Say, "It's official, America is a Fascist State." in public... I did.

[The Doctor.]

I've been in the habit, for the last few months or so, of putting on my hands-free cell phone headset, going to a public place, phoning a friend, and going into a detailed discussion with them on the administration's criminal behavior;

-------------------------------------------

"You wouldn't believe it, but someone actually tried to tell me Valerie Plame-Wilson wasn't a covert operative! ... Yeah.... that one... uh-hun..... yep, the CIA asset that was responsible for tracking weapons of mass-destruction.... yep, the White House actually destroyed one of our own national security assets..... yeah, well we're all less safe because of the White House's actions on this one... "

-------------------------------------------

"Seriously, I can't believe Bush doesn't want to capture bin Laden ...... yep, that's right, he said 'dead or alive' and then less than a year later says he doesn't care about him .... Yeah, I agree- there couldn't be a more inept 'commander-in-chief'."

-------------------------------------------

Well, today I just couldn't stop myself. I know that I don't have to have someone on the line to have such 'one sided' conversations, but I find it helps to talk to a person who wants to hear it... or needs to hear it.

-Today I called four people while I was running errands.

On the phone with a teacher I love dearly while standing in line at the bank;

"Oh, and by the way, Guess what? {wait...}, no, that's not it... The United States of America is officially a Fascist nation as of today! .... Did you get to read about the bill that was just passed in Congress? I read it, it gives the President dictatorial powers."

-Then I go on and list the immensely unConstitutional provisions of the bill and exactly what the ramifications of each of them are.

Then I let her go and call another friend who likes to be informed... right as I walk into a fast-food joint. (Great burritos)

As I'm waiting in line, I go through the litany. I say again; "Guess what? America is officially a Fascist nation."

After I get through the most damning stipulations of the bill, after I've seen a half-dozen or so people shift uncomfortably in their seats as I mention... Yes, In public... that this bill is 'exactly the same set of justifications every fascist government has ever used to imprison political enemies', after all of that one person, a tall, not-quite-thirty-looking man says; "People are paying attention."

In a Mighty Taco, no less.

My heart truly lifted at that moment.

I said, "Not enough of them, unfortunately." -And I indicated (indicted) the patrons with a subtle sweep of the hand.

He said, "It is flimsy, it won't survive."

"No, it's only obstacle is now the Supreme Court. And now we get to see what happens with the new SC Justices appointed by Bush. I liked Roberts ok, he seems like a real conservative who understands the gravity of an issue like this, but I don't trust Alito as he's indicated support of the 'Unitary Executive Theory'."

"Congress is fractured over it.", he said.

"Yes, but it's too late. It passed Congress, it's on it's way to becoming law right now. The last place it can be defeated is in the Supreme Court."

-It became apparent that he didn't truly understand the process at that point... or perhaps I am missing something I would dearly love to understand.
In any case, every person in that establishment, including some obvious Freeper-types, became informed.
(I could pick out the Freeper-types by the way they wilted, obviously ashamed they they could not defend the travesty they supported... Seriously folks, when you bring these issues into the light of day, the pseudo-patriots fold.)

Then on to the Supermarket...

This time I was on the phone with my wife, God love her. (but not as much as I do)

I went around the store, seeking the various items we needed, and all the while talking to her on my 'hands free', which, for all intents and purposes makes you appear to be talking to yourself. (I would love to hear a George Carlin diatribe about people like me... it wouldn't be the first. (take "jogger assholes" par example))

So I'm going about the store explaining to her that, "The United States of America is now, officially, a Fascist Nation."

-Out loud, and in public.

I go on, of course, to explain exactly Why and How this is the case. This is honestly the first time she's heard the details as the passage of this legislation only happened bare hours before our conversation. But she is, despite her general disdain for all things political, quite fascinated with the ramifications of this bill.

And so are a number of store patrons... as I soon find out.

They Listen. Make no Mistake. When I speak in public to someone on my 'hands-free', it does not garner the respect for privacy that holding a phone to one's ear does. It is different.
Privacy is respected when the items signifying a personal conversation are, quite literally, 'at hand'. Under such circumstances, where the phone is in evidence, 3rd parties tend to 'block out' any meaningful attention. But the advent of hands-free technology seems to have a very different set of psychological implications.

People respond.

In this case, one patron took exception to my conversation...

In line, at the grocery store, after I had said for perhaps the third time that, "the 'President' was about to sign a law giving himself dictatorial powers.", A man said, "You can't be serious."

He was about 50-ish, he had striking blue eyes and a grey (local team) football sweatshirt on.

I said, "I'm having a talk with my wife about this," -I indicated my earpiece, "but if you want I can tell you about the bill that passed Congress today, it gives the President the power to detain anyone he wants without trial... even you or me. We don't have the protection of the First Amendment anymore."

I knew I could expect his next response;

"Bull." - He didn't actually say the 'shit' part, but it was there.

I finished my transaction at the register and made sure to be on the way out of the store where I could deal with him in a way that did not inconvenience the staff.

When he exited right behind me, I turned as magnanimously as I could and said, "My friend, I read that bill... I know what it says. I'm quite sure you haven't read it, and you don't know what it says. Am I wrong?"

We had acquired an audience of store employees on a cigarette break just outside the doors.

He said, "You're full of shit you liberal trash, you don't..."

That's where I lost it.

Even here on DU I've never called myself a 'Liberal'.

I know Damn Well what I am. And the last thing I am is an enabling piece of shit fascist Fucktard that thinks America is all about Monday night Football, big screen TVs, and killing brown people for no other reason than the fact that they happen to be unfortunate enough to live on huge and proven reserves of vast petroleum fields.
-And I'm sure that's not all.

So I told him (and I found out later that his name is Craig), "WHAT? Liberal my ASS!", I said, "You have NO IDEA who or what I am!."

I've been VERY edgy lately, and I don't recommend this approach to anyone, but this shit has me pissed off and I have the credentials (and the HtH training) to get away with it.

I continued, "I'm a REAL Republican! My ancestors, the Wilsons, the Sandfords, they fought to create the country we live in now. I'm a Bona-Fide Son of the American Revolution, and I will be DAMNED before I let the shit this administration is trying to pull go unchallenged! I am a patriot because I question authority, just as my forefathers did, and any piece of shit that threatens my country whether it's a terrorist or any moron that supports a criminal administration that trashes the very Constitution MY ancestors fought to create will answer to the likes of me!" -

-Honestly, at this point I'm only paraphrasing what my wife reported to me that I said. I'm sure it's very close. She was still on the phone (my headset) when it happened. I would not normally disclose my heritage to any dumbfuck out there, but I think I made a point...

- He apologized.

That's when I said I was sorry. I told him how important it was to me that the country I loved, that the ideal my ancestors fought for not be hijacked by tyrants.

He told me his name was Craig, and he shook my hand. He said, "My father fought in WWII, don't get me wrong."

I said, "Then read the bill that passed today... just look it up on the internet."

He said "Ok"

I went to my car, and my wife heard me weep like a babe....

I'm having a hard time even writing this, it's been a posting screen for more than three hours.

People need to hear this.
They need to know.

There's more I'd like to say... but I can't right now...

[kestrel91316]

1. You are a hero. Keep up the phone calls in strategic places.

I am a Daughter of the Revolution (though NOT a DAR member, lol!). My g-g-g-grandfather fought and died in the Revolution (an officer in the Continental Army) so we, his descendants, could have those freedoms found in the Declaration and the Constitution. I can relate.

I'm doing my part. Oct 5 is an official paid half-day off for my assistant ('cause I, THE BOSS, said so). I am taking her to the big Los Angeles demonstration of WCW downtown. Ya got to get the next generation involved, and show them how it's done.

[The Doctor.]

7. I can never stop.

Thank you, I appreciate your characterization, but I feel like nothing of the sort.

I feel angry.

Furious.

Not 'heroic'.

I am absolutely enraged that so many people can live in this country and have absolutely no committment to it's values.

But if we wind up in detention camps, then I hope we will be in the same one... For even then I will fight - My ancestry demands no less. (oops... tactical disclosure....) ;~p

LOL... Thank you.

[tblue]

142. You inspire me!

I have a naturally big mouth. I don't have bluetooth but I like the idea of talking in ears-reach of people. WE ARE THE MEDIA!

For those of us who are scared, remember the courage of .

I will be right there beside you, wherever we end up.

[bperci108]

2. One-person Street Theater.

Absolutely brilliant.

"Jackass" meets the Yes-Men.

Thanks for the idea!

:yourock: :woohoo: :applause:

[Poiuyt]

3. Thank you for posting this

I think that people don't want to hear that we've become a fascist state just because it sounds so terrible. Well, it's about time that they get educated.

[The Doctor.]

9. The Freepers are too stupid to even read the legislation....

Seriously, they won't even recognize the absolute desecration of America and the Constitution this new bill represents.

I'd love to see any of them try to parse the text.

[tblue]

143. The huge bureaucracy of the US gov't could put them on

the wrong list accidentally. Or for something as innocent as:

-having a friend of a friend of a friend who is, say, Iranian or Islamic
-doing business with a Muslim
-posting on this website
-complaining openly about gas prices

Freepers are not exempt. If one of us is not free, NONE of us are free!

[cool user name]

29. Fuck them ...

I know it sounds Straussian.

I can't help but be unforgivabe to those who were too stupid to understand the situation.

I knew. You knew. The people in this forum know. That's who I can count on.

Fuck everyone else.

[StellaBlue]

4. Me, too.

I got accused of being "obsessed".

Well, if I'm "obsessed" like Clinton is "crazed", then I think it's appropriate.

[Swamp Rat]

5. Amen brother!!!

:applause:

[The Doctor.]

8. You know it... I'm stealing all your stuff....

It's fuckin' brilliant... and my wife loves it. Especially the one with Bush and the Chainsaw.

And thank you.

[Swamp Rat]

18. thanks

Btw, I do the same thing - talk loudly in public about the numerous outrages. I just came back from a party where at least 20 people heard my hour-long tirade about the Torture Bill.



Here's one your wife might like: :D

[The Doctor.]

67. She laughed her ass off.

Thanks again!

(stole it too...)

[razors edge]

6. I was dinning at olive garden tonight`

and when the waitress asked how my ribs in Chianti were I told here,"the chianti is almost good enough to make a republican palatable" thip thip thip thip.

[shadowknows69]

10. I told a couple co-workers about the Bill today

and a soldier I had in my cab that knew nothing of it.

[The Doctor.]

11. So did you inform that soldier?

I would want to know too.

[shadowknows69]

14. I told him about it.

He laughed when I said it was basically up to Bush to name what an enemy combatant is. He also said that if the chimp tries to stay past 2008 he implied something bad would probably happen to him.

[AntiFascist]

135. That's what we really need....

if Bush stays on this course then he needs to know that some in the military may actually work to defend the Constitution, and are willing to do more than just speak out against him.

[Kurovski]

12. I went to the grocery store with my neighbor today and

started to talk about the bill and she said "Oh, they're always up to something." And I told her that this was very different indeed.

We talked some more, I also said that as it stands, we are now a fascist nation, and she got it.

I didn't check around to see if anyone overheard, but I was speaking so as to project the voice clearly.

This is unreal. Absolutely creepy.

[The Doctor.]

13. keep it up...

It's worth it.

America is worth it.

Even the Freepers know this bill is wrong... they just won't admit it out loud.

[Moochy]

15. Signal Jamming!

:kick: k&r

[kerry-is-my-prez]

16. whoo-hoo. Remember sometimes it doesn't register to people until later.

A lot of people who hear things may not believe it then but when they think about it late - it registers.

Also - they may hear something else that makes it click. So even if you might only have one person that agrees with you others may agree later.

What's sad is that people have gotten to the point that they can ignore anything that "Liberals" say becasue we're crazy or something. Newt Gingrich started that.

[The Doctor.]

20. You are absolutely correct...

Put it out there and the meme will thrive.

-But only if we all do it.

And I'm not done by a long shot.


Thank You.

[Hawkowl]

17. BRAVO!!

BRAVO Sir!! I salute you!

[Subdivisions]

19. You keep fighting the good fight, Doc! I know your heart is

breaking but you have to stick your chest out and keep your chin up and keep ramming this into people's ears everywhere you go.

Just think of all the people whose, to put it in Moochy's words, signals you jammed!

You keep it up and I'm going to follow your example and do the same thing whenever and wherever I can.

[Senator]

21. Mountain Moving Action ... thanx ... (n/t)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. a) It's not true, and b) it will hurt the Democrats.

America blatantly isn't a fascist state, it's one of the fifty healthiest democracies in the world (and probably one of the twenty or thirty healthiest - remember that you're not the only country that has scandals).

And conforming to the conservative steriotype that liberals indulge in knee-jerk anti-Americanism (which this is) helps no-one but the Republicans.

[Red Right and BLUE]

23. Hear ye! Hear ye!

Telling people the truth about current "legislation" travesties is an unAmerican thing to do. :sarcasm:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Is that why so many people are calling me names for doing it?

Hysterical criticism of bad legislation undermines the - considerable - legitimate and reasonable criticism of it.

Howling "fascism" make it easy for the Republicans to paint all critics of torture as more interested in rhetoric than objectivity, whereas in actual fact there are only a few like that.

Not all bad government is fascism - fascism is a specific sort of bad government. Stalin tortured and killed millions, and wasn't a fascist. Calling the American government "fascist" makes no more sense than calling them "communist" or "monarchical".

[bperci108]

62. Hmmm.....

"Hysterical criticism of bad legislation undermines the - considerable - legitimate and reasonable criticism of it."


Calling it what it is is perfectly reasonable.



"Howling "fascism" make it easy for the Republicans to paint all critics of torture as more interested in rhetoric than objectivity, whereas in actual fact there are only a few like that."


I couldn't give two shits what the Republicans think or say or how they will attempt to spin it in their Corporate Noise Machine.

The real "hysterics" are the ones who want to pussy-foot around and concern themselves with PR games and "image".

Fuck that.

This is war. No more; no less.




"Not all bad government is fascism - fascism is a specific sort of bad government."

Precisely.

And this government has begun to slide into it.

Mussolini preferred the term "Corporatism"; Use that one if it makes you any less squeamish.

Perhaps you should learn what "fascism" really is before you go excoriating others about the use of the term. Just because you don't understand what it means doesn't mean everyone else is as clueless.

[The Doctor.]

66. Many good, polite

German citizens thought just as you do.

This bill is not just a 'bad piece of legislation'.

Throughout history there has been one single point, one crucial item upon which the inexorable slide into full-blown Fascism begins.

That is the point at which the Government gives itself formal power to violate human rights.

If you think this bill is anything less than that, please do explain why.

I suspect you cannot.

"Wehret den Anfängen"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/tjwash/14

I hear it all the time;

"How could German citizens have allowed the rise of the Third Reich?"

Well, I'll tell you...

Because they, like you, were more interested in maintaining appearances, the guise of normalcy, while the Nazis slowly and surely transformed Germany into a Fascist War Machine.

YOU my friend, and a million or so like you, are the reason the Nazis rose to power.

This is not hyperbole. It is not 'hysterical'. It's exactly how it happened.
http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

No one wanted to shatter the normalcy, no one wanted to break the veneer and seem like a ranting maniac... so very few people did.

What does history now say about those people who did?

So if you can't explain how this bill is not worthy of outrage, please tell me why it is you advocate being on the wrong side of history.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

72. Tell me, when you said

"YOU my friend, and a million or so like you, are the reason the Nazis rose to power.

This is not hyperbole."

Were you thinking, or were you just posting on autopilot?

I very emphatically indeed *didn't* say this bill is not worthy of outrage; it clearly is. I said that America wasn't fascist. Those are two completely unconnected claims - not everything atrocious is fascist.

[The Doctor.]

98. Did you read the links?

Seriously, the 'softening' of the 'rhetoric' is equivalent to 'polite' behavior.

Let me explain this way;

1)'I walk into an eating establishment and say, "so did you hear about the bill today? It's very unconstitutional". One person looks up, it's the only other person in the room who knows anything about this. Then they go back to eating, and maybe discuss the issue with others at their own table.'

-That's nice, isn't it?

Or I do this;

2)'I walk into an eating establishment and say, "The passage of this bill today makes it official, America is now a Fascist Nation".' - At that moment I just got the attention of at least half the room. It's what I do with that brief window that is important; "Yeah, the bill gives the President the ability to throw anyone in jail without evidence or justification... any one he wants. It also strips us all of the right to a fair trial, they don't even have to charge you with a crime to lock you up!"

- It doesn't matter whether all those people who were listening thought I was nuts. It doesn't matter if they decided not to believe what I said immediately after hearing the term 'Fascist'.

What matters is They heard it, and they can't unhear it.

Half the room just became informed, whether they decide to dismiss it or not is irrelevant to my objective. The fact of the matter is that I am correct in my assessment of this piece of legislation. Anyone who hasn't read it themselves cannot truly believe I am wrong. They may be adept at self-deception, but the ones who are aren't the ones I care about.

I care about the three or four people who feel that something is wrong in this country, but haven't, for whatever reason, kept informed.

I love to be challenged because the facts are on my side. That's why I use inflammatory 'rhetoric', to get a response. That guy at the market would never have challenged me if I used approach number one. And because of it I was granted an opportunity to restate the scary facts; "I'm having a talk with my wife about this," -I indicated my earpiece, "but if you want I can tell you about the bill that passed Congress today, it gives the President the power to detain anyone he wants without trial... even you or me. We don't have the protection of the First Amendment anymore." - Connaitre mon ami?

We need to get people's attention. We have the facts on our side.

Right now the Right-wing movement would love for all of us to continue, as we have been all along, to be 'polite' and debate 'rationally'. Meanwhile they will continue to be bombastic, shrill, outrageous, and deceptive.

So you go ahead and be 'polite'. Just like millions of 'good' German citizens did.

I, on the other hand, am going to go right ahead and make sure that people hear this. I would much rather be heard and thought crazy than be quiet and not be heard at all.

We have a message to deliver, and we need to get people's attention.

Now give me a Good reason to 'cease and desist' and I'll think it over.

Somehow I doubt you have one.

[Zhade]

101. And, of course, you simply told the truth about the bill.

You're correct, of course - there ARE otherwise well-intentioned Good Germans here who are aiding in the further destruction of this country by ignoring reality.

You are right; they are wrong. And the world knows it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

138. Read, and laughed at.

As this thread should hopefully hint, I tend to do anything but go with the flow. I occasionally have to stop myself reflexively disagreeing with whatever I'm reading, but very seldom to stop myself reflexively aquiescing.

Your links put the cart before the horse. They're about how it's dangerous to deny a country is descending into fascism when it is. That's true, but it doesn't say anything about how to behave when it isn't.



I'm not asking you to be *polite*, I'm asking you to be *accurate*. There are all sorts of words like "unconstitutional", "immoral", "counterproductive", or if you feel the urge to go further "stupid" and "evil", that are perfectly applicable both to the Bush government and to this legislation, but "fascist" isn't.

I don't believe that calling names is more effective that argument as a form of political discourse (although it's much easier), but it's not completely ineffective. However, if you are going to call someone names then you have to be bloody sure that they're names that apply accurately or you do more harm than good, and fascism clearly doesn't in this case.


Saying that a country isn't descending into fascism when it is is harmful. However, I invite you to consider what effect people saying America is starting to teeter towards fascism will have if it ever does start to do so if people have been saying that for years when it patently wasn't - a certain lupine proverb springs to mind.

I'm not asking you to cease and desist. I *am* asking you to make accusations that are true rather than ones that aren't.



"I would much rather be heard and thought crazy than be quiet and not be heard at all."

The problem is that people will assume not merely that you're crazy (about which they may or may not be right) but that you are representative of the American left in your craziness (about which you're emphatically wrong - you're somewhat representative of what I've seen of the "netroots" on this, but not at all of the left as a whole). As such, while being heard is excellent, you have to make sure that what you are heard to say is *true*, and in this case it isn't.



"Now give me a Good reason to 'cease and desist' and I'll think it over."

Is "You're helping the Republicans stay in power" sufficient. Although as I've said, my request is not "cease and desist" but "change your tune".

[The Doctor.]

169. That you laughed at a DUer's post, "Wehret den Anfängen"...

and at the recollection of a German Scholar who detailed the social and psychological atmosphere of Germany as it descended into Fascism speaks volumes about you.

Laugh away...

[Zhade]

100. No, you just dismiss the reality of the situation.

Do yourself a favor - go Google "14 points of fascism" and then try your laughable premise about our "helathy democracy" again.

I suspect even your eyes will be opened then.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

104. Read the thread.

I've already had them thrown at me, and I've already provided a detailed argument as to why a) they're a very poor characterisation of fascism, and b) many of them don't apply in the US, and most of the ones that do apply more strongly in most other countries, so calling the US fascist by that reasoning would imply most of the world is.

Go away, read the thread, and then when you've done that come back and we can argue about anything in my argument we disagree with.

[Zhade]

110. Continue to think that way. I'm not wasting time on your ignorance.

You're wrong, I know you're wrong, the rest of the world knows you're wrong, and I don't need to prove it to you to reaffirm my informed opinions.

We're just going to part ways here. If you'd like to think you 'won', have at it - reality really doesn't care how you feel about it.

[sufrommich]

77. ...

:applause:

[AntiFascist]

136. Sorry but I completely disagree....

calling them "Nazis" may be over the top at this point (although many parallels are there), but fascist makes much more sense. I think one of the biggest problems is that some people make it so difficult to characterize fascism. What we are seeing is simply government by and for certain industry, monopolies, and the worldwide mafia, governed by a Unitary Executive, instead of government by and for the people of the United States. What else would you call this?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

141. I call it democracy, I'm afraid.

A democratically-elected president, congress, and senate are making a series of very bad laws indeed.

Democracy doesn't prevent the making of bad laws. What it does do is provide a chance to remove those who make them, as will be provided in November and in 2008.

As and when the people governing America are not removable by popular vote, the term fascism may be worth discussing.

[AntiFascist]

148. I suppose the key distinction then is whether our "democracy".....

really works as such. We have corporate-controlled media which presents polling results where corrupt politicians (often only proven to be corrupt later on after they are elected) are very close in the polls. Then when people go to vote they expect the results to be close because they are told so by the media. Then when fraudulent voting machines and tabulators spit out the results, we are not surprised.

[Mynameissalvatore]

155. They're not just bad laws

A bad law to me is one that can't be enforced or one that people don't adhere to. These laws aren't made in bad judgement. They have very specific purposes. To erode our civil liberties and empower the rich and the corporations as well as institute a one party system.
That to me is fascism

[Chomskyite]

172. Love your Inspector Rebus novels, by the way . . .

. . . I don't know of any works of fiction that give you a better grasp of the social/econonomic situation in Edinburgh.

You've said only certain governments in world history have earned the term, fascist. With respect, I must ask if you believe we can ever apply the word fascist to certain POLICIES adopted by a government?

I think the word can be applied to behaviors, to attitudes and to policy choices. And I don't know of another one that fits Bush's new torture and anti-habeas corpus bill that has the same resonance. What word do you think fits better?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

176. No connection, as far as I know.

My nickname comes from my favourite jig, which was written by a Muriel Rankin (or Rankine, spellings I've seen vary), and named after a loved one who may have been connected to the famous Ian Rankin (who I first heard of some time later), but I suspect probably isn't. http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/cgi/abc/tunefind?P=Donald+ian+rankin&m=title&W=wide&limit=100&thresh=5&V=1&M=&L=&K=&find=FIND

I don't think "fascist" is a term that can be applied to a policy, because that's not what the word means, but constructions like "something we would expect to find under a fascist regime" or "reminiscent of fascism" certainly are.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. Keep telling yourself that

How does the sand taste, by the way?

[bperci108]

30. Apparently someone hasn't been paying attention....

The 14 Identifying Characteristics of Fascism



In an essay coyly titled "Fascism Anyone?," Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies social and political agendas common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."


(The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. Read it at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm) See how familiar they sound.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media

Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

This list will be familiar to students of political science. But it should be familiar to students of religion as well, for much of it mirrors the social and political agenda of religious fundamentalisms worldwide. It is both accurate and helpful for us to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. They both come from very primitive parts of us that have always been the default setting of our species: amity toward our in-group, enmity toward out-groups, hierarchical deference to alpha male figures, a powerful identification with our territory, and so forth. It is that brutal default setting that all civilizations have tried to raise us above, but it is always a fragile thing, civilization, and has to be achieved over and over and over again.

But, again, this is not America's first encounter with fascism. In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan. See how much you think his statements apply to our society today.

"The really dangerous American fascist," Wallace wrote, is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, "They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection." By these standards, a few of today's weapons for keeping the common people in eternal subjection include NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, union-busting, cutting worker benefits while increasing CEO pay, elimination of worker benefits, security and pensions, rapacious credit card interest, and outsourcing of jobs not to mention the largest prison system in the world.

[StellaBlue]

47. thanks

I think that covers it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. I think this fails on two levels.

Firstly, because Dr Britt's definiton is bunk, and secondly, because America doesn't in fact satisfy most of his points.

Firstly, this is at best a very roundabout and nebulous definition of fascism. It leaves out by far the most important point, military dictatorship, and it includes plenty that are not necessary - 3,5,8,9,11,13 and 14 are all things a government could perfectly well be fascist without; fascist governments actually go in for 9 (protection of corporate power) considerably less than some modern capitalist democracies.


Secondly, even by Dr Britt's terms, America fits many of the definitions less well than most.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

You have this in spades, albeit of a slightly different flavour to actual fascist states - a strong distinction is drawn between idolising the nation and the government, whereas under fascism the two are presented as one.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

America's attitude to human rights, while a lot worse than it was 5 years ago, is still better than a large majority of countries.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

You have this, but so do many other non-fascist states - immigrants serve a similar purpose in much of Europe.

4. Supremacy of the Military

You're a very long way from having this indeed - the military is respected to an arguably unhealthy degree, but has very little power, as witnessed by the lack of effect of the complaints bey generals against the way the invasion of Iraq was being run.

5. Rampant Sexism

You have far less of this than most other countries.

6. Controlled Mass Media

You have absolutely none of this. I've heard a lot of liberals claim your media supports the current government unduly; I'm not in a position to judge this, but if it does so it does so purley voluntarily and could change whenever it wishes to.

7. Obsession with National Security

This you do have, although not to nearly as great an extent as most fascist states.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

Fascism is characterised by the intrusion of government into religion; in the US there are issues with religion intruding into government, but very little of the reverse.

9. Corporate Power is Protected

As I've said above, under fascism industry has only what power the state allows it. This is one you actually have more of than fscists do.


10. Labor Power is Suppressed

This you do have, although to a lesser extent than genuine fascist states.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

This you don't have; America has many of the best universities in the world and they're held in high regard, except by fringe loonies.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Your police have less power than in most nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

America is less corrupt than the (very) large majority of countries.

14. Fraudulent Elections

Debateable - your elections are better than in most countries, but there's some evidence (although no proof) that the last two haven't been completely free and fair.


So in summary, even by Dr Britt's criteria, which I suspect (although I have no proof, and so am in no position to accuse as opposed to guessing) were probably specifically constituted to include America, America clearly isn't fascist. And by the actual definition, the most important point of which is "military dictatorship" and the second most the supremacy & cult of the state (Bush and the Republicans absolutely detest the state, and want to roll it back as far as possible) it's even clearer.

[Red Right and BLUE]

54. No accounting for some 'opinions' nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Or attempting to rebut them, it seems.

I am struck that of the six replies and two second-order replies that my post has received only two (#22 and #45) include any substantive argument or response whatsoever, and #45 isn't actually rebutting either of the claims I made, and #22, though the worthiest attempt of the lot, is deeply mistaken.

The other 6 comments are simply statements of opinion, or in several cases abuse and invective, unsupported by any form of argument whatsoever.

This is, in my experience, not atypical of those who claim that America is a fascist state.

[Red Right and BLUE]

78. No one's giving it to you because it's really no fun

to state the OBVIOUS over and over. You aren't going to see it because you don't want to.

Bye-bye, now.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. "it's really no fun to state the OBVIOUS over and over."...

Really? I'm quite enjoying doing it.

[Zhade]

102. Buddy, you haven't even started grasping reality.

Stop wasting your time - we know the truth of the situation, you don't.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. Tell me,

Did you expect me to be won over by your well-reasoned and forceful arguments, and the evidence you cited?

[The Doctor.]

120. Sorry, just have to point this out...

"...that my post has received only two (#22 and #45) include any substantive argument or response whatsoever, and #45 isn't actually rebutting either of the claims I made, and #22, though the worthiest attempt of the lot, is deeply mistaken."

Really not trying to be petty, but perhaps you should review 'post 22' before being so harsh to it's author.

:evilgrin:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. Divil go wid you, ye spalpeen!

I meant post 30, for reference.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

61. I think you're wrong......

So America doesn't fit the 14 criteria because things are worse elsewhere? That's like saying WWII Italy wasn't a fascist state because it was much worse in Germany. Cultural relativism has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

Lets check out your refutations, one by one:

1)"Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

You have this in spades, albeit of a slightly different flavour to actual fascist states - a strong distinction is drawn between idolising the nation and the government, whereas under fascism the two are presented as one."
- Where did you get this definition? If its your opinion thats cool, but I think you are mistaken. In my opinion, the dividing line between the nation and the government has become much fuzzier in the past 6 years. A prime example is the statement Bush made on Sept 21, 2001: "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists." Plainly put it seems that either you accept the government's line on this fight, or you are against all that America stands for.

2)"Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

America's attitude to human rights, while a lot worse than it was 5 years ago, is still better than a large majority of countries."

Its worse elsewhere than it is here, so we don't qualify. This doesn't hold up. If this current terror bill becomes law, detainees on our possession will have zero recourse to the law and their captors will have carte blanche to use any method, approved by the president, to interrogate. We waterboard now, what's next?

3)"Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

You have this, but so do many other non-fascist states - immigrants serve a similar purpose in much of Europe."

C'mon. Just because it flies in Europe its cool to do it here? No way. American muslims and other people of color are feeling under the gun right now. Remember the horse's head in the mosque? That's domestic terror used against muslims, who are very much scapegoats in the west right now. "Islamofascists", that sound familiar?

4)"Supremacy of the Military

You're a very long way from having this indeed - the military is respected to an arguably unhealthy degree, but has very little power, as witnessed by the lack of effect of the complaints bey generals against the way the invasion of Iraq was being run."

I actually agree with you on this one. I feel the deciding power being taken out of the hands of the military will be this admins eventual undoing.

5) "Rampant Sexism

You have far less of this than most other countries."

More cultural relativism. Poor arguing point. And, oh yeah, says you.

6)"Controlled Mass Media

You have absolutely none of this. I've heard a lot of liberals claim your media supports the current government unduly; I'm not in a position to judge this, but if it does so it does so parley voluntarily and could change whenever it wishes to."

Right. We are both in a poor position to judge this, because for the most part, the media has been complicit with the whims of the current administration. Let's see what happens if more outlets go the route of Keith Olbermann and actively cry "Bullshit!", I imagine the Roger Ailes' of the world will have something to say.

7)"Obsession with National Security

This you do have, although not to nearly as great an extent as most fascist states."

I think you're wrong. Department of Homeland Security and Patriot Act is all I have to say on that score.

8)"Religion and Government are Intertwined

Fascism is characterized by the intrusion of government into religion; in the US there are issues with religion intruding into government, but very little of the reverse."

Once again, you make a sweeping statement with out anything to back it up. I have seen episodes of government intruding into religion. How about those "power sunday" meetings held in mega churches nationwide earlier this year, attended via teleconference, by such prominent politicians like Bill Frist and General Boykin.

9)"Corporate Power is Protected

As I've said above, under fascism industry has only what power the state allows it. This is one you actually have more of than fscists do."

Okay, so we meet this criteria and how.

10)"Labor Power is Suppressed

This you do have, although to a lesser extent than genuine fascist states."

Please back this up. I think the current decline of labor unions in this country, and the Repubs denial of raising the minimum wage laws has shown the current administration's disdain for well-paid labor in this country. The recent illegal immigration argument in this country also seems to lend credence to this criteria.

11)"Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

This you don't have; America has many of the best universities in the world and they're held in high regard, except by fringe loonies."

Yeah, but what happens when the "fringe loonies" are calling the shots. Sure we have some of the best universities in the world, but if they are held in such regard, why is it that college faculty is generally considered a bastion of modern liberalism?

12)"Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Your police have less power than in most nations."

More cultural relativism. However, I believe the point was made by the OP that this detainee bill will give the police unprecedented power to survey, seize and hold people, sans Miranda. All decided by the executive.

Also, the US is one of the last western nations to gleefuly hold onto the idea of capital punishment.

13)"Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

America is less corrupt than the (very) large majority of countries."

Even more cultural relativism. This isn't a contest where the most abhorrent behavior gets to wear the title of fascist. Its can exist simultaneously.

I think cronyism is at its worst here in the US. Look who was one of the last directors of the FCC: Michael Powell. Who was his daddy? You do the research. Our current AG, A. Gonzales, former counsel to then-Governor of Texas, GWB.

14)"Fraudulent Elections

Debatable - your elections are better than in most countries, but there's some evidence (although no proof) that the last two haven't been completely free and fair."

But by your own definition there is a chance that the past two elections may not have been "completely free and fair". Sort of fraudulent is like being sort of pregnant.


Just MHO.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. Thanks for one of the few substantive arguments I've received.

Your rebuttals to 2,3,5 and 13 - that "it's not as bad in America as most places" doesn't mean "it doesn't exist in America", if I understand you correctly - is logical as far as it goes, but the problem with it is that if you take those as beign signs of fascism in America then you're implicitly committing yourself to the claim that most countries in the world are fascist, one I suspect very few people are willing to make and one I think is certainly false.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "cultural relativism"?

We seem to be pretty much in agreement on 4 and 9, and not to have much to discuss about 6.


As to (1), while the government has certainly made many attempts to identify itself with the nation, and that is a tactic used by (although not only by) many fascists, it hasn't succeeded.

As to (7), while I agree that the HSA and the Patriot Act are bad things, they're *far* less sweeping than e.g. the powers of the Gestapo under Hitler.


On (8), you say "How about those "power sunday" meetings held in mega churches nationwide earlier this year, attended via teleconference, by such prominent politicians like Bill Frist and General Boykin." - those are politicians trying to convince voters that they share their religious views, not politicians trying to convince people to change their religious views, so far as I know - again, it's government pandering to religion and not vice versa.


With regards to your point on the power of labour in the US, (10) - I would point you towards all the furore over offshoring, which is happening precisely because America's labourers are able to demand better working conditions that pretty much anywhere outside the West and the Far East.



I suspect that the reason universities are regarded as liberal-dominated (11) is because, at least in the UK, they are - I'm currently a PhD student, and the people I've met through universities are considerably more liberal on average than a cross-section of the British population. Even many (although not all) of those people I've seen attacking "liberal bias in universities", though, still seem to phrase their attacks in ways that suggest that they value the universities and want to conservatise rather than destroy them, though.



Your response to (12) - "the US is one of the last western nations to gleefuly hold onto the idea of capital punishment" is interesting. Why are you comparing only against Western nations? See also my initial comment.



On (14) you say "Sort of fraudulent is like being sort of pregnant".

I disagree. There are more and less legitimate tactics: purging the roles of voters in uneven fashions, checking up more on some people's paperwork than others, the positions, opening and closing of polling booths, media management, the timing of the election, allowing or denying recounts, publicising the election more in some areas than others, and so forth can all influence the result of an election in ways that aren't technically illegal, but are clearly cheating (or they can do so in outright illegal fashions). It is pretty much inevitable in a nationwide election than some people in some places will do some dubious things. So fraudulent is definately analogue, unlike pregnancy which is binary.

[bperci108]

63. Then by all means....

...just go back to sleep. :boring:

Perhaps you can enjoy arguing semantics and pursue similar intellectual jerking-off in the Gulag. :eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. It's not purely semantic, alas.

As I've pointed out, it's the people who are calling America fascist, not the ones who aren't, in this argument who are making things worse. I'm not simply disagreeing passively, I'm actively trying to stop people who will bring the only political movement capable of stopping the deeply unpleasant American conservative movement into disrepute.

You're wrong, and you're harmfully wrong. Telling you so isn't sleeping. Quite the reverse.

[femrap]

88. And you KNOW FOR A FACT that a particular

political movement is going to stop the 'unpleasant' conservatives.

And just what movement is that? The Xmen?

Do you live in the US? You remind me of so many people I deal with....in total denial because the Truth is just too nasty.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. No, but I know that a great many aren't.

No political movement outside the US is going to beat the Republicans any time soon. The only other American political movement of any size is the Democratic party, and more generally the American liberal movement.

As such it is not merely true but blindingly obvious that the only political movement that there is any chance will significantly oppose the American conservative movement is the Democratic party.

P.S. I'm in England, I'm not in denial.

[Zhade]

105. You're in England, and you don't know what it's like here.

You don't. Saying otherwise is a lie. You're not here. You don't know.

We do. And we will not allow your ignorant comments on a situation you don't understand to go unchecked.

[femrap]

187. Maybe you need to focus on your problems....

blair, the lapdog.

[AntiFascist]

137. Are you conflating neocons with paleocons?

I'm sure there are plenty of traditional conservatives who are very concerned about what is going with our government war spending and the growing powers of the executive branch. They may not dare call it for what it is, but I'm sure that they share many of our concerns.

[bperci108]

165. You sir, have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

And since you've been outed as not having any real, actual experience in American life here, and only watch from afar there in merry olde England, you should kindly STFU.

Take your pedantic silliness down to the local pub and bore them with it there.

You don't really have a dog in this fight and therefore have NO business lecturing those of us who do.

[sufrommich]

180. Xenophobia

rears it's ugly head when the Brit starts making too much sense.

[bperci108]

185. This Brit is making no sense whatsoever.

Xenophobia?

Yeah.....right.

(But the Repub-style diversionary tactics are SO easy to run to in desperation, aren't they?)

His POV in this case would be like an auto mechanic lecturing a neurosurgeon on the proper techniques of spinal surgery.

He might indeed know what he was talking about; but it's likely he hasn't a clue and is just making an embarrassing ass of himself.

:crazy:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

70. hmmm

"I've heard a lot of liberals claim your media supports the current government unduly."

are you not in the US?

[Sydnie]

79. How would one know? No profile, you see

:shrug:

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. Asking politely is usually a good way to find out.

NT.

[Sydnie]

84. Most people here have a profile to share that info freely

Having to ask .... not so much.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

90. ahhh. great minds!

:hug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. No, I'm not; I'm English.

NT.

[sufrommich]

86. As you have over 1000 posts,

you probably don't need me to advise you that common sense is frequently stifled on this board by trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the poster.A sure sign that your attackers haven't a real option left.

[The Doctor.]

103. This is a very curious phrase you use D.I.R...

"You have absolutely none of this. I've heard a lot of liberals claim your media supports the current government unduly; I'm not in a position to judge this, but if it does so it does so purley voluntarily and could change whenever it wishes to."

Please explain.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

108. I'm English, not American (see post 81).

NT.

[The Doctor.]

115. Really? Whereabouts? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

118. Various parts of the Southeast.

I'm a student, so I've been moving about a lot recently. I grew up in Colchester in NE Essex, my family still live here, and I'm posting from here now, but I don't spend much time here. I've just finished a year in Warwick/Coventry and moved to London, but before than I spent four years in Cambridge, and that's the place I think of most as my "Home Town" - I go back there many weekends (most weekends in termtime).

[marions ghost]

132. judging by how you address us here as "your"

eg. "your elections"...you must be in another country. So have you lived in the United States in the last 6 years, or at anytime?

If you have not lived here in the last few years, I think you can have no idea of how far this nation has sunk in a very short time.

Take for example, "controlled mass media" -- no, we have the appearance of a free media. But living here would tell you how much that media is muzzled and heavily controlled by forces behind the scenes.
Millions of us know this--why do you doubt it?

You seem a bit out of touch.

[TheMadMonk]

171. O.K. I'll take a crack.

1. When the government believes that it is the nation (and that is how this govt represents itself (oppose it = oppose the nation) your distinction is moot.

2. So because they did not abolish the Bill of Rights in one fell swoop, but are merely chipping away at it piece by piece this is not disdain of human rights. The question is not necessarily how far they go, but how far they fall, and the US of old has plummeted hugely from its once lofty pinnacle.

3. So because everyone else does it, the US can too? Actually I'd toss this indicator out. It's too much like 'just plain human nature'. Almost everyone wants to blame someone else for their own shortcomings and screwups.

4. It's not the supremacy of the military within the nation, it's ability of that military to project that nation's power externally. The political power of the German armed forces was essentially zero internally.

5. Hmm, the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive pulpits have all had special reinforcing added to withstand the pounding they've been given recently. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll get around to exhorting the "Mothers of America" to "push" for the fatherland.

6. Not controlled in the sense that the Govt. calls the shots. But that wasn't the only option given. If those who call the shots for the media also calls the actual shots in government (and there is plenty of evidence to support this) then the results are the same. The public is deliberately fed misinformation (not to mention outright lies) so as to get the right (ie bought and paid for) pollies where they can do their corporate masters the most good. If you want to debate semantics, the US has a complicit media. Same result. Same difference.

7. The depth of the pathology is largely irrelevant. The simple existence of the pathology is indicative of the disease. And it's the 'national security' horse which has been riddem rough shod over the people of the US, towards the apparent ends of the PNAC.

8.Indeed, the US govt has long been more a tool of the religious establishment, than vice versa. Yet it is not as one sided as you portray. Gay anything, abortion, sex ed., stem cells, etc. Republican pollies have been promising the Earth for decades now and rarely have they delivered anything substantiative. I'd say that's a pretty fair example of using another person's religious beliefs to get one's own way.

Anyway it matters not which way the influence flows. Any time, government and religion make the beast with two backs, the offspring is never pretty.

9. As you've said above is plain wrong. When those controlling the corporations are also the ones effectively controlling the government, then that government is not going to dole out much in the way of corporate restrictions. and indeed will do everything it thinks it can get away with (and probably a bit more (must leave room to 'concede' to the critics)) to enable those corporations.

10. Getting there. Getting there.

11. Define art. A turd floating in a jar of piss is not art. Connoisseurs of "Art" in the US seem to fall into two major categories. The Miles Cranes who use their patronage of the Arts as a way of keeping score, and the teeming masses who seem to care only for the name splashed across the marquee.

The disdain for intellectuals, the US has in spades and has had for years. Look to their idolization of sport and movie stars. As I see it, the last scientist venerated like that in the US was Einstein. And this current administration has shown nothing but contempt for science. Particularly any science which might get in the way of any one of their mates after a fast buck.

As for the schools. So effing what that a few prestige schools in the US are amongst the most prestigious in the world. What about the state of the rest of the schools in the US and not just the ones where people with money (or those willing to beggar themselves for their kids to have a chance) send their kids?

12. It's not the amount of power given to LEA's, it's the obsession with solving all of life's woes by making them crimes and punishing offenders, rather than addressing the true causes of those woes. Like spending a couple of million putting a black kid in jail for the rest of his life, rather than stumping up the relatively tiny amount necessary to give him (and others like him) a decent education and a halfway decent chance in life.

(Aside: Some of the most effective intervention and remediation strategies devised, (whether the target be crime or simple poverty) have also been the cheapest. Too cheap in fact for anyone to make any significant amount of money out of them. Particularly since getting these programs to work effectively means channeling all profits (if there are such) back into the schemes.) Read into that whast you will.

13. So because they only steal 10% of the national budget rather than 80% they're not as corrupt as others. When that 10% would swallow whole the entire combined budgets of all those other nations you are talking about the point is rather moot don't you think.

(free admission: The above figures have been plucked from my bum for illustrative purposes only. The exact numbers are irrelevant.)

14. Debatable? Let's see. A company that specialises in making one of the most secure publicly accessible devices in the world (ATM's) is handed a contract to produce a voting machine. The product they produce doesn't just have a few security bugs that need to be addressed. There is nothing in those machines that can be successfully addressed. The design is inherently insecure. The security flaws are designed into the device. About the only feature I can think of which could further reduce the security of some of these devices would be a big button marked "Press to steal election".

Away from the machines, consider all the demographic profiling which goes into: electoral roll purges; selection of polling place (ie convenience/accessibility); allocation of resources. (Less to strongly Dem. districts than to strongly Republican ones.)

An electoral system does not need to be corrupt to the core. It merely has to be just corrupt enough to deny the true will of the people, and the statistical evidence is such that there is a less than 1 in a million chance that recent electoral results actually represent the will of the people.

That is proof enough for me. i understand that these folk are performing a highwire act her, they need the electoral system to be just corrupt enough to give the desired results, without it being so corrupt as to jolt more than just the lunatic fringe we represent into understanding.



So let me reiterate the point I made in #2. It's not about how low the US has stooped (I and I think virtually everyone here would agree with you that there is still plenty of scope for the US to get worse, much much worse. (Even if we are repeatedly "surprised" by the new depths plumbed by the current administration.))

What matters here and now, is first HOW FAR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS ALREADY FALLEN? and secondly what checks are in place to stop it from falling further? And right now, it seems that we, and bloggers like us are the only checks there are. One or two judges have come out against some of the most egregious abuses, but the little shit passes unchallenged. And it's the little shit repeated a thousand times over, going unremarked, which eventually allows the big stinking turds to float by, equally unremarked.


Whether or not the US is actually a fascist state today may be up for debate.

That it is well down the road to Fascism or another equally repugnant form of government which concentrates power in the hands of the few and denies it to the many/populace isn't.

[femrap]

82. Yep....those signs appear in the good 'ol

USA. We've been sliding down the fascist slope for a while now....the bill that passed yesterday put us into overdrive.

BTW, there is a FASCISM SUCKS t-shirt...says this on the front and on the back, it lists the signs. It's available at Syracuse Cultural Workers. I don't work there...I just bought one of them. And when I wear it, some people snicker and then I say, "I think you better read the back before it's too late."

Snickering subsizes by #4!

[Bluerthanblue]

45. you forgot

to put the scarcasm tag in your post-

Or else, you aren't paying attention.
Denial kills-

Truth may hurt, but pain is our friend. It helps us to know that something is amiss, and needs attention. If you sincerly believe what you wrote, I encourage you to look hard at how "healthy" we are, and recheck your understanding of what TRUE democracy really is.

Our economy is running in the RED- were other nations to call in our debts (China for example) we'd be screwed- Our Constitution has been shredded to bits, all in the name of "safety"-

This isn't about 'SCANDALS'- that was the 'ruse' used to alienate the people against paying attention to what the govt. was doing. People grew sick to death of hearing about blow-jobs, and philandering politicans, to the point where the credibility of any politican became a given- ("every politican is corrupt"). The masses just 'tuned out' and choose to grab the 'sound-bites' (that feel comfortable) and leave it at that.

You want to truly understand anti-Americanism??? It is apathy, and knee-jerk Patriotism.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

~James Madison

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

~Theodore Roosevelt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. None of which has anything to do with fascism.

The reason I think calling the American government fascist is bad is not because I want to see it defended against attacks, but because I want those who attack it to be able to do so effectively, without being tarred with the same brush as those who launch clearly-silly attacks on it.

Fascism is one very specific form of bad government; Bush's brand of ultra-conservatism is another, very different, one.

Very different indeed, in fact - the basic tenet of one is that the state should be above all, and that of the other that the state should be rolled back as far as possible.


Incidentally, the claim I made (and make) about American democracy is "one of the fifty healthiest", not "healthy".

[femrap]

93. A major part of fascism is how the Corporate and

Gov't unite. Well....since you don't live here, sir, you just can't see it. Our media (roughly 85%) is owned by 5 corporations.

Corporations write the LAWS for Congress....to my knowledge, this began under the current regime.

Corporations are the root of the problem....I'm sure you've heard of that Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, right? Every Congressional District in the US has jobs devoted to a piece of the War Machine.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

125. No, I haven't heard that phrase before.

I think the idiom you're looking for is "Military-industrial complext", orginating with Eisenhower, I believe?

For what it's worth, I don't, in theory, have a problem with corporations or other groups drafting legislation, provided that it only comes into effect after having been through congress (or parliament, in my case) *after writing* in the usual way - interest groups saying to the government "we want a law that does this" is fine; government saying officially to other groups "you decide what the law on this will be, and we'll approve whatever you decide" isn't. That said, I don't know anything about the specifics of the pieces of legislation you're referring to, and am quite prepared to believe they're bad ones.

[AntiFascist]

139. You don't have a problem with corps or special-interest groups...

enacting legislation?!!! That's NOT government by and for the people! It's like saying "I'll let Diebold vote for me by proxy because I trust them to make the right decisions."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. *Writing*, not *enacting*.

I made that distinction very clearly indeed. A completely different matter.

[AntiFascist]

145. Written by corporations and enacted by Congresspeople....

who too often are pursuaded by corporate lobbyists. Not much of a difference.

[tbyg52]

156. I hate to tell you this, but...

One of our big problems here right now is corporate-written legislation that is then passed by the corporate-bought Congress.

And I, for one, have a *huge* problem with corporations writing legislation. They don't vote (except with their money) and we didn't elect them. So they should stay the @#$% out of it. And we need laws passed to enforce that.

By the way, (unless I missed it, which is quite possible) you have not given *your* definition of "fascism" at this point in the thread. Can't argue whether your definition matches the current state of the country unless I know what it is.

[Mynameissalvatore]

158. You are very naive then

You expect the Congress, after taking money from special interests and corporations for their election funds, to have any kind of balance regarding laws that those interests would like you to enact? Wow

[AntiFascist]

167. I've seen you post several times about "Bush brand of ultra-conservatism"

but I wonder how much you know about neo-conservative politics? The primary distinction between the Reagan-era conservatism and what began under his vice-President is that once the Cold War ended, paleo-conservatives were comfortable rolling back military deployment: many military bases were eventually scaled down or shutdown, and people were looking forward to a peace-dividend. What began later with Rumsfeld and his cohorts, on the other hand, was a desire to extend the military further and to dominate the world, bringing Americanism to areas like the Middle East where global corporations could flourish. This is all spelled out fairly clearly in the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. This certainly is not "rolling back the state as far as possible." Bush may have started out his first term making noises along the lines of supporting states rights over the Federal government, but, as he even said, 9-11 changed everything, and at that point we began military spending as if there was no end in sight. This is really also what differentiates true political paleo-conservatism from the militaristic machinations which are in fact characteristic of fascist governments.

We may have an artificially "healthy" economy for the corporocrats, but this may largely be the result of government war spending and manipulations in the price of oil and energy.

[The Doctor.]

170. Dead-On... and frighteningly so. n/t

[bperci108]

64. My favorite quote on this comes from Sinclair Lewis...

"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

[StellaBlue]

46. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What is the last straw for you people?

Healthiest democracy in the world?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. I suggest you consider the difference between

"healthiest" and "one of the n healthiest".

Then take a look at the state of democracy in pretty much any African, Asian or South American nation.

Most of the Western nations have arguably had elections less suspect than yours (although many of these have been wracked by scandals too), but not many others have.

[NMDemDist2]

55. a) what part isn't true? b) and how will it hurt Dems? BS I say n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. See posts 50 and 49 respectively.

It's not true because America isn't fascist; it will hurt Dems because being grouped with people who don't understand that, and, crucially, being grouped with people who can so easily rightly or wrongly be tarred as anti-American will make them look stupid.

Being grouped with such people would be a worthwhile price to pay (although a considerable one) if it were true, but as it isn't it's another reason to oppose it.

[Sydnie]

65. Here you go -- enough examples for you here?

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. In a word, no.

Firstly, as I've said I think Dr Britt's characterisation of fascism is poor - you could provide me with irrefutable examples that all 14 points existed in previously-unheardof quantities, and without a couple of crucial others - military dictatorship, cult of the state/government (which aren't implied by Dr Britt and aren't present in America) - you wouldn't have demonstrated that America was fascist.

Secondly, while there's a lot of quantity there, the quality (in the sense of "what they demonstrate", not "how reliable they are") is often poor - providing lots of evidence that the military is slightly supreme, sexism is slightly rampant or the mass media is slightly controlled is no substitute for even one point showing that you have those properties more, or even as much as, most other countries.

Many of Dr Britt's 14 points are less present in America than in most other countries. To argue based on them that America is fascist, you'd have to make the same accusation about most of the world.

[Sydnie]

76. So, it's like "being a little bit pregnant" to you?

That sounds like an excuse a kid would use ... So and So did something worse so that makes me not so bad".

Get over it. A little or a lot ... we are moving there and you are arguing about the mode of transportation.

The Germans that spoke out after the war should be a lesson to you. They didn't see it coming either.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. You need to learn the difference between "Pregnant" and "Fascist".

Preferably before you attempt to have any children or stage any military coups; getting the two mixed up in either direction is likely to be embarrasing.

Pregnancy *is* a binary state; fascism *isn't* (moreover, pregnancy is a well-defined state; fascism isn't). The characteristics of fascism can be more or less prevalent in a state; the US is currently one of the states they are less prevalent in than most.

The point of my "Most countries are more so" argument(s) is to make it clear that if you want to class America as fascist, you're going to have to class most of the rest of the world as more so. If you don't believe that the (large) majority of countries are fascist then you have no business claiming America is; if you do then you're using the term incorrectly.

[Sydnie]

95. Since you are not from this country perhaps you are unfamiliar

with that phrase "a little bit pregnant". It is a common phrase used by the older generation to mean that a girl had gotten herself "into trouble" ... as she was a "little bit pregnant".

I'll overlook your ignorance to that phrase and the implied tone in your post.

I could care less, at this moment in time, "what most countries are" in your estimation Sir, I care for what this country is becoming. I know where we came from and I see where we are going. That is quite enough to raise the flag for me. I am saddened that it is not enough for you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

112. Raising the wrong flag will make things worse, not better.

If you want to stop the American conservative movement, then what matters most is not how heartfelt your criticisms of it are, nor even how loud or frequent they are (although that helps), but how accurate they are.

American conservatism and fascism are two different forms of bad government. Attacking the former by calling it the latter will do more harm than good.



P.S. I'm pleased that you're willing to overlook my ignorance of the idiom "a little bit pregnant", especially as I was well aware of it, although the summary of it's usage you give is slightly misleading - it's usually used as an analogy, to indicate that something is binary rather than analogue, as opposed to in actual reference to pregnant, I believe.

[Sydnie]

121. Did I ever say anything about the conservative movement?

Do you think this beast has only one arm? It has many, like a opportunistic cancer. the conservative movement is self distructing, it needs little encouragement from me. I was addressing the direction of not only those of the conservative movement but also of those that are allowing it and not challenging it as they were elected to, to protect the constitution.

As for the phrase, perhaps you use that phrase to mean something other than we do, Sir. I know how it has been used in this country. No matter. It is a valid description of your argument all the same.

We are less bad because others are worse, according to you. Well, that just doesn't work for me. Glad it comforts you, though.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

123. My arguement is

that if you want to term America "fascist" you have to use that argument about most other countries around the world too.


I don't think that everything I dislike is a multiarmed beast. I think that there are many political movements I dislike, and that many of them also dislike one another - Bush and the American conservatives detest fascism, for example, although they're not above working with it when it's convenient; both fascists like Saddam Hussein and arguably Pervez Musharraf (sp?) dislike Islamic fundamentalism and communism, and those two dislike one another, fascism and American conservatism, and all of those have factions and groups supporting them that dislike one another. Thinking of them all as one "beast" out to get us is a big mistake, I think - to these groups, you're/we're just another political movement no more to be opposed than any other.

[Sydnie]

126. Saddam was a fascist?

If he was, he was supported for many years by the US. Saddam was a secularist. Only blivet** and his ilk, try to make him out to be a fascist these days.

I beg to differ with you about this administration (and blivet** in particular) detesting fascism. You must have missed the reports of blivet's** family heritage and their ties with the Nazi's. They have played with the big boys and they know it when they see it ... and they want to be just like them.

Remember, blivet** already said things would be easier if this were a dictatorship ... as long as he was the dictator.

I think you are sadly mistaken on many of your conclusions where this subject is concerned.

[Mynameissalvatore]

159. Just as Hitler disliked Mussolini after

he realized that Mussolini wasn't as brilliant as he had previously thought he was.

[Swamp Rat]

174. Since you obviously do not understand what is happening in the USA,

I suggest that if you truly want to help, please stop distracting us. Red Herrings, false dichotomies, and generally delusory speech is rampant here and not helpful to our cause. Merci.

[Sydnie]

111. How odd - someone else just used that phrase too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2264924&mesg_id=2264934

Bloody Yanks and their little folkisms! :rofl:

Yep, you do think it's about being a "little bit pregnant" compared to the rest of the world who are in different trimesters, huh?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

116. See post number 99.

"Yep, you do think it's about being a "little bit pregnant" compared to the rest of the world who are in different trimesters, huh?"

No, the pregnancy analogy is yours, not mine - I think it's a silly analogy, for the reasons I explain in #99. A woman is either pregnant or not; an election can be more or less fair.

[The Doctor.]

127. You seem to miss the point of the 'colloquialism' as she meant it;

No girl 'appears' pregnant immediately upon becoming so.

You have consistently stated the case that 'because it's not obviously Fascism, then you shouldn't say it's Fascism'.

I'll concede that it is indeed rude to ask a girl who appears pregnant, "So when's the due date?", because if you are wrong you have insulted her and shown ignorance.

But we've peed on the strip, and a little "+" has appeared in the window. We don't look Fascist right now, but we know that we have to prepare for it.

That little "+" in the window was the bill that allows the Government to detain anyone indefinitely without showing cause.

I have challenged you to explain how this bill does not represent any such threat.

You have failed to do so.

I have made the point that this bill marks the historical apex before the slide of many Countries into Fascism.

You have failed to address that as well.

I have made the point that we need to get people's attention, and being 'polite' will achieve no such end.

You have not acknowledged that.

I'm beginning to suspect that you have posted here more for the sake of contention than consideration.
Feel free at any time to address the above points.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

134. I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner.

The post you made the points in was the one you suggested that I was personally responsible for the rise of the Nazis in; at that point I burst out laughing and stopped reading, but by the sound of things that was just a brain-fart and not representative of your usual tone, so, I'll try and respond.

"I have challenged you to explain how this bill does not represent any such threat."

The reason that this bill doesn't represent *such* a threat (i.e. a threat of fascism) is that you have mandatory elections every four years, and, crucially, term limits. It very definately does represent *a* threat, but while I think it not impossible that it's the first step towards American government going wildly off the rails, it won't go in the specific direction of fascism - the president will continue to be changed regularly, and elected, and power will not rest in the hands of the military, which is incompatible with fascism. That you're not fascist may not be a great comfort, but it will nevertheless be true.

Also note that while I think it's not *impossible* that that will happen, I think it *vanishingly* unlikely. People in general, and DUers in particular, always overestimate the importance of today's crisis - I suspect that this will be looked back on as little more than a blip. I'm not certain of that, though.

"I have made the point that this bill marks the historical apex before the slide of many Countries into Fascism."

I don't think it does, because it will not, I think, be used against mainstream political opponents. For as long as you have a two-party system, you won't be fascist.



"I have made the point that we need to get people's attention, and being 'polite' will achieve no such end."

Being accurate is even more important than being forceful. Drawing people's attention to the fact that many supporters of the Democratic party are not merely wrong but seriously misguidedly wrong won't help matters one little bit.




"I'm beginning to suspect that you have posted here more for the sake of contention than consideration."

Essentially true, although "argument" rather than "contention". I'm here because I enjoy arguing, not because I think that convincing a few posters on the internet that America is not a fascist state will make the world a better place. I'm here for intellectual exercise, not a humanitarian crusade.

My motivation has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I'm right or wrong, though.

[Mynameissalvatore]

160. The govt changes every four years but

the Supreme court does not. It is stacked against us and will be for the foreseeable future. When the next administration takes charge, assuming that there will be a peaceful change of government this time, they might not have any power to change the laws

[The Doctor.]

166. Your derision is duly noted...

But I maintain, for all your high-minded bluster, that it was exactly the same "don't make waves" attitude you promote that earned Germany the infamy of Nazi rule.

I'm sure many outspoken Germans dealt with those that condemned them for very similar 'brain-farts' (which, by the way, is a very American colloquialism) when they had the nerve to speak publicly about various infractions by the party.

I relegate you to the very same placatory and obsequious stature earned by many 'good German citizens' for reasons I will address below.

The reason that this bill doesn't represent *such* a threat (i.e. a threat of fascism) is that you have mandatory elections every four years, and, crucially, term limits. It very definately does represent *a* threat, but while I think it not impossible that it's the first step towards American government going wildly off the rails, it won't go in the specific direction of fascism - the president will continue to be changed regularly, and elected, and power will not rest in the hands of the military, which is incompatible with fascism. That you're not fascist may not be a great comfort, but it will nevertheless be true.

Also note that while I think it's not *impossible* that that will happen, I think it *vanishingly* unlikely. People in general, and DUers in particular, always overestimate the importance of today's crisis - I suspect that this will be looked back on as little more than a blip. I'm not certain of that, though.

So you deny that a bill like this gives the Executive powers above and beyond the scope of those granted by the Constitution?
You also deny that Fascist states have had any similar laws enacted in order to 'secure the nation'?

Apparently you are not at all familiar with the trend in American elections for the last decade either. Look around and you'll find an immense amount of very credible evidence suggesting that elections in this country are no longer legitimate.

That last bit about 'DUers always overestimating the importance of today's crisis'... that's pretty much a dead giveaway that you really haven't been paying attention.

Did DUers overestimate the folley of invading Iraq?
Not fucking likely.

I could go into a litany of issues that 'DUers' have responded to without undue enthusiasm, but the fact that you have suggested otherwise makes things quite plain.

Now here's a brilliant bit;

"I have made the point that this bill marks the historical apex before the slide of many Countries into Fascism."

I don't think it does, because it will not, I think, be used against mainstream political opponents. For as long as you have a two-party system, you won't be fascist.

I'm very impressed that you have so much faith in our current administration to 'think' that Bush and company will exhibit such restraint. Certainly they may, but we live here and cannot afford to take that chance. Thank you for trying to assure us from abroad that our administration is trustworthy in this regard.

"I have made the point that we need to get people's attention, and being 'polite' will achieve no such end."

Being accurate is even more important than being forceful. Drawing people's attention to the fact that many supporters of the Democratic party are not merely wrong but seriously misguidedly wrong won't help matters one little bit.

Reeeeeeeeeally?

Just where in my public diatribe was I not accurate? How Am I misguided? (Remember... there are a bunch of other questions you would have to answer before you can touch that last one.)

How remarkable that you suggest that 'supporters of the Democratic party are not merely wrong but seriously misguidedly wrong'.

My motivation has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I'm right or wrong, though.

-Of that I am absolutely certain.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

179. Various points.

"Did DUers overestimate the folley of invading Iraq?"

Hell yes. A great many DUers clearly view the Iraq war as the worst thing ever, the end of the world as we know it, rather than as just another in a long line of bad and unjust military actions taken by American conservatives. In 50 years time, Iraq will (I suspect, unless it gets considerably worse) rank above Afghanistan but below Vietnam, somewhere about on a par with Korea, in the list. I fully agree that it was a very bad thing; I don't agree that it was a uniquely bad thing.



"Just where in my public diatribe was I not accurate?"

When you called America fascist, as I've repeatedly and comprehensively demonstrated.


"I relegate you to the very same placatory and obsequious stature earned by many 'good German citizens' for reasons I will address below."

I note in passing that, having said you will, you then fail to address whatever reasons you had in mind.



"Of that I am absolutely certain."

I suspect you're misunderstanding, possibly deliberately. I care whether I'm right or not (not doing so would defeat the point of the exercise); whether I care or not doesn't make a difference to whether I am.



"Certainly they may, but we live here and cannot afford to take that chance. Thank you for trying to assure us from abroad that our administration is trustworthy in this regard."

I believe the technical term for this is "ad hominem"; where I live has nothnig to do with the strength of my arguments. If you choose to believe that the Bush administration will start trying to use this law to limit the Democratic party's ability to campaign then I think that there's not much chance of argument or evidence changing your mind, but for the benefit of lurkers: work out how much of this could be achieved in a 2-year period. Work out how much power the government could gain from that. Work out how much power it would lose in the next election cycle when the American people responded as they inevitably would by voting the other way in droves. Conclude that no government interested in staying in power will try and use methods like this to do so.

[The Doctor.]

189. Hmmmm.....

"Did DUers overestimate the folley of invading Iraq?"

Hell yes. A great many DUers clearly view the Iraq war as the worst thing ever, the end of the world as we know it, rather than as just another in a long line of bad and unjust military actions taken by American conservatives. In 50 years time, Iraq will (I suspect, unless it gets considerably worse) rank above Afghanistan but below Vietnam, somewhere about on a par with Korea, in the list. I fully agree that it was a very bad thing; I don't agree that it was a uniquely bad thing.

I think I can count on one hand the number of DUers that though Iraq would be 'the end of the world as we know it'. By and large, DUers do not fit your mischaracterization.

I've heard that sort of mischaracterization elsewhere, and found that it was rarely subtantiated.

They knew it would be a bad thing, a monumental mistake. They even said it would wreck America's reputation. And some even said it would change the world in ways that may be difficult to repair.

-And they were dead-on.

Weren't they?

[The Doctor.]

168. This bit is interesting....

I remember saying something about the term 'brain-fart' being a real American colloquialism.
I'm impressed by your command of our vernacular.

I'm also impressed by this;

Adultery is relatively rare, and fairly contemtible. I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with politics, but it did and does considerably reduce my respect for Clinton as a person. I might well vote for him to run the country (or as candidate for VP, now, given that he's served two terms), but I wouldn't let him marry my daughter (figuratively speaking).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2223372#2224487

I'm curious at how a purported "European" such as yourself has acquired the priviledge of voting in American Elections.

-Or have I missed something?

(Really, I am very curious about WHICH country you might vote for Clinton to run...)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

177. It was a figure of speech.

I don't vote in American elections; even if I could vote in American elections I wouldn't vote for Clinton, because he's been president twice and isn't eligible; I don't have a daughter; even if I did have a daughter I wouldn't be able to prevent her marrying Bill Clinton once she was eighteen if she wanted to. The point I was trying to make is that I would hold it against him in personal life, but not in politics.

[TheMadMonk]

182. Indeed people just like you.

People once thought that: They couldn't. The wouldn't. Well guess what? They did. And I'm hearing exactly the same things today. And guess what? They are.

Mandatory elections? Bwhahahahahahaha. I've seen one or two places with mandatory elections, with mandatory voting. And there's even a mandated outcome. (Presuming an actual second name on the ticket.)

Term limits. Yeah so? So the puppet in the chair changes every 4 or 8 years. It's still the same bloke holding the strings.

And so what if the generals aren't in charge? They don't have to be. They simply have to do as they're told and make sure their subordinates do likewise. So far I don't see (or hear of) many generals (or lower ranks) exercising their legal OBLIGATION to disobey illegal orders. So long as the military is complicit, the form of governement (good or bad) it supports matters not at all to the argument under discussion.

I'm sure the German people thought that the chance of a jumped up little git, only marginally less sad than the one currently in the oval office, obtaining and wielding ultimate power over their country was vanishingly small too.

Any bill which makes basic human rights the privilege of the select is something to get more than 'just a little het up' over. And the passage such bills in the past is generally the point where later historians stuck their pin and said "Here begins fascism."

So unless and until political opponents actually start disappearing, it can't be fascism? ¿Que? All that means is that fascism (or whatever) is not yet solidly entrenched. Easier and far safer during the entrenching phase, to make those opponents appear to be lackwitted. You might note that in the last five years they haven't even bothered with their usual, "well meaning but misguided" teeth pulling appelation. The gloves are off. We're now terrorist enablers. Treasonous. Enemies of the state.

The rhettoric has been flying for years. They have now given themselves the means to make that rhetoric something more than words. Not that I expect them to go after their opponents on the floor. Not yet. That would be too blatant. It would be suicide.

What I strongly fear is that sometime soon, lesser members of boards like this will start getting vists from serious men who would like to ask a few simple questions. Questions with no other real purpose than to let the person being questioned that he is not below the notice of the g-men. And that's it. Except for a warning to keep their mouth shut. And an impicit "We've got our eye on you, so watch out who you associate with."

Just what percentage of most boards' memberships do you think that would scare off or at least frighten back into lurking and not contributing? And speaking up on those same boards about your experience would in all probability only hasten the end. Those who do speak up, will be demonstrably breaking the law by publicly dicussing a "top secret" federal investigation after being warned not to. It might even be possible to prosecute under pre-patriot act legislation. And it would take only a handful of such examples to drive away all but the most hardcore.

On;y when Skinner's base has been reduced to that die hard core who will scream longest and loudest because of the club held over them, will they come for him and those others they judge likely leaders in any (counter)revolution.


Since the purpose of Dr Eldritch's "open" conversations is to wake people up and make them look beyond their own ignorance, I doubt that the actual terminology he uses matters a tinker's damn. If they're "woken up" to the point where they're ready to debat exactly what form of governmenmt the US is decending into and do so informedly, then Dr Eldritch might well consider that a success beyond his wildest dreams. I know I would. A pissed off voter is good for one or two election cycles at best. One as solidly connected as that might well exercise his sovereign franchise intelligently for the rest of his life.

One thing you seem to be forgetting here is that Dr Eldritch is not involing himself in a formal debate with stringent rules and procedures and a scoring system to say who won. He's a (quite possibly anoying) bloke making noises that get people's attention. that cause them to lift their heads and listen.

Even if they ultimately diagree with his characterisation, it matters not at all. They will still be awake to the simple fact that there is something terribly rotten in the state of Denmark and going back to discuss nuances of terminology will almost certainly be the last thing on their minds. At least I hope it would be.


But if those nuances are so important to you, let me see what I can do to accomodate.

By the puppeteers. Of the puppeteers. And for the puppeteers.

Nothing I've read from you indicates that you would disagree with that sad little paraphrase of some once very powerful words.


So let's call it a Muppetocracy. There, happy now?

[The Doctor.]

183. "Muppetocracy"... Brilliant.

All the way around, well put.

[TheMadMonk]

173. I disagree.

Military duictatorship is NOT an absolujte requirement. As I've already said in my reply to your #50. The military had virtually no political power in Nazi Germany. They either supported the civilian dictatorship or they went to the Eastern Front.

#2, The cult of the "State of America" is under construction. Check out "Jesus Camp" for kid being taught/made to pray to cardboard cutouts of Bush. (Sorry I consider '*' is an insult to cat's arseholes everywhere.) The 10 commandments going up in public buildings. "With or against." Anywhere we can see through the scaffolding, the facade is truly ugly.

Oh how I just love that British penchant for understatement. Just a little bit this and a little bit that. Just how big a bit do you want? Any step backwards in any one of the fourteen is bad enough news. When all fourteen are in lockstep going backwards, it's way past time to worry, baby steps or not.

There's much worse out there? So what? My arse is in a bucket of ice water and my head in the oven. So why aren't I 'on the average' comfortable?

[AntiFascist]

175. Keep in mind that Hitler was elected to office by a democracy...

with the help of plenty of funding and propaganda. It wasn't until later, with the help of more propaganda and brutal intimidation, that he turned himself into a unitary fuhrer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

178. In answer to "how big a bit do you want?"

My response is that I don't think that even on Dr Britt's (very flawed) terms I don't think the term fascist can be used of America until it has more of most of those than most nations that aren't termed fascist. I should stress that "how big a bit do you want" is not a relevant question, though - I'm arguing that America isn't fascist, not that its government isn't doing bad things.

I strongly disagree about military dictatorship not being a sine qua non of fascism. Both Hitler and Mussolini exercised personal control of their militaries, and were very dependent on them. Bush's status as "commander in chief" doesn't come close - the army is very clear on the point that it is loyal to America, not to Bush personally, and the commands he issues are very high-level ones; objectives rather than tactics.

"Time to worry" I don't necessarily disagree with. "America is a fascist state" is the point I was contradicting; the two are far from synonyms.

[TheMadMonk]

186. Exactly. Hitler exercised direct personal control.

'Direct' and 'personal' being the operative words here. He was paramoid about them before the bit with the briefcase in the bunker. Afterwards? Whooee. He ruled his generals with an iron fist and woe betide any one of them who so much as looked sideways at their "dear" Fuher. That my freind is not how I characterise a military dicatorship. That is a dictatorship supported by an at first complicit and then a thoroughly cowed miltary.

I characterise a military dictatorship as one in which the militaty explicitly involves itself in the forming thereof and therefater takes for itself a portion or all of the power.

Any form of government requires the support of its military, thus it is not surpising to find the military backing a fascist regime. That is all any regime needs from its military. However, In my book at least, it takes direct and active involvement by the military leadership in government to make that government a military 'anything'.


Bush may not exercise direct personal control. Rumsfeld most certainly does.

And are you absolutely certain that the leadership of the US military is loyal to their country? I'm not so confident as you seem to be. A few have resigned quietly in protest, but that seems to be the extent of their patriotism. To my knowledge (and I'll admit it's limited) the highest ranking officer to question the legality of his orders and take a stand is an effing second leiutentant for bog's sake. At best that makes the remainder loyal to their own arses and nothing else. And some we know are in various hip pockets.

And "You'll never get American footsloggers to open fire on their own people."? That might remain true for another decade or so, but I wouldn't bet on even that. One of my fears is that a big reason why the Iraq campaign is being played out in the apparently ham fisted way that it is, is to so desensitise those footsloggers that they'll pull the trigger on their own sisters if told to.

Impossible? I'm sure a lot of German mums and dads thought it equally impossible that their own kids would turn on them. Virtually no (un)imaginable human behaviour, no matter how abhorent, is beyond possibility.

And remember, if it ever gets to the point of the military being used as an internal police force, then those dumb grunts will have a very, very good idea of what will be their lot if they don't put that bullet in their sister (or more realistically someone else's).

You might also want to think about the quality/nature of some recent recruits in the US armed forces. People of an ilk that previous administrations went to a great deal of trouble to purge.

Plenty of material there to turn into a loyal cadre for the keeping of peasants in line. Pig ignorant, hate filled little men, who are so small minded that being free to bully anyone they please is as big a goal as their tiny brains are able to encompass.


Is it fascism yet? Possibly not. Does fascism lie at the end of the path being currently trod? It or something equally odious almost certainly does.

So far, I haven't seen you put an actual label to what you think lies at the end of that path. At best, you argue that the US is still a democracy because it holds elections. So did Iraq. Indonesia. Malaysia. The Philipines. Despotic rather than fascist states I know, but clearly not democracies.

The direction of the US is equally clearly not despotic. It is away from anything resembling democracy. It's not meritocracy for obvious reasons. It's not a true corpratocracy, since entry into the halls of power is open to only a select few.

It is toward a corporate oligarchy. I think we could both agree on that. But what is the specific form of that oligarchy? I think we're back to the 'F' word uless you can produce a better one.

So where, right now, in your considered opinion, is the United States headed if these laws are either unchallenged, or worse, given the veneer of legitimacy by the courts? What political label will you attach to the "United States" of five years hence if nothing changes for the better, and matters continue to trend in their current direction?

[newspeak]

188. * has slowly gained more powers

maybe you need to read the Enabling Act, and find how Hitler gained so much power-him and his little cutthroat sociopaths. Fascism, as stated by Mussolini, is government and business against the WILL of the people. As what was explained above. we no longer have a Fairness Doctrine, but a self-interested controlled media--it is a primary step towards a decline in a democratic country. Since, 9/11, laws have been passed giving this administration more and more power, without the authority of our other two checks and balances. Our electoral process has been so corrupted, that we may one day lose even that privilege. So far, they have had the trimmings of a democratic republic, but with the further deterioration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we are quickly heading into a very fascistic state--a corporate state against the will of the people. NAFTA-GATT started the downward spiral-when corporations have more rights than people-corporate rights supersede communities-they can poison your commons, practice unfair labor, with nary a hand slap--and as in the case in California, drinking water being contaminated by a company from Canada, the community kicked them out, they filed a lawsuit under NAFTA-GATT and won our hard earned money by poisoning us!!!!! When corporations have more of a say over the will of the people, then it is indeed FASCISM. The administration is attempting to bankrupt the government as fast as they can, while privatizing once governmental responsibilities. We will still have to pay for services but to privatized entities who will further erode our privacy and services. Then, who do we turn to when we have a grievance? We will no longer be represented-for only the corporation will have rights.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

69. basic Government. We are a Republic.

at least that's what Ben Franklin said.

[Patchuli]

74. Read the bill

and then let us know how it's "not true."

This isn't "knee-jerk" reaction. We are well and truly in trouble if the SCOTUS doesn't knock this down.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. I agree withthe second half of that.

You are in deep trouble if this bill is ruled constitutional. That trouble, however, will not be of the specific type known as "fascism", any more than it's monarchy or feudalism.

[Patchuli]

94. It stinks like fascism, it looks like fascism

or possibly 'corporatism' but either way, it's bad news if upheld. On the other hand, it's bad news for the 'Deciders' if Dems take the houses, hence the admin is trying to retroactively cover their butts.

[Zhade]

97. 1) You're wrong.

2) You're embarassing yourself, you're so wrong.

[SmokingJacket]

117. Yay, America's in the top fifty democracies!

Um, that was before this legislation passed, friend.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

119. Actually, this legislation has little to do with democracy, technically.

Democracy is "government by will of the people", not "respect for human rights". A democracy can commit as many atrocities as it likes without ceasing to be democratic, provided at least 51% of the populace approve them.

That's a technical sophistry, though, obviously - in practice, when people talk about how democratic a place is they use the term loosely, including respect for human rights, as you were doing. In that sense, America went down a good many places today but is still probably in the top fifty, because nations that don't use torture are not terribly numerous, alas.

[libertarianseeker]

147. Democracy vs fascism

A good bit of your argument against "fascism" as a descriptor of our current government emphasizes that our government is democratically elected and can be changed by popular vote. You might want to google "Diebold" "voting" and "Princeton" for more info on that, or read this paper Princeton Paper

[Mynameissalvatore]

161. This has nothing to do with human rights

and everything to do with the rights given to us by the architects of our system of government. Its one of the biggest building blocks that constructed this country. Taking that away isn't a "bad law" as you have stated in earlier threads. It is taking away a fundamental piece of what it is to be American.
So when we hear "They hate us for our freedoms" we wonder " What freedoms might those be?"

[michaelpush]

163. Democracy is "government by will of the people",

was the will of the people done in 2000? Nope....guess it cant be "deomocracy"...750,000 people had "no will" at all...

[johnaries]

133. Let's not parse words. But if it's true that Fascism is Corporatacracy

then the the term DOES apply. And maybe the US WAS one of the healthiest democracies, but that's no longer true after this bill which gives Bush dictatorial authority.

Whether the correct term is Fascist or Dictatorship or Unitary Executive, the truth is that the people who believe "it could never happen here" know that it IS happening here.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

144. Would you agree we are becoming a police state?

nm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

150. I wouldn't disagree, because I'm not sure what the definition is.

I think "police state" is a fairly nebulous term. It is certainly the case that the US police have some powers I think they shouldn't have. It is not the case that the US has much in common with what I visualise when I hear the phrase "police state" - widespread disappearances and killings, suppression of political opposition by force, universal suspension of habeus corpus and the like - but I'm not sure if those are sine qua nons and not just my mental image.

[cool user name]

25. The last time I cried, was when my father died ...

... that was April, 5th 2000. (he was in the Army Corp of Engineers during WWII)

I didn't cry on 9/11.

I cried, at 8:03 9/30th.

Thank you for saying and doing exactly as I do. I am not afraid to voice my opinions in defense of this great country.

It's not a "liberal thing to do." Fuck no! I'm not a liberal. I am a progressive that wants all that is good to be good - even if I can argue with someone about the definition.

What happened the last week, can't be described as good or bad. It is alllllllllllll fucking bad.

There is, as my great father (a republican - yes, he had his faults), would say, no "ands, ifs or buts."

Just as my dad is dead, so is this country. Even if the Supreme Court overturns what is, some can say, non overturnable, the mere passing is lethal enough.

To the opening poster, whom I regret to forget his name, I am here. I am here and anyone who will stand next to my shoulder. I have my fists; I don't own a gun. I have my mouth. I have the unmitigated hatred for everything that stands against the principles of the country that I have grown to love.

That, SIR, CAN NEVER BE TAKEN .... NEVER!

Those Democrats, and those Republicans too, that decided that polictical expediency weighed more than the fundamental rights of our citizens, I say, YOU ARE DONE!

NEVER ESTIMATE THOSE THAT HAVE BELIEFS. BELIEFS THAT I AM WILLING TO DIE FOR.

THIS IS MAKE IT BREAK IT TIME FOR ME.

SIR, THE OPENING POSTER, I STAND WITH YOU.

WHO STANDS WITH US?

[malaise]

26. What a lovely post

from a patriot:yourock:

[sueragingroz]

27. This is what I'm talking about.

Well done!

And thank you.

[femmedem]

28. Please keep us informed how this goes.

In pro-Lamont blogs, many people are arguing that although the bill is horrible, most people don't know what habeus corpus is, they don't understand the bill, and they don't care about it. Therefore, they're arguing, don't make it a campaign issue, even though Lieberman voted for it.

I disagree. True, most people aren't as outraged as we are. But that's because the media, with few exceptions, has not adequately explained the meaning and significance of this bill. But we can.

BTW, I told the woman who cuts my hair. She's mostly apolitical. But she was horrified.

[cool user name]

31. Continuously kicking this thread ...

For all it's worth.

[cool user name]

35. Kicking ...

[Zhade]

107. Yes - this thread should be kicked to combat the ignorance above.

"Healthy democracy" - some people are fucking blind!

[cool user name]

32. kicking again ... n/t

[chat_noir]

33. you can fake being on a phone call...who's going to know

That way you can control all of your "responses".

:yourock:

[nick303]

128. Has anyone thought about "people skills"?

I don't believe for a moment that anyone is going to be won over by this. It will most likely have the opposite effect of what was intended.

[zanne]

34. There's a huge flaw in the freeper logic...

I'll bet they haven't given a thought to what happens when there's President Kerry or Gore or Clinton. But that's the only way they'll understand what dictatorial powers are.

[indepat]

36. Being dictator would be easier and most Congresspeople and Senators

obviously would rather have a dictator than a constitutional Republic if the dictator were their dictator. If this assessment is valid: traitors, all of them, for they've declared war on this Republic and we the people.

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. Recommended!

:applause: :applause: :yourock: Thank you for sharing this! :patriot:

[ms liberty]

38. Thank you for posting this...

And thanks for your efforts to educate an apathetic populace. This is an idea we could all use, every day, to pass on our knowledge without direct confrontation. It probably gets through to more people this way than it would if you stood on a soapbox in front of the local Wally World!

I remember your earlier thread about this technique, and I've tried it a few times myself here in my rural and red corner of the world. I haven't had anyone confront me so far, but I also don't have a hands free unit, just my regular cell phone.

I know how upsetting it is right now with this torture bill passing; I think we DU'ers have all been affected by it - I've barely slept all week, and my stomach has been churning so badly I've worried about having an ulcer! But we have to keep at it, especially now with the encouraging news on the Abramhoff, Foley, and Woodward book fronts!

Keep up the good work! We need it now more than ever!

edit: spelling mishap!

[texpatriot2004]

39. Thank you so much for this post nm

[Bluerthanblue]

40. I HATE it when people talk on phones in public places, it

makes my 'sensory overload' go on super alert.

BUT, I am so grateful to you for taking the facts right to the average Joe/Jane where they live- where they can't avoid or 'turn the channel' on news that is not only uncomfortable but borders on surreal nightmares come true.

THANK YOU- THANK YOU so much, for having the patience, courage, and initiative to do this- putting aside your self, for the good of many- You have demonstrated to me in this post, there are many ways to be agents of PEACE, and WISDOM if we use the tools at our disposal, in ways where the masses can't help but take heed- and speak truth - to those who fear knowing what is happening, (or hide from what they can't face)

Hugs, kudos, gratitude, and love to you, and your band of True Patriots- I too, have roots that are planted deep in this soil, and I believe my ancestors would be applauding your efforts, and passion.

thank you.... thank you... thank you...

You've given me a gentle but vital nudge to come up with a way that I can use my own life to help the sleeping awake, and even if it is too late, to continue to strive to ensure this country doesn't go down in complete ignorance and apathy. (despair has been overwhelming me)

:grouphug:
blu

[blm]

41. *Applause*

and a salute. I do a watered down version of that with telemarketers.

You stand tall, doc. Really tall.

[Jcrowley]

42. That's excellent

You became the media. Keep it up!

K&R

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Guerilla publicity!

:yourock:

[Sydnie]

44. I understand just how you feel Dr_eldritch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2240343&mesg_id=2240343

You see, I had a slight meltdown myself this week. As you can read, I only had an audience of one, and he agreed with me all the same, but the rage that brings you to hot tears is just the same.

I have come to the conclusion that I must take real action. I must find like minded people and begin to take some positive action to get the word out. I thought a good place to start would be with a local campaign. I know that people there are already interested in effecting some change because they are out there working for a candidate. But, I wonder, do they really know the depth at which things have fallen nationally? Perhaps some do, but I would venture a guess that some only see the tip of the iceberg. By getting involved locally, I just might be able to further educate them on the true state of things and gain more voices to speak out against this horrible turn of events.

Well, that's my plan for now anyway. I would suggest you find a plan too that will give you a bit of support in numbers ... and heck, it would give you some new phone contacts to call when you have the opportunity to make your "headset calls" in the future as well.

Please, take care of yourself. We need each other more than ever now. I have a shoulder for you when ever you need one, my friend. :hug:

[The Doctor.]

75. Thank you. I just need ot say, in response to some of the above posts...

There's nothing heroic about this... I'm just angry, no... enraged.

I'm glad you got to let it out. :hug:

I do not, however, advocate emotional outbursts in public.
As one poster upthread suggested, it is imprudent to appear 'hysterical' over these issues as it will sow apathy for your cause.

Instead (and contrary to what the aforementioned poster assumed), I speak very rationally and matter-of-factly about these issues while on the phone and in public places.
I recite excerpts, explain ramifications, and occasionally mention how sad it is that no one seems to be aware that our government is selling us out.

The results are not always obvious, but I know how important it is to shake the sheep.

Even if only one wakes up because of my efforts, it's worth it.

Thank you, I may take you up on your offer.

[helderheid]

48. you moved me to tears!

I am tempted to cut and paste this in an email and send it to my a-political husband!

[ironflange]

53. You're right, and here's proof

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2262722

Please excuse the blatant self-promotion. :evilgrin:

[Pithy Cherub]

56. May the Force Be WITH You!

You are a force for good and understood more than 65 dumbfucks who voted for it that it was about this nation living up to its ideals and orignal intent. They gave it away and you are doing your part wonderfully. You outsrip the 65 who don't even know that it is truly unconstitutitonal. :patriot:

[WA98296]

57. Thank God someone found a way to take to the streets

WELL DONE!!!! And, thanks for posting this, I am off to do some street work today!

[dkofos]

60. Sounds like a fun thing to try.

I will have to get a cell phone first

[The Doctor.]

80. You don't actually need one....

When I first posted about this ( http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Dr_eldritch/4 ) - It was suggested dotcosm and hwmnbn that one needn't be on the line with anyone.

All you need is one of those hands-free earphone wires that clip to your shirt, just put the other end in your pants pocket as though it were clipped to a phone.

I must say again; I live in a 'Deep Blue' state, so it's unlikely I will encounter violent responses. I urge caution and awareness of surroundings to anyone who might do this.

As we've seen, not everyone is polite enough to pretend to ignore your private conversation.

[Zhade]

109. Just get a broken Bluetooth earpiece.

No need to make an actual call, if you can fake one - after all, at that point you're just reciting the truth to yourself anyway!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

68. oh doc!

#43 from me, from the heart. Thank you.

[barbtries]

87. that is so great!

my son looks at me sometimes like i'm crazy, cause i'm shouting epithets at the tv or the computer, and i'm ranting out loud what the fuck is going on! in this my country tis of thee is some other place entirely, and feel powerless so i rail at the tv or the computer daily, daily.

but now i think i'll go ahead and graduate to embarassing his 14-year-old ass out in public, on the phone. if it works, and it seems to work.

i'm thinking these days boston tea party, revolutionary war, coup. what can stop these wretched criminal warmongering murderous bastards from trashing what was a great country, the best one to be living in, i thought, just six years ago?

just a couple hours ago i read nance gregg's great rantthat gave me hope that the world was coming around to seeing and believing the truth about gw and his cohorts and where they are leading the nation if not in fact the hapless planet. i felt hopeful for a minute or two. just now i checked the board again and run into this post:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2265964

and felt desperate, nearly hopeles again...til i read this. good news well told. thanks

[Zhade]

96. You're one hell of a guy, Doc.

You're the kind of Republican I can work with. And I think you've discovered an ingenious way to spread the truth quietly.

:yourock:

[The Doctor.]

114. There are MANY....

MANY Republicans who can't stand this administration.

That is one of the thousand reasons why I'm so convinced that elections are utterly fraudulent in this country.

Bushco could not possibly have won if nearly all Democrats and a couple million Republicans can't stand their bullshit. Those are the Republicans that are more likely to get out and vote against the criminals.

It's funny actually, I've been working on a Democrat's campaign recently with, of course, Democrats. I've explained why I keep my 'R' registration ad-nauseum. But every chance that some of them get they get their jabs in. It's in good spirits, so of course I don't mind.

Once a girl asked me for change for a twenty. Jokingly I said, "so what's in it for me?". This one fellow, Ed, piped right up, "There are his Republican roots showing again.".

-Bloody hell.

:smoke:

[StrictlyRockers]

113. Man! I just love it when I read stories like this! Inspirational!

Stand up, people! Speak out! Be counted! We are all doomed if good men choose to do nothing about the fascist path this country is on.

Thank you, eldritch!!

K&R

[pat_k]

122. ATTN ALL - Use this Post as "How To" manual

You can easily adjust it to fit your situation. And you need not be so confrontive.

Also if some idiot just screams "liberal" at you, and you don't have as good an answer at the one above, you can just dismiss the person, by saying you're a libertarian. They really don't know what that means, and it is what they call themselves when they are ashamed to be Republicans.

Doing things like this really does make a difference.

[canichelouis]

129. My 85 yr old Mother-in-law does this all the time.

She started her 'public conversations' before the 2004 elections.

It's a hoot to be out with her. We'll be chattin' about one thing and as soon as we enter a 'peopled' space, boom, she starts talkin' good politics and current events, or should I say current scandals.

It's very effective, and especially so with the elderly. She knows it and uses it to her advantage.

She was just diagnosed with breast cancer, just months after losing her husband of 60 years.
I encourage her with the notion that she has a mission to keep spreading the word. We need her wisdom and example, for the sake of the children and the world. It keeps her going.

She gets it!

[Joanne98]

130. That is a great idea.

[proud patriot]

131. Thank You

:hi:

[oblivious]

146. Excellent.

[Thickasabrick]

149. You are incredible and my hero. What a great idea!

[Swamp Rat]

151. Here's a new one:

[a la izquierda]

152. What a great story!

I enjoy that occasionally in Oklahoma, but even better, once a friend of mine and I went to a bar. We were reading an assortment of communist and extreme left literature. We noticed a few cops walk by. A few minutes later, they walked by again. And again. Finally, they stopped, picked up Communist Manifesto and asked what we were up to. My response, "Really, it's none of your goddamned business. But if you must know, we're historians". I think the "goddamned" part really annoyed them. They snickered and walked away. I think we unnerved them a little bit.

[mhatrw]

153. Wonderful! Here's another post in the same vein.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2257679&mesg_id=2257679

[tbyg52]

154. This is a marvelous idea

My husband says it doesn't really make any difference when I do similar things (though not nearly as spectacular as this--just a few words here and there that I hope people hear), but I think he is wrong, and I'm gonna keep doing it. He'd probably be right if I were the only one, but obviously I'm not! Thank you!

[Amonester]

157. K&R!! What a fabulous idea!!

Everybody with (and even whitout) hands-free gear should do the same everywhere! That's a great idea!

I'LL do it even if I don't have a hands-free phone. I don't care if they 'act' like they're not listening: I'll talk loud enough (without screaming) but they'll sure hear each word I'll say whether they like it or not.)

KICK THIS ONE OVER AND OVER!! :thumbsup:

IMAGINE MILLIONS OF US DOING THIS!

(Apologies for the capitalized letters.) :)

[michaelpush]

162. People, the point is,

This is WRONG! You can call it whatever you want, argue about whether its "fascist" or not....Personally, I don't think the US is a democracy, as evidenced by the 2000 election, its more a Republic....but, thats beside the point. Anything that takes away a persons rights under law, is WRONG!, very dangerous, and, should not be tolerated by any citizen, anywhere, period!

[L0oniX]

164. Here's a list of the democrats who voted for the bush torture bill

A google search found this list of traitors. Notice that Joe Lieberman has company.
If anyone has a list of the repukes who voted for the torture bill please post it.

* Thomas Carper (D-DE)
* Tim Johnson (D-SD)
* Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
* Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
* Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
* Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
* Bill Nelson (D-FL)
* Ben Nelson (D-NE)
* Mark Pryor (D-AR)
* Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
* Ken Salazar (D-CO)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

The terrorists have won because our gov has taken away our freedoms ...the freedoms our soldiers are supposedly fighting and dieing for. For that matter George Bush and the senate and our congress has aided the terrorists by passing the torture bill therefore they should all be arrested and locked up without any rights or anyone knowing where they are and with no representation and should be tortured. We've been taken over by the ass carrots in charge.

[derby378]

181. I wish I saw this post 12 hours ago...

I'm speechless. Well done, indeed.

:toast:

[leesa]

184. Umm..the forefathers were Liberals. I don't think many conservatives

would have been on the side of the Revolutionaries.

Nice job of wrapping folks into the Constitutional crisis discussion though. I only wished you hadn't played into his trashing of Progressives and Liberals. Why?