I have never been referring to people's liberalness or conservativeness relative to each other.I have always been measuring them against the unchanging entire political spectrum, with Marxists and Socialists on the far left, and Authoritarians and Facists on the far right.It is my contention that there are many conservatives who are quite far right and Authoritarian in very high, powerful positions in our government right now, and there are no Marxists and no Socialists in our government right now.You continue to use the term "far left", but there is no significant, influential Marxists or Socialists in our governent right now, so I would like you to explain why you keep using the term. So, do I have it right?

This is also important:

quote:

---

Did you catch that? Never in 214 years has a vote been denied.

---

quote:

---

Republicans have filibustered sure, but not to this extent and not with judicial nominees.

---

I thank you.It would be much more productive if you would just read what I write the first time I write it and respond to it in a direct, forthright manner instead of trying to do an end run around it.And I do agree that there are no outright, 100% Fascists in our government right now.But there are quite a few high-ranking politicians with some very Authoritarian tendencies, which they have acted upon.Hence, we now are subjected to the Patriot Act which gives law enforcement and government intelligence agencies unprecedented power to spy on us, collect information on us, and imprison us without any due process. You do know that law enforcement can get a secret order from a secret court in order to spy on you without having to provide any evidence that you have done anything illegal, don't you?I mean, have you actually read anything about the Patriot Act 2 that they want to get passed? Here are some highlights: We also see that Frist is obviously connected with one of the most powerful radical Christian right lobbying groups, the Family Research Council. The FRC seeks to get it's particular morality imposed, by law, upon everyone in the country.We see that well-respected, long-time Republican members of congress like Arlen Specter and John McCain are being attacked by the current leadership of their party simply because they did not roll over and go along with everything this Radical Right leadership thinks should happen.Tell me, do you actually agree with Bush, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, Hastert, Dobson, and Santorum on everything?They don't care if you don't.Isn't traditional conservatism supposed to want to keep government out of people's lives as much as possible, and strive for smaller governement, and fiscal responsibility in government?In your estimation, is the current Republican leadership following these ideals?

You are right, I do tend to make a million points in my messages. I will try to stick to one or two per message to make things easier to reply to.Now, about the Patriot Act...

quote:

---

But before I address that, I would like to hear your view on Patriot Act I. Is there anything at all you agree with? Any provisions that, given the reality of 911, you view as necessary changes to previous legislation? Or do you consider ALL of it an unnecessary trampling of civil liberties?

---

Yep, it pretty much is all an unnecessary trampling of our constitutionally-protected civil liberties.Most of the provisions in PA1 allow more spying and searches on American citizens without any accountability or openness on the part of law enforcement.It also is poorly written, such that it defines "terrorism" and "domestic terrorist" in very broad ways that could easily include political dissidents. Remember the abuses of the CIA upon dissident groups in the 70's?Also, it allows non-citizens to be detained indefinitely without being charged with any crime, without a speedy trial and without any access to legal representation. The SCOTUS recently ruled that even American citizens could be held in this way, effectively eliminating habeas corpus in the US. So much for 500 years and the Magna Carta.I find that to be particularly egregious, since we are supposed to be the country that "brings the light of democracy" to the world, by example. What kind of example are we setting?Anyway, I believe that the Patriot Act was a really poor, far too wide-reaching and vague piece of civil liberty- and freedom-limiting legislation that was rammed through Congress at the only possible time it could get the votes; just over a month after 9/11.

quote:

---

Since the Patriot Act is out, then you prefer the previous legislation in place before 911?

---

I think that many of the provisions in the Patriot Act would be justified if they had narrowly defined what "terrorist activities" and "terrorists" were so as not to include political activists, for example.Also, I would be much happier if there were much greater congressional oversight and accountability.The elimination of due process is a travesty and is a serious reduction in one of our most crucial civil rights.I am truly ashamed that we are now not the "most free" nation on earth.

Jar, the Patriot Act is certainly a very large part of the evidence for the US sliding into fascism, so I actually don't understand why you think it needs it's own topic.However, I am going to only have limited time to play on the computer today, so I will only address your question briefly.Just because I don't like the PA doesn't mean I think that the previous legislation was or is adequate.We KNOW that the government will abuse power, especially if it is allowed to operate in secret. That's why the Founding Fathers gave us checks and balances, and why transparency in government is so important. They were the ultimate traditional conservatives, really, and would be appalled that Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus.The Patriot Act is a skillful power grab by those Authoritarians in government who have been trying, unsuccessfuly, for years to pass laws to give law enforcement more power to invade people's privacy, spy on them, and not have to answer to anyone.If we have to give up our rights in order to feel safe, then the terrorists have already won.I contend that we can craft good legislation to better protect ourselves from attacks without trampling everyone's civil liberties.PA is not good legislation, as evidenced by the fact that many non-terrorists are being prosecuted using it.