is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

So basically what you're saying is we should forget about the consitution and lawful process and just base everything on the Good Book.Oh peaches! I can't wait to live there!I hope that Official National Religion will be one that won't have me wake up too too early on Sundays.This message has been edited by dsv, Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:13 PM

Why does it matter? The point is they're hypocrites.From the St. Petersburg Times, April 14, 1994: "Republicans had been threatening to hold up the nomination [of a federal court nominee] indefinitely."From the New York Times, December 9, 1994: Senator Orrin Hatch, the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told Clinton administration "officials that he was now the principal gatekeeper on who gets to be a federal judge."From the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, November 12, 1997: "Any Clinton administration nominee who harbors ideas that don't measure up on the GOP litmus test will have a tough time getting by [the Republican Senate's] checkpoints."From the New York Times, January 2, 1998: "Mr. Hatch and his fellow Congressional Republicans ... have delayed consideration of many of President Clinton's nominees."From the St. Petersburg Times, September 26, 1999: "From virtually the beginning of Clinton's presidency, [Republicans] have blocked, stalled and shut down judicial confirmations in an attempt to keep jurists with the slightest liberal bent off the bench. Of the 62 judicial nominations put up by Clinton this year, the Senate has voted to confirm only 17."From the San Diego Union-Tribune, January 22, 2000: "Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., [said] that he and at least 13 other Republicans will block confirmation votes on every judicial nominee sent to the Senate by President Clinton in his last year in office."From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 11, 2000: "Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott pushed through the confirmation of two federal judges Thursday, defying an effort by his fellow Republicans to block all nominations submitted by the Clinton administration."From the San Francisco Chronicle, March 10, 2000: "Confirmation votes [on two nominees] had been delayed for years by conservative Republican senators who charged [they] were liberal activists named to a federal appeals court that already leans too far to the left. [One nominee] had to wait four years before yesterday's vote, the longest delay in history for any federal judicial nominee."From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 28, 2000: "Clinton said that he had been trying to get a black judge on [the 4th U.S. Circuit Court] for the last five years but that he had been stopped by the Senate Republican majority." Funny you should say that since you scold the same judges for ruling with the law over pressure from fundamental religion groups to follow Terri's husband's wishes. I guess the only laws you want to follow are those that help your side?This message has been edited by dsv, Tuesday, April 26, 2005 02:28 PM

Absolutely not the case, they refused to throw up their hands and succumb to the religious-right just because Jeb and GW Bush were on a personal mission to exploit Christians for political gain. The courts looked at the evidence, they reviewed the hours and hours of tape (which the media only showed 2 minutes of) and decided to rule on the side the law. They basically said "Uhm, why are we here? The law is clear on this."You may find it horrible and cruel or whatever you like, but when you fight for religious leaders to be in charge of your laws and blatantly use what they consider their morals to be when deciding what is best for the country, you're opening up a flood gate that will not only have a drastic effect on me -- the agnostic -- but also you -- the believers.

I second.

Yes I do, when they're not Methodists and Presbyterians. I can call myself whatever I want, that doesn't mean I actually subscribe to it. Hell, some of GW's policies aren't even Christian-like. He's a fundamentalist, a fundamental power junkie. He doesn't act based on his morals, he acts based on his opinions and general asshatery. Just because his campaign "architect" blatantly used people of faith to gain power doesn't necessarily mean he's really a man of faith. What's scary is that he's now continuing to pander to them because of pressure from the rest of the republican party since they all want to use the evangelical vote for their own gain as well.Yes, I said USE, as in a tool. Oh excellent! Well at least we can rely on other countries to pick up the slack and help further humanity while we continue to roll back the times in an effort to bring back mass superstition. This is grossly short-sighted. That separation is there for the faith not for the secular organizations. Yes, they want to be able to compete, but they don't want to play fair. If they are put in the same grouping with secular organizations they have to observe the same non-discrimination laws as secular organizations. Oooh but wait, that goes against our religion! It's utterly ridiculous.

Definitely agree with you there. I actually love McCain and was looking forward to him being Defence Secretary under the Kerry administration (And didn't really like Kerry, but voted for him because of my lack of options). However, they don't represent the core of this administration. I don't really consider myself a democrat, although this thread paints me as one because of my posts. I have sided with republicans on some issues in the past, albeit for the most part moderate republicans.Honestly, though, I don't really consider this administration to be republican. Using other republicans as evidence for republican moderation doesn't work in this case because their track record doesn't speak for this administration. Bush's white house has an agenda unlike that of even republicans, in my opinion.This message has been edited by dsv, Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:01 PM

Please see Message 16.