is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

Excuse me? I can disagree with anything you post without being a liar. You don’t hold a patent on truth. Let’s put that paper box away shall we?I do see however, that when intelligence is used to support your positions, then it is absolutely correct and without question. We don’t need to investigate and find out for certain what is going on in Iraq because we have intel that says nothing is there, right? BUT when similar intel sources are used as justification for war it’s completely bogus. Can’t have it both ways Holmes You must like flogging a dead horse. All of these have been tried repeatedly, over and over again, during the course of 12 years between the Gulf War and the Iraq War. 16 UN resolutions ignored. More than 30 publicly issued reprimands by the UN security council, ignored. Repeated warnings, multiple carrot-stick programs. The oil for food "carrot" turned into a multi-billion dollar fraud.Do you think Clinton would have authorized a CIA plot to assassinate Saddam if more conventional policies had proved to be effective?Only a fool repeats the same actions over and over again yet expects different results.

quote:

---

All of the messages from me on page 8.

---

Gee schraffy, let's see, we have:

• Ted Kennedy / Howard Dean positions on death penalty, taxes and gun laws
• The contradiction in your voting record source
• Democratic filibustering
• Bill Frist and the FRC
• Who’s who in left wing politics
• Political relativism
• And just for fun, you threw in the Barry Goldwater quote

I have responded to most of these already, but if you want to continue, let me know which one of these you’re interested in and I’ll rehash the topic with you.Admins may not view all of these as consistent with the OP. But wait, you’re an admin, shouldn’t each of these be a separate topic?

Ok so Marxist and Socialist are far left and Fascist are far right. I’m with you here Now here is where I disagree with you. There are no Fascist in our government right now just as there are no Marxist or Socialists. I agree there are no Marxists or Socialists in our government right now so since that’s how we agreed to define the term, I won’t use "far left anymore.

Your welcome, and it would also be much more productive and conducive to getting a more timely response from me if you didn’t shotgun twenty topics in the same post then get upset when I don’t deliver a dissertation on each one.Just look at the post I am responding to: We have: Authoritarian radical republicans, Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, the radical Family Research Council, radical republican attacks on Specter and McCain, a request for my opinions on Bush, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, Hastert, Dobson, and Santorum. Anything else? The kitchen sink? Wow, we are making progress. I know how much you had to choke while typing this statement. I would say.......as my fingers hesitate while typing........that.......considering certain people......you may have a point.........and.......I........agree. There I said it. Most of the rest of your post deals with quotes (without source link I might add), about the Patriot Act II. 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?

quote:

---

Yep, it pretty much is all an unnecessary trampling of our constitutionally-protected civil liberties.

---

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

But in your mind the Patriot Act is not justified at ALL, according to your previous post there is nothing beneficial to it, it is an unnecessary trampling of civil liberties. So lets's forget about it for the purposes of discussion.Am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

**shrug** whatever schraffy wants. I'm trying to be nice and address her issues.

I get it. You have said repeatedly you don't like any part of the PA. You consider it all a complete trampling of civil liberties. I understand.Saying it over and over again does not reinforce your point. If we are to continue in this thread, then answer the following question that I have posed to you 3 separate times now.Am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

The topic we have been discussing - the Patriot Act.You have said repeatedly you believe the Patriot Act I is a trampling of our civil liberties and that there is nothing beneficial to it.I said Ok then, fine, if the PA is no good, then am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

Because if you reject the current legislation which is in place, then we look at the legislation which was in place prior to 911. That is, previous legislation that was modified by the Patriot Act. Because that's what the PA is essentially, an expansion of previous law. But now it appears you reject all of that previous legislation as well.It is so very easy to criticize without basis, but putting forward your support of legislation is another matter isn't it?. So then I take it that you would like ALL law related to terrorism and terrorist activities removed from the books.ALL terrorist legislation enacted during the Clinton administration, Bush I, Reagan, well, let's just eliminate ALL of it shall we?There are always other options, sure, other legislation that can be put forward. But don't you think it's prudent to identify what is and is not acceptable legislation before adopting your solution which is a wholesale eradication of ALL terrorist legislation enacted in the past 30 years.

So none of the prior terrorist legislation is adequate. This is what you said in the previous post. Now you say maybe it was probably not adequate? Maybe some of it was and some wasn't?According to you The PA is more than an expansion of previous legislation but you don't want to discuss which previous legislation you think the PA is an expansion of.You say it would be stupid to eliminate all prior legislation. Why? Can you at least name some of the previous legislation that you don't find objectionable? Or is all of it objectionable? I can't tell.According to you the PA is bad and that should be the end of the discussion?Is that because you don't know which previous legislation you find objectionable?Maybe it doesn't matter to you and whatever it was, it was probably all bad anyway, right?

You said:

quote:

---

the Patriot Act is intrusive, rights-eroding legislation that was crammed through Congress at the only possible time it could have been, which was about a month and a half after 9/11.

---

OK, you really really hate the Patriot Act, I know. You consider it useless tripe, TP at best. I know ok. I got that message upthread, several times.Can we please move on? I promise I won't forget that the PA is bad.

Because you keep saying the same thing, like a broken record, and refuse to discuss anything else.You Said:

quote:

---

Are my objections to the Patriot Act based upon faulty information or not?

---

I don’t know. That’s the point. Before I can answer whether your objections are based upon faulty information, I need to understand what are your objections to the legislative foundation upon which the Patriot Act is based.Since we have already discussed how the PA is an extension of previous legislation, we are back to my original question which you keep ignoring. The predominate legislation that the Patriot Act is based on, the foundation or basis, is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) and the USA Act of 2001.So if there were no Patriot Act, if it had not been enacted, then the default position would be these anti-terrorist Acts. Do you want them thrown out with the PA?