Forums | MacLife

We are definitely not close to true fascism yet.  However, I think its also wrong to ignore many of the parallels that can be drawn from our current political landscape and those of the beginning stages of fascism in those other countries.

edit:  all that said, its probably a conversation that just can't work in a forum such as this.

Last edited by obtuse (2005-02-27 11:53 am)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The universe is full of parallels.

Not if it's a curved universe.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

obtuse wrote:

We are definitely not close to true fascism yet.  However, I think its also wrong to ignore many of the parallels that can be drawn from our current political landscape and those of the beginning stages of fascism in those other countries.

The universe is full of parallels. You can find all kinds of similarities if you look hard enough. So what? Why become a drama queen because of it?

Well then the question becomes if the parallels are important.  Enough of them are, imo, to make more careful watching of the situation justified.

Edit:  The other thing is that these parallels are bad things in their own right.  Labeling democrats as working to destroy america or the glorification of violence are memes that are harmful regardless of if their sum is fascism or not.

Last edited by obtuse (2005-02-27 12:12 pm)

obtuse wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

obtuse wrote:

We are definitely not close to true fascism yet.  However, I think its also wrong to ignore many of the parallels that can be drawn from our current political landscape and those of the beginning stages of fascism in those other countries.

The universe is full of parallels. You can find all kinds of similarities if you look hard enough. So what? Why become a drama queen because of it?

Well then the question becomes if the parallels are important.  Enough of them are, imo, to make more careful watching of the situation justified.

If you think of it as a checklist, none of the key items are checked off. Multiparty democracy? Check. Free press? Check. Freedom of association? Check. Freedom of speech? Check. Police state? Nix. Military dictatorship? Nix. Cancellation of elections? Nix. Roundups of critics of the state? Nix. Hounding out of all opponents inside the government? Nix.

Let's face it, we're/you're not even close.

obtuse wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

obtuse wrote:

/\
|
|
|

This is fascism.  The current administration ain't there yet.

To criticize liberals is fascism?

Claiming that because liberals are critical, they are anti american is fascist.  Thats why you get included.

edit:  http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/  For a good definition of what fascism is, try that website.  He's got two sets of essays on fascism in the lefthand column.

Lets be honest. Much of liberal critiscism amounts to anti american sentiment (not all, but much). The whole Noam Chomsky school for example entire world view seems to rest on the idea that most of the worlds ills are due to the fault of America. A lot of the liberal argument is also based on socialism (not all, but a lot) which posits that its capitalism that is the great evil. These ARE anti american arguments. Why can't someone object to said characterizations and said arguments without being labelled a facist especially if the characterization is an accurate one?

Your argument is essentially because repubs are critical of libs they are simply facists. If libs can criticize the system, or the govt, or capitalism, or whatever why can't someone criticize the libs criticism and label it as they see it?
Facism and nazism are bandied about, along with racism and sexism as soon as someone says something libs find objectionable. For my part, I don't own any brownshirts nor any jackboots. I do think that much of the liberal argument IS anti american. (again, not all, but much).

Libs arent above reproach. They, despite their belief do not live or argue from ivory towers. If the argument they pose is an antiamerican one, they can be attacked on it. And it doesnt mean that the person who disagrees is then a facist.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Any comparison between America in 2005 and Germany under Hitler betrays either mind-boggling ignorance, disgusting, willful blindness, or both.

You wanna dislike Bush, go ahead. I know I do. But let's stay grounded in reality, shall we?

I'm with you on this one, Schnicky.  Bush is bad in so many ways, and the Justice Department abuses its power very frequently.  It's discouraging, and sometimes even sickening. But it can hardly be compared to Nazi Germany.  Our standards have gone up; that's good.  We now criticize smaller, less powerful tyrants for smaller injustices.  They should still be fought at every turn.  But hyperbolic comparisons to genocidal maniacs of decades past would just make us sound like hysterical nutcase activists.

everlong205 wrote:

obtuse wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

To criticize liberals is fascism?

Claiming that because liberals are critical, they are anti american is fascist.  Thats why you get included.

edit:  http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/  For a good definition of what fascism is, try that website.  He's got two sets of essays on fascism in the lefthand column.

Lets be honest. Much of liberal critiscism amounts to anti american sentiment (not all, but much). The whole Noam Chomsky school for example entire world view seems to rest on the idea that most of the worlds ills are due to the fault of America. A lot of the liberal argument is also based on socialism (not all, but a lot) which posits that its capitalism that is the great evil. These ARE anti american arguments. Why can't someone object to said characterizations and said arguments without being labelled a facist especially if the characterization is an accurate one?

Your argument is essentially because repubs are critical of libs they are simply facists. If libs can criticize the system, or the govt, or capitalism, or whatever why can't someone criticize the libs criticism and label it as they see it?
Facism and nazism are bandied about, along with racism and sexism as soon as someone says something libs find objectionable. For my part, I don't own any brownshirts nor any jackboots. I do think that much of the liberal argument IS anti american. (again, not all, but much).

Libs arent above reproach. They, despite their belief do not live or argue from ivory towers. If the argument they pose is an antiamerican one, they can be attacked on it. And it doesnt mean that the person who disagrees is then a facist.

You're ability to understand what any liberal is arguing is limited at best.  For example, when I say that is it fascist to say that because liberals are critical of Bush, they are anti-american, you interpret that as me saying that anyone who criticizes liberals is a fascist.  Of course you can criticize liberals and not be a fascist.  If your criticism is that the liberals are wrong because they are antiamerican, well then you're starting down the road to fascism.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Mustapha Mond wrote:

locutus_of_borg wrote:

The answer to your question is: apprently not. Even if we find 4000 Soviet ICBM's in the desert tomorrow, with all of them aimed at the US including detailed plans for invasion, they will ever admit to any positive gains from this whole safari.

When that happens, give me a call. In the meantime, let's talk about how the Bush supporters are desperately trying to snatch cloud from sky to build smoke screen rationales and justifications for the war, rather than admit they were duped.

What, like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm

Speaking on a visit to Kazakhstan, Mr Putin said Russia had warned the US on several occasions that Iraq was planning "terrorist attacks" on its soil.

"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.

He said the information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets".

What of it?

Prior to the first Gulf War, just as we were getting ready to attack Iraq, Iraq attempted attacks on some US embassies (Indonesia and somewhere else). Given that history, we asked our allies to keep an eye out for Saddam trying the same thing again, and sure enough Russia caught wind of them doing just that. Why are we surprised that, knowing we're about to attack him, Saddam started making plans to hit us first. In terms of preemeptive strikes, his actions were much more justified than our turned out to be.