Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.

I'm not offended at all. It's just so far beyond the pale as to not warrant serious consideration. What you're doing is taking advantage of man's inherent ability to rationalize whatever appeals to him. If you're able to convince yourself Bush is a fascist, then good for you! But the power of your idea is measured not by your ability to persuade yourself, but by your ability to persuade others.Your arguments are like an apologetic in that they'll really only convince those who are already convinced, and perhaps also the gullible. In order to have a wider reach your arguments must take on at least the appearance of balance and objectivity. Perhaps your intention is that others should provide the other side of the story, but I think you've staked out such an extreme position that no one sees the need. Your argument is self-evidently false to most people.--Percy

But Percy, I said I am willing to be shown wrong. I am am willing to examine where the reasoning behind my decision might be flawed. It is not like I woke up one day and decided to give Bush that label. I keep up with politics, I was activly involved in the 2004 elections. I examined the criteria for fascism and found that Bush DOES meet those criteria. On the basis of the actions of himself and his administration I stand by my conclusion that he is an elected dictator.Yes it is strong words but so what? Do the fact that they may seem extreme automatically make the position invalid? I would like an answer to that.Beyond that, if I am being extreme that I don't understand why there is so little opposition. People bring up extreme topics all the time that are far more rediculous than assigning a fascist lable to the president. These types of extreme positions illicit a response due to their obvious irrational and/or illogical basis. People on this board have a tendency to jump on situations like this. Why would this case be so different then if I am being WAAY out there or something?So far the only thing I can conclude since no one will engage me on the actual content of my objection is that it is either not interesting or that opposition is to difficult for anyone to pick up the torch. Me and you are really talking about a meta issue regarding the topic. How about the fact that Bush is circumventing the Constitution? No one wants to talk about that.Forget I called him a fascist or a dictator. Those are just labels. What about his actions? No one seems to want to come here and defend Bush's blatant disregard for the checks and balances of government and the fact that he is completely disregarding the authority of the other branches of government.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Great! Maybe someone will take enough interest to engage your arguments, but it won't be me. I replied not because I have much interest in this topic, but just to explain why I thought people weren't participating. I already said all I have to say on the subject, and it doesn't really matter to me what other people think about Bush.The way I see it is that in every presidency there are always those who sound the alarm that the current president is taking us down the road to perdition. So far it hasn't happened, and eventually one tires of the alarmists and just tunes them out. It's like the end of the world, often prophesied and just as often delayed. But even the Roman Empire fell, so when America eventually falls the harbingers of doom of that generation can claim credit and say they told us so.--Percy

I guess I take a little shock being called an alarmist. While I certainly do think that this president has done considerable damage to this nation I also know that the history of our nation has NEVER been the primrose picture that the stereotypical American nationalism likes to believe.I am not trying to predict the demise of anyting. All I wanted, and still do, is for some of our Bush lovers on this board to defend this particular action which seems like a blatant disregard for the Constitution. I may have put some people off by calling it "fascist" or him an "elected dictator" but that does not excuse the issue.So far we have randman who can't stop talking about Clinton and Faith who used those words as an excuse to handwave any responsibility.So for all you Bush supporters out there. Forget I ever called Bush a dictator or a fascist. I'll take it back and reserve my classification of the man to myself. What do you all have to say about HIS ACTIONS? Particularly the ones outlined in the OP that go against the Constitution.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

quote:

---

Historians of the future will likely see Bush as a well-meaning president most notable for shepherding the country through the period after the largest ever foreign attack on American soil, and for overreacting to external threats in ways that threatened world peace and stability, and that placed undue and unwarranted pressure on civil liberties. He is neither devil nor angel, and definitely not a fascist.

---

I think they will also note his unprecedented grab for greatly expanded executive branch powers, excused by the "we're at war" line.If he and his congress aren't fascists, they are certainly authoritarian, which is just this side of fascism.

But looking at it another way - perhaps America does often head down the road to perdition, until the watchful sound the alarm and rouse us from our slumber long enough to avert the current crisis. In that case the doomsayers fulfill a very vital role indeed.

if we ignore things like this, and let them go by -- because clearly it's not the end of the world -- eventually it will be. at what point does "i've heard this before" skepticism become outright denial?and it's not the end of the world at all: facism HAS happened before. just not in this country. there are warning signs, and we know what they are. all one needs to do is read a history book.

---

One of the more pressing concerns I had about fascist tendencies in our government was the Supreme Court decision allowing local municipalities to condemn private land for private purposes by claiming increasing the tax base counts as a public purpose. This enables municipalities to be bribed or influenced by developers to condemn areas with people of less political influence and so forcibly take their homes and businesses and redevelop their property. Imo, this is a real, genuine threat to liberty and a fascist development within our soceity.I noted that all of the conservative jurists like Scalia and Thomas voted against this decision, but all the liberal jurists supported it, and the moderates split in a manner that supported the liberals' position. Now, even though I am somewhat suspicious of the Robert's appointment in terms of whether he is a real conservative ideologically, I think Bush's appointments to the courts are more likely to protect the little guy, the homeowner and business owner with less local political clout, than a democrat would in this area.I base my assessment on the actual votes in the court. So it is a little puzzling to hear dems express so much alarm over Bush. I do think he like most presidents, doesn't understand the Constitutional limitations on the presidency and the government in general, or just doesn't believe those limitations apply, and unfortunately neither party seems to have nominated anyone lately that does understand or accept those limitations, and imo, our government does not adhere to proper Constitutional limits.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Thank you for such an honest and OT reply randman.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Does OT stand for On-Topic or Off-Topic, btw?

My bad. I meant On Topic.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

The opposite ruling in the Kelo decision would have spelled chaos for the country. If you can't use eminent domain for any private purpose, there's hundreds of thousands of acres of railroad land - crucially important for the movement of goods and food products in our country - that would have to be reverted to the ancestors of their original owners.At any rate, none of the opposition to the Kelo decision seems to be able to explain why creating jobs and revitalizing blighted urban areas constitutes an improper state interest. And most of the states have acted to make explicit what they consider public use, so the decision of the Supreme Court was not "nobody can stop a city from taking whatever they want", but rather "it's the role of the state to regulate eminent domain."That's federalism at it's best. It's not at all clear to me why you think that's the wrong decision, or where the Court has extended their power beyond Constitutional limits.

Sorry I didn't reply to you right away. I was collecting my thoughts. So the excuse is that nobody really understands the Constituion in government? Do you really consider that to be a valid excuse.Personally, I don't think this is true. There are some things that are so BLATANTLY unconstitutional that you would have to either have a nefarious motive or serious mental deficiency. To me, blatant and, key word here, purposful disregard for legislative and judicial authority falls into that category.Lets focus on this one issue. How does this particular issue not outrage you? Seriously. Even if precident had been set for similar activities by different presidents, does this not just further that to dangerous extremes?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

jazzns, you have to see from my perspective, a whole lot of things are not Constitutional. The Dept of Education is not Constitutional, imo. Half of the federal government is not Constitutional as it lies outside of the scope of the powers granted to the federal government.So you say, look Bush, attaches signing statements that exempt him from obeying the laws Congress passes. OK. That's bad. So are half of the laws in the first place. Whether it's Congress or the President or the Supreme Court, it's bad when any of them usurp the rights of the people themselves.So if we are going to make progress, we need to recognize that we the people grant the government it's rights, not the other way around, and quit trusting in the government to help solve problems the government was never commissioned to solve under the Constitution.

Crash, that's bull. Railroads would not have been affected, and there was special legislation attached to that a long time ago. It wouldn't have been chaos, and it wouldn't have endangered past eminent domain situations.What it would have done is limit the expansion of eminent domain to effectively mean local governments can take property for any reason at all, even to give it to one of the drinking buddies of the powers that be.