|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Nobody is forcing you to be a homosexual.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Yeah, Frist, DeLay and Hastert are all a bunch of hippies.
quote: 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: What's wrong with secularism? Isn't the US government founded upon secularism?
quote: Only the Republican leadership of the country. This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 05-12-2005 08:47 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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," 5/7/03 Aug. 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 spokesperson On 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.?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: tons of what?
quote: Like what? Nuclear warheads attached to rockets, sitting in silos, able to reach the US?
quote: 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: So, why didn't Bush allow the inspections to continue until we found them. if they were there?
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Here's that photo that holmes mentioned, just in case you were doubting that it exists.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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 info Longone Center for American Culinary Research The Janice Bluestein Longone Culinary Archive at theWilliam L. Clements Library on the University of Michigan campus in Ann Arbor contains thousands of items from the 16th to 20th centuries - books, ephemera, menus, magazines, graphics, maps, manuscripts, diaries, letters, catalogues, advertisements, and reference works. It is a work in progress, and material is being added and catalogued daily. In May, 2005 the First Biennial Symposium on American Culinary History will introduce the Archive to the public with a three-day symposium and exhibition. Ms. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
All of the messages from me on page 8.
Or, at least all of the issues I raised if they span several messages.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
Imagine the entire congress and house assembled in a room, and aliens beamed into the room, much to everyone's surprise. Every single one of the Democrats were then transported to the alien's space station orbiting Saturn, so that only Republicans were left in congress and the house. I would say that there would be no left-leaning politicians left in the room if all of the Democrats were gone and only Republicans remained Now, if I'm reading Monk's position correctly, this would instead mean that because we can point to some Republicans who are less conservative and right-leaning than others, we should now call those Republicans "radical leftists". So, do I have it right?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
This is also important:
quote: Wow, that is a bald faced lie, and you believed it. quote: Here's some history for you:
quote: Now, aren't you feeling lied to by Frist?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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:
* The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation ? until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201). * Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312). * The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129). * Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103). * Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202). * Individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428). * Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322). * Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504). 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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024