REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Dear Fake-Patriots,

POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Thursday, May 13, 2021 17:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11667
PAGE 2 of 3

Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:24 AM

AJ


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Germans who occupied the Rhineland in 1936 were told that if they should experience any resistance from France, that they should withdraw because Germany did not have the military power to hold the Rhineland. To a very large extent, I think the Rhineland was a test. The Germans, having essentially lost the First World War, were probably not committed in 1936 to an expansionistic offensive, until they were not removed from the Rhineland, at which point they began to build up their military force confident they could defeat countries that could not or would not oppose them. I think it relatively certain that if France and the UK (and I’ll throw the US in their as well,) had shown even a meager show of force by retaking the Rhineland, it might very well have forestalled the entire war. Of course we can’t really know what would have been, although what was, was certainly the worst of most possible scenarios.

The Germans just kept testing the water, getting bolder and bolder, not just with the Rhineland, but the Anschluss with Austria and any number of infringements of the Versailles treaty. By the time the allies drew the line at Poland, it was all too late (and so many lines had been scrubbed out already the challenge probably wasn't taken seriously).

I guess there was a lot of guilt involved with the lack of military force in response to Hitler's foreign policy. Many felt Versailles had been to harsh on Germany (which is certainly an arguable point - made a scapegoat, maybe? ), and after the crash of 1933, all the regeneration in Germany went down the pan - mainly because it was largely based on US loans that were very hastily called in.

Hitler comes in and turns things round, in his radical fashion, making the rest of the world uneasy, but there's a feeling of, "well, it's partly our fault they're in that mess in the first place", so certain conditions slip, and then a few more, until you've got a runaway train. There's a theory that Hitler fully expected the allies to back down over Poland as well, and was not even 100% ready for war in 1939, because he'd got so carried away with the guilt card.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:49 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

Unless your saying the American government is not a democracy, there's certainly arguments down that road.



Actually it's a representative Republic and that's an important distinction. When trying to determine the political system used in the US Constitution the drafters looked at various existant, historic and theoretical political systems. True, or primative democracy was considered but it can end up becoming government by the Mob and such systems make it hard to enforce property rights. In the end a Republic with various fudges and checks and balences was agreed. In the US system the people are represented in the government but they do not themselves govern. The government uses power given by the people, it is not the power of the people.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

As far as I can tell, all that Geezer did was ask some critical questions of the original rant, as well as the test that it quotes
Khyron- You're normally much smarter than this. WHAT "critical" (important, insightful, crucial) questions did Geezer ask?? Here are his points, in order

STDOUBT is a fascist, ad hominum “You've passed the test and your Fascista membership card is in the mail.. (OK, one could say that STDOUBT engaged in the same behavior- that doesn’t make in-kind response right either)

Trivialization, how to “score” the test Most symptom tests give a pass-fail number, i.e. "If you have more than 8 of the 14 symptoms, contact a doctor immediately". Is there a make/break for this test, or does meeting any one condition lead irrevocably to Fascism?

Innuendo, disguised as “equal time” I also wonder if there are similar tests for, say, Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, etc., so we can spin their OK. That assumes that the cited article is spin, and only spin.

Ad hominem “Then I went looking for "Dr. Lawrence Britt"...and can't find a thing about him other than he writes for the Council for Secular Humanism and the Rochester City newspaper, and has written a book entitled "July 2004" which is #1,273,771 in the Amazon.com books sales ranking. No evidence anywhere he's a Doctor of anything.

Innuendo “Free Inquiry is apparently the house organ of the Council for Secular Humanism.” So???

Ad hominem"Looks like Mr. Britt's worldview falls right in with the "Bush is Evil" crowd here” FINN-PLEASE NOTE, HE IS REFERRING TO PEOPLE HERE, not just to Dr Britt.

Putting words in peoples mouths (straw man) “I'm surprised he hasn't been quoted here before, what with stuff such as an essay titled, "Resolved: George W. Bush Is the Worst President in American History".

All he had to do was google up the definition of fascism and he would have seen a big overlap between Britt’s points, and others. But he’s more interested in trivializing and diverting the topic than actually discussing it. But Geezer doesn’t HAVE any “points”. That’s the point. Geezer is a walking, one-man propaganda machine, full of innuendo, ad hominem, and straw man distractions.

So, how about talking about whether the USA is trending towards fascism, with the help of people who THINK they're being patriots?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
ie. "Trust the system." I'm not putting words in your mouth, just condensing your rhetoric. But in your world view, is there a role for the average person to get involved- even worked up- over politics? Or does the demos not belong in democracy?



Actually more like "Use the system", or "Work the system". It's functioned pretty good for the past 200 years. Do all the things interest groups, be they the NRA or the Million Mom March do. Write letters, lobby, demonstrate, support candidates favorable to your position. If you're doing all this, then you're doing all you legally can. Maybe you'll just have to wait for things to get worse, as you expect, before you get the momentum needed to throw the bums out. Maybe things won't get worse. There's an election coming up in a couple of years and Bush clones don't look to have a good chance. Maybe it'll all go away. You can work on that, too.

If you want to overthrow the government, you can try, but then those of us who play by the rules really will try and stop you, instead of just disagreeing with you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:55 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
Citizen, I realise your post was (probably) in jest


Partly yes, partly no.
Quote:

In theory, yes. In practice, impossible.

No that's pretty much exactly what it does. Democracy may be choose your dictator for the next four years, but by the virtue of governments wanting to stay in power they have to listen to the 'whims' of the people.
Quote:

For instance, the war with Iraq was quite unpopular in America and hugely unpopular in Britain, and it still happened.

So? Both Britain and America have had elections since the start of these unpopular wars, and both still have the same governments they had before the war. People re-elected them, if they disagreed with the war they had the opportunity to do something about it, they didn't. Whose fault and responsibility is that?
Quote:

The people are only important in election years.

And if people don't use that influence that is THEIR responsibility.

People in a democracy share the responsibility of the decisions, they decide who makes the decisions, they let them continue to make those decisions.

To go back to the WW2 analogy most people, and I think I've seen comments by you to this end, believe the Germans living at the time of the Nazi's share responsibility for their actions, because they didn't stop them and they allowed Hitler to come to power. People in a democracy have more influence, at least more opportunity for influence than those in a totalitarian dictatorship. People in a democracy share more responsibility, not less.
Quote:

In my view, the government that comes closest to being a true democracy is Switzerland, which is a direct democracy, meaning that the people vote on every damn thing. But even this requires the populace to be politically aware of what they are voting for/against, and that isn't always the case. California also has a direct democracy, but there it seems like any proposal that Schwarzenegger supports is accepted or rejected according to how popular he is at that moment. So direct democracy isn't exactly an ideal form of government either.

And who bears responsibility for the people’s apathy if not the people?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:13 AM

KHYRON


Fletch:

I like what you said in response to that comment by Citizen, much better than my reply to it.

SignyM:

Okay, this is long, but hopefully I'll manage to explain my position in the debate.

First I want to be clear on some things (before anybody jumps to conclusions): I'm neither on Geezer's side nor on anybody else's in this discussion, I think both sides have valid arguments. The reason why I came to Geezer's defence is because I was surprised at how antagonistic some people's comments against him were, and I don't feel he deserved it. I do think he raised some valid arguments.

I'll go through each of the points you raised and I'll tell you how I interpreted them when I originally read them. This is not to defend Geezer, but to explain why I think Geezer is receiving harsh treatment.
Quote:

STDOUBT is a fascist, ad hominum “You've passed the test and your Fascista membership card is in the mail.."

The problem with humour on the internet is that one doesn't really know when a person is joking and when not, unless that person is using emoticons, but not everyone likes using them. This sentence I saw as sarcasm and didn't think too much about it.

In fact it's that post in which Geezer said this that I thought made his most important point: not because it was criticising STDoubt's post, I don't care about that aspect of it, but because it shows how easy it is for one side that critisises the other side about something (in this case, looking for enemies/scapegoats) to fall into the same trap. It's very easy to go down the same path and it's not always "the other side" that does it. The comment about the fascista card at the end to me was just a bit of easily-dismissed humour.
Quote:

Trivialization, how to “score” the test Most symptom tests give a pass-fail number, i.e. "If you have more than 8 of the 14 symptoms, contact a doctor immediately". Is there a make/break for this test, or does meeting any one condition lead irrevocably to Fascism?


I think it's a good question that Geezer (maybe inadvertedly) raised. What defines fascism? Is there a set of guidelines (as set out in this test) that differentiates fascism from something that has similar traits but isn't fascism? I didn't see it as trivialising the test, but asking if such a test is really good measure of a political system, or, on the other hand, if such a test can be seen as the definition of a political system. It's something that I think could be argued in a thread of it's own: "Does a specific political system always obey exactly the same set of characteristics?". Maybe it's not what Geezer meant, but it's how I read it.
Quote:

Innuendo, disguised as “equal time” I also wonder if there are similar tests for, say, Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, etc., so we can spin their OK. That assumes that the cited article is spin, and only spin.


Same as my comment above. Although I don't agree with his use of the word 'spin'. Then again, theoretically it's possible for anybody to come up with a test like this and then use it to criticise some government or agency that that person doesn't like. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but one has to be aware that tests such as this could be used for that purpose, i.e. as 'spin'.
Quote:

Ad hominem “Then I went looking for "Dr. Lawrence Britt"...and can't find a thing about him other than he writes for the Council for Secular Humanism and the Rochester City newspaper, and has written a book entitled "July 2004" which is #1,273,771 in the Amazon.com books sales ranking. No evidence anywhere he's a Doctor of anything.

It's always good to check up on the sources, but in this case I do get the impression that it was meant to trivialise the test (btw, I don't think it's ad hominem, but trivialisation). So while agree with Geezer trying to look up on Dr Britt, I guess he could have just said "I tried to find something about Dr Britt but couldn't find anything important. Can somebody send me a reference so that I can find out more about this guy and see if he's for real?". Personally I don't care how he said it, but I can understand why people weren't happy with the way he said it.
Quote:

Innuendo “Free Inquiry is apparently the house organ of the Council for Secular Humanism.” So???

Yeah okay, I didn't get this one either.
Quote:

Ad hominem"Looks like Mr. Britt's worldview falls right in with the "Bush is Evil" crowd here” FINN-PLEASE NOTE, HE IS REFERRING TO PEOPLE HERE, not just to Dr Britt.

I guess one could say that Dr Britt was quoted because he's anti-Bush, like most people in RWED. That's perfectly normal, of course, because if one side quotes an authority to support their argument, and that authority is not completely on their side, then it's easy for the other side to say: "Yeah, but Dr X also said this and that, which goes against your overall argument, so if Dr X is enough of an authority for you guys to quote him against us, we'll just do the same". So quoting an authority that's completely on one's side with his world-view is a good idea in a discussion since then the opposing side can't use it against one. Hence I don't really see why Geezer seems to have a problem with it.
Quote:

Putting words in peoples mouths (straw man) “I'm surprised he hasn't been quoted here before, what with stuff such as an essay titled, "Resolved: George W. Bush Is the Worst President in American History".

Again, humour in my book. To be honest, it IS a bit surprising, it seems like the sort of thing some people here would enjoy quoting from. I assume that Dr Britt really has written an essay titled like that and that Geezer didn't just make the title up.
Quote:

All he had to do was google up the definition of fascism and he would have seen a big overlap between Britt’s points, and others. But he’s more interested in trivializing and diverting the topic than actually discussing it. But Geezer doesn’t HAVE any “points”. That’s the point. Geezer is a walking, one-man propaganda machine, full of innuendo, ad hominem, and straw man distractions.

So, how about talking about whether the USA is trending otwards fascism, with the help of people who THINK they're being patriots?


Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Geezer initially meant his posts to distract people from the overall discussion. Sure, it ended up being that way, but an observation I've made (and this isn't an ad hominem attack, it's a purely objective observation) is that people on here get distracted very easily. They can be discussing something and then somebody with a completely different point of view comes along and everybody jumps on that guy, instead of just ignoring or dismissing or quickly giving a counterargument before moving back to the main discussion. I've seen it happen plenty of times before, be it with dreamtrove, PN, Auraptor and lately Geezer.

Besides, a discussion needs these people so that one can actually have a discussion. Otherwise the 'discussion' would just be:
"Wow... Bush sure sucks..."
"Yep"
"Yeah"
"Totally. He sucks ass"
"Well said. That he does."
"Yeah. By the way, who agrees with me that America's going down the shitter?"
"Oh, I do"
"Oh, me too!"
"Good, so we're all agreeing on that, then... well, I'll go grab some lunch, see you later."

So, amongst other things, I think people see Geezer's comments as a distraction because they want them to be one, otherwise this thread would've died very quickly.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Straw man
Quote:

If you want to overthrow the government, you can try, but then those of us who play by the rules really will try and stop you, instead of just disagreeing with you


Tsk, tsk. You just CAN'T turn off the propaganda machine, can you Geezer? But enough of this waltzing around. You've got nothing interesting to say on the topic of the thread. Let me know when you decide to have a substantive discussion.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

As far as I can tell, all that Geezer did was ask some critical questions of the original rant, as well as the test that it quotes
Khyron- You're normally much smarter than this. WHAT "critical" (important, insightful, crucial) questions did Geezer ask??


SignyM, if you're going to attack me, please do it to my face.
Quote:

Here are his points, in order

STDOUBT is a fascist, ad hominum “You've passed the test and your Fascista membership card is in the mail.. (OK, one could say that STDOUBT engaged in the same behavior- that doesn’t make in-kind response right either)


But what better way to make it clear that the "warning signs of Fascism" could be applied to almost anybody, making them less than useful?
Quote:

Trivialization, how to “score” the test Most symptom tests give a pass-fail number, i.e. "If you have more than 8 of the 14 symptoms, contact a doctor immediately". Is there a make/break for this test, or does meeting any one condition lead irrevocably to Fascism?

Hardly trivial to me. without some concrete criteria, almost any country could be labeled fascist or given a pass depending on how loosely or strictly the test is applied. Again, this makes the test less than useful.
Quote:

Innuendo, disguised as “equal time” I also wonder if there are similar tests for, say, Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, etc., so we can spin their OK. That assumes that the cited article is spin, and only spin.

Hardly innuendo. I come right out and say I consider the article spin. And I do.
Quote:

Ad hominem “Then I went looking for "Dr. Lawrence Britt"...and can't find a thing about him other than he writes for the Council for Secular Humanism and the Rochester City newspaper, and has written a book entitled "July 2004" which is #1,273,771 in the Amazon.com books sales ranking. No evidence anywhere he's a Doctor of anything.

How ad hominim?
Come here, Webster's II:
Ad hominem - Appealing to personal prejudices or emotions rather than to reason
I report exactly what I found by Googling Mr. Britt's name. I was interested in the "Doctor" bit because an article authored by "Dr. Britt" would be assumed to be within his area of expertise, and therefore carry more weight.
Quote:

Innuendo “Free Inquiry is apparently the house organ of the Council for Secular Humanism.” So???

Back to Webster's II:
"House Organ n. A periodical published by a business organization for its employees or clients."
No innuendo there either, Just noting who publishes "Free Enquiry". Sheesh.
Quote:

Ad hominem"Looks like Mr. Britt's worldview falls right in with the "Bush is Evil" crowd here” FINN-PLEASE NOTE, HE IS REFERRING TO PEOPLE HERE, not just to Dr Britt.

So if I said your worldview seems to me to fall right in with Rue and Citizen, then that would be ad hominem? When I say "...crowd here." that's who I'm referring to...you guys on FFF.
Quote:

Putting words in peoples mouths (straw man) “I'm surprised he hasn't been quoted here before, what with stuff such as an essay titled, "Resolved: George W. Bush Is the Worst President in American History".

Nope. Really am surprised. His stuff reads just like so much other stuff quoted here. I'm not sure how this could be considred putting words in anyone's mouth. If I'd said something like "SignyM obviously thinks "Dr." Britt is the only choice for World Dictator (in only the nicest Progressive way, of course)." that would be putting words in someone's mouth.
Quote:

All he had to do was google up the definition of fascism and he would have seen a big overlap between Britt’s points, and others.

...and also found a zillion definitions of fascism.
Quote:

But he’s more interested in trivializing and diverting the topic than actually discussing it. But Geezer doesn’t HAVE any “points”. That’s the point. Geezer is a walking, one-man propaganda machine, full of innuendo, ad hominem, and straw man distractions.

Sure I have a point, and I'd have thought it would have been pretty clear. After reviewing Mr. Britt's 14 warning signs of fascism, the article in which they appeared, the organization which published the article, Mr. Britt's other work that I cound find, and the interiew in the Rochester City, I've come to the conclusion that Mr. Britt wrote the article as a spin, or more accurately a propaganda, piece, to support his own poor opinion of the US government. He provides a little pseudo-scientific dressing by talking about analysing fascist governments, but provides no research data or statistics. He provides no method of evaluating pass/fail levels for any of his criteria, leaving them wide open for any interpretation one might want to apply. I consider it bogus. That's BOOOOOOOOOGUS!
Quote:

So, how about talking about whether the USA is trending otwards fascism, with the help of people who THINK they're being patriots?

No more than it trends toward Socialism with the help of those who think they're being patriots when the Liberals are in power. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Hitlerian fascism, five being democracy, and 10 being North Korean socialism (or viceversa if you like) I think the US probably wobbles between 4.9 and 5.1. Not really accurate, because ploting fascism, democacy, socialism, etc. on one line is kind'a simplistic, but you get my drift.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:25 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Flatch2:
Actually it's a representative Republic and that's an important distinction. When trying to determine the political system used in the US Constitution the drafters looked at various existant, historic and theoretical political systems. True, or primative democracy was considered but it can end up becoming government by the Mob and such systems make it hard to enforce property rights. In the end a Republic with various fudges and checks and balences was agreed. In the US system the people are represented in the government but they do not themselves govern. The government uses power given by the people, it is not the power of the people.


Now you're just being pedantic .

Democracy, rightly or wrongly, is used as a catch-all term for governmental systems that vote. Direct/Athenian/Classical/Primative-Democracy is used like a subset of that term, when they are, in fact, true democracy. Britain is not a Democracy, using correct usage, since it is government power given by the people, yet Britain is referred to as a democracy.
Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
I like what you said in response to that comment by Citizen, much better than my reply to it.


Your points were actually quite dissimilar?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:42 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
No that's pretty much exactly what it does. Democracy may be choose your dictator for the next four years, but by the virtue of governments wanting to stay in power they have to listen to the 'whims' of the people.


Hmm, I don't know, the whims of the people are pretty much opposed to the current Bush administration (Bush is hovering around 30% is the polls), but it's still there. If anything, this administration has gone from one faux pas to another and it's still there. The only way the whims of the people can get them out is by revolution, and I think we can all agree that that won't happen.
Quote:

Both Britain and America have had elections since the start of these unpopular wars, and both still have the same governments they had before the war. People re-elected them, if they disagreed with the war they had the opportunity to do something about it, they didn't. Whose fault and responsibility is that?

Okay, there's no way I can explain why both administrations are still there, because it still doesn't make sense to me. My two best arguments are: the majority of people are stupid, and the opposition candidates were hopeless.
Quote:

And if people don't use that influence that is THEIR responsibility.

I completely agree with that. This ties in with some things we both said:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
People in a democracy share the responsibility of the decisions, they decide who makes the decisions, they let them continue to make those decisions.
.
.
.
And who bears responsibility for the people’s apathy if not the people?

and
Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
True democracy is possible only in theory or in a small population that is politically aware


In my quote, 'politically aware' is in italics because I emphasise that I think true democracy only works if the population is small (i.e. manageable) and politically aware. This ties in with what you said about the people's responsibility, namely that democracy can only really work if the people take responsibility for what their elected officials do (let me know if that's not what you meant, but that's how I saw it).

However, one can't just say that democracy doesn't work so well because of the people, because any form of government doesn't work too well because of the people. Communism would have many benefits, but it's been tried and it failed numerous times, and the reason is i) it's easily corruptable, and (more importantly) ii) because it goes against the people's natural way of doing things. In this case, working only for the greater common good is against the natural way of people. Similarly, in a democracy being politically aware and non-apathetic is against the people's natural way of doing things. So while I agree with your sentiment and have expressed similar concern myself, I don't think it's something that can be changed and the system has to adapt to the people and not the other way around.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:44 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Your points were actually quite dissimilar?


Yeah they were, but I think Fletch's point was a better response to that comment than mine.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, a discussion would be something like...

What is fascism? Well, it turns out there is a lively discussion on the definition of fascism and it's overlap with nazism, and whether it's being used in the historical or perjorative sense.

MY reading of fascism is the Benito Moussolini version of fascism: a melding of "the state" and corporatism... government in service to business. But STDOUBT got a list of fourteen points, so maybe if we looked at the one by one we could decide if they belonged on the list and whether the USA matches that description.

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. Well, this is pretty specific. Does the USA use flags, songs, slogans more so than most other nations? I don't think so.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need or 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. Yes, the SUA practices this pretty regularly. It not even signed many of the international agreements on human rights, and has recently moved towards indefinite detention of citizens w/o charges. Personally, I think anyone who argues for suspension of civil and human rights is a fascist.

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. I think you can tell a lot about a nation's leadership by how much time and money they spend on "enemies", real or perceived. The "war on Terror" has turned into a war in Iraq, on which we've just spent $300 BILLION dollars. that's a significant chunk of change, and, looking at the USA military budget I'd say we spend far more on our "enemies" than any other nation.

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. See above. However, Bush actually listens very little to actual military advice and the money goes to Halliburton. I think there is more of a corporate interest involvld, not a military one.

Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. I'm not sure this is unique to fascism. Under the early Soviet experiment, divorce was made easy and sex roles were equalized. But they took a U-turn after a few years. The Mideast has the same problem.

Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. Check.

Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. How many times is 9-11 used as the prod for everything?? Unless of course we're talking about WMD. Check!

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. Check!

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. Double check! However, you would need to add "creating a mutually benefical relationship AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AVERGAE PERSON". Some government/ industry collaborations work out quite well.

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. This has been an ogoing stance since the late 1800's.

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 and letters is openly attacked. Not sure this is exclusive to fascism. ANY government that want to control its' populace will target intellectuals first.

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. I think this is just a subset of the obession with security.

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. I'm not sure this is exclusive to fascism. Any time you have a repressive government, corruption almost inevitable sets in, simply because there are no "checks and balances". Even Iran meets this defintion.

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. There is a little bit of fraud in many lections. However, in the last two naitonal elections, fraud tipped the balance. CHECK!


---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Straw man
Quote:

If you want to overthrow the government, you can try, but then those of us who play by the rules really will try and stop you, instead of just disagreeing with you


Tsk, tsk. You just CAN'T turn off the propaganda machine, can you Geezer? But enough of this waltzing around. You've got nothing interesting to say on the topic of the thread. Let me know when you decide to have a substantive discussion.



No comment on the rest of that post? The part about how people do actually get things changed? I'd hate to think you were taking my phrases out of context just so you could toss of another insult.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:49 AM

FLETCH2


It's a point of historic fact. During the constitutional process the US considered pure democracy and rejected it. If you read the Federalist papers there are discussions as to why. They had the opertunity to implement true democracy and they didn't and they described themselves as a Republic as a consequence of that distinction.

The US system, and the British system come to that work on the premise that people elect representatives to rule for them for a fixed period. That is not the same as a democracy. In a democracy going to war would involve a poll of the electorate, ie explicit permision by the people rather than consent by their representatives as is the case in the US and UK.

As for what people choose to call themselves I'm reminded of thing a friend of mine pointed out back in the 80's -- that almost all countries with the word "democratic" in their official names were in fact dictatorships.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:59 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No, a discussion would be something like...


I completely agree (my mini-satire of an one-sided discussion should have maybe had an emoticon next to it ). But have you ever seen a proper discussion in that vain here in RWED or anywhere else? There are maybe a couple of posts that say pretty much the same thing in the way you've presented your points there, but it won't last. Either the discussion ends because everyone agrees, or somebody disagrees and everybody pounces on that person.

I can understand why it happens, but one has to careful not to be too judgemental of somebody that has a decent counter-point.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No, a discussion would be something like...

What is fascism? Well, it turns out there is a lively discussion on the definition of fascism and it's overlap with nazism, and whether it's being used in the historical or perjorative sense.

MY reading of fascism is the Benito Moussolini version of fascism: a melding of "the state" and corporatism... government in service to business. But STDOUBT got a list of fourteen points, so maybe if we looked at the one by one we could decide if they belonged on the list and whether the USA matches that description.



Why don't we decide if the criteria belong on the list first, and then use the ones that remain to compare with the US.

A few things to consider here in how we go about evaluating the criteria. Do we look at each one individually and determine if only a fascist country might meet it, or do we assume that there is a certain "critical mass" for want of a better phrase, that accumulates as more criteria are met? Also, are all criteria of equal importance in reaching this critical mass.

Let's look at #1 for example, and see if we can actually develop a civilised discourse.

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.

Both fascist Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union were big on flags, parades, monumental buildings and the other trappings of Nationalism. Various monarchies have also encouraged nationalism in this way. The US had a spate of massive building in Washington, D.C. and giant public works across the country in the FDR era. I'd say this criteria isn't a standalone marker for fascism. It seems pretty general across the political spectrum, and should probably not be weighted too high as a combined marker either.

Discussion?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:09 PM

KAYNA

I love my captain


You know Kyron, I agree with you on the problems with having a discussion. I haven't contributed to this thread so far because I prefer to have this kind of conversation face to face. When you can have immediate response and counter point things either end very quickly or turn into a real discussion that can go on for hours with lots of info moving around.

In thins kind of forum, it's too easy to get caught up in your own little sub arguments (thats arguments not discussions)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:23 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
It's a point of historic fact. During the constitutional process the US considered pure democracy and rejected it. If you read the Federalist papers there are discussions as to why. They had the opertunity to implement true democracy and they didn't and they described themselves as a Republic as a consequence of that distinction.

The US system, and the British system come to that work on the premise that people elect representatives to rule for them for a fixed period. That is not the same as a democracy. In a democracy going to war would involve a poll of the electorate, ie explicit permision by the people rather than consent by their representatives as is the case in the US and UK.

As for what people choose to call themselves I'm reminded of thing a friend of mine pointed out back in the 80's -- that almost all countries with the word "democratic" in their official names were in fact dictatorships.


You've pretty much rehashed everything I just said, Fletch.

Now I also said that the majority of people use the word Democracy as synomonous with a nation that has free elections, rightly or wrongly.

Since you understood what I meant, and democracy is used all the time in reference to the governments of the US and the UK I happen too think I'm right on that point.

A) It was a throw-away joke comment.
B) I was using the word Democracy as the word is commonly used, and since language can change (though not if one person, say DT, decides it means something different) I’d say that it is moving toward correct modern usage.
C) You knew what I meant, so why be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic .
D) You're starting to sound like DT.

I KNOW what democracy really means. It's a mangling of ancient Greek 'Demos' meaning 'the people' and 'Kratos' meaning 'force or power'. It's based largely on the Athenian City states ruling government that was what we now more commonly call Classical or Direct Democracy. I'm not disputing that. The term, however, is now more often used to describe a government that holds free elections NOT a government that is truly democratic. If Democracy was used commonly in the way you say why would we have terms like Direct or Classical Democracy?

Hell some Greek city-states were called democracies when they operated governments of 'enlightened' warrior kings.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:59 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
Hmm, I don't know, the whims of the people are pretty much opposed to the current Bush administration (Bush is hovering around 30% is the polls), but it's still there. If anything, this administration has gone from one faux pas to another and it's still there. The only way the whims of the people can get them out is by revolution, and I think we can all agree that that won't happen.


All I have to say is people are responsible for whose name they put the cross against. This is my entire point.

You vote for and support a government then you share some of the responsibility for what that government does.

And no, revolution isn't the only way to get them out. NOT voting for them is a more widely accepted and less violent way.
Quote:

Okay, there's no way I can explain why both administrations are still there, because it still doesn't make sense to me. My two best arguments are: the majority of people are stupid, and the opposition candidates were hopeless.

People are as ignorant of political matters and as stupid as they want to be. It's their responsibility to educate themselves, not anyone else’s.
Quote:

In my quote, 'politically aware' is in italics because I emphasise that I think true democracy only works if the population is small (i.e. manageable) and politically aware. This ties in with what you said about the people's responsibility, namely that democracy can only really work if the people take responsibility for what their elected officials do (let me know if that's not what you meant, but that's how I saw it).

It's exactly what I meant. In a democracy people share the responsibility for the actions of their nation.
Quote:

However, one can't just say that democracy doesn't work so well because of the people, because any form of government doesn't work too well because of the people.

My point was that the people in a democracy share responsibility for the actions of that nation, irregardless of whether that is a true democracy or what we commonly call a Democracy.

It's like bringing up children, you don't teach them right from wrong and if you don't stop them from misbehaving then you share some of the responsibility for their behaviour. Likewise if you have a child who does wrong anyway and you continue to let them get away with it and don't hold them accountable then you also share some of the responsibility.

This statement has no relation to what I said, I merely said people as a whole in a democracy share the responsibility of their nation’s actions, and frankly that responsibility hangs heaviest on those who directly support that government and its actions.
Quote:

Communism would have many benefits, but it's been tried and it failed numerous times, and the reason is i) it's easily corruptable, and (more importantly) ii) because it goes against the people's natural way of doing things.

It's also worked extremely well in small communities. Though Democracy and Communism are not directly comparable. One is a societal system, one is a governmental system.
Quote:

So while I agree with your sentiment and have expressed similar concern myself, I don't think it's something that can be changed and the system has to adapt to the people and not the other way around.

I didn't say anything along those lines. It's natural behaviour for some people to steal but we still hold them accountable. People are responsible for their own actions or inactions; whether those actions or inactions are 'natural' human behaviour is totally irrelevant, and very much open to interpretation.

Frankly I think people should meet society half-way, otherwise there's absolutly no point to society in the first place.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


From my suprevisory experience, I can say that words like "powerful", "continuing", and "constant" are unquantifiable. One way to "test the test" is to determine if a question's answer is normally correlated with other test answers. For example, are there nations with relatively weak national identities that managed to suppress intellectuals, meld with corporations, suppress labor, commit genocide, and do most of the other things that "fascist" states are presumed to do? Examples: Afghanistan circa 1998? Cambodia? Sudan? Turkey circa 1915? If the answer to this question doesn't seem to correlate with the answers to the otehr questions, then the test may be culturally biased.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm going to add one more thing to this discussion of democracy: Bush did not win either election. In 2000, 19,000 people were kept off the voter rolls in Florida by a sympathetic Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. In 2004, three states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania) with electronic voting had counts at severe odds with exit polls. A group of top statisticians discounted anything but fraud as the cause. http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitof
sky.pdf


You can't be responsible for what you didn't vote for.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:00 PM

KHYRON


Don't have so much time today (spent so much time on here this morning that I didn't actually do any work, so I need to catch up with work-related stuff a bit), so I'll just respond to a couple of things but not all of them.

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
And no, revolution isn't the only way to get them out. NOT voting for them is a more widely accepted and less violent way.


One can only NOT vote once every four years. In the time inbetween an administration can apparently do what it wants.
Quote:

Quote:

However, one can't just say that democracy doesn't work so well because of the people, because any form of government doesn't work too well because of the people.

This statement has no relation to what I said, I merely said people as a whole in a democracy share the responsibility of their nation’s actions, and frankly that responsibility hangs heaviest on those who directly support that government and its actions.


Yes you're right, maybe it doesn't have a direct relation to what you said. There was an admittedly fairly long thought-process involved in getting from your original statements to that statement of mine, but I don't have time to explain it, and let's just say I think I over-reached a bit. That statement of mine is based on my belief that ANY political system is flawed since the people it governs are flawed. I don't think it was meant as a counter-point to any of your arguments, just to raise a point of my own. I admit, on its own that statement of mine is not a very good one, I should have expanded on it when I said it.
Quote:

(Communism) also worked extremely well in small communities. Though Democracy and Communism are not directly comparable. One is a societal system, one is a governmental system.

Agreed. This was a continuation of my point from above, namely that any system is inherently flawed, no matter how much 'better' it is than all the others.

In response to...
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I didn't say anything along those lines.


...I was talking about...
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
And who bears responsibility for the people’s apathy if not the people?


... and apathy is what I was referring to when I said this:
Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
So while I agree with your sentiment and have expressed similar concern myself...


What comes next isn't what you said but what I say:
Quote:

...I don't think it's something that can be changed and the system has to adapt to the people and not the other way around.

to which I think:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Frankly I think people should meet society half-way, otherwise there's absolutly no point to society in the first place.


is a good response.

I don't disagree with your overall point that people should be held responsible for their actions (including who they give their votes to during elections), but there's a limit to how accountable one can hold a person for the administration s/he helped into office. Overall, my response to that post of yours wasn't really a rebuttal to your main point (which I generally agree with), but more a way for me to expand on the topic and raise new points.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:17 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Okay, there's no way I can explain why both administrations are still there, because it still doesn't make sense to me. My two best arguments are: the majority of people are stupid, and the opposition candidates were hopeless.

People are as ignorant of political matters and as stupid as they want to be. It's their responsibility to educate themselves, not anyone else’s.



You both miss the point I think. Both governments are still there because the war didn't matter enough to the people that were voting at the time they voted. This is not a world war, people are not dying on your street in bombing raids, chances are that Joe Q voter doesn't personally know anyone that has died.

Political parties tend to be big tents, they attract all kinds of people and organizations. Not all Republicans are also conservative, not all Democrats are that liberal, parties horse trade issues between their own internal factions then try to condense and polish a message for the voter. Few elections are about single issues and few voters find any party to be an exact fit for their own beliefs. They choose based on which parties are closest to them in general or on key issues. Some voters vote party line no matter what. Let's look a specifics.

At the time of the US election more people in favour of the war than against it. Now you can argue that they are not informed, ill informed or misinformed but that's the truth that the war had majority support. About 1000 US service personel had died, less than died on Sept 11th and the chance that significant numbers of voters knew a GI that was killed are slim. Bush played the national security card to a populus that is in general scared. The Dems put up a weak canidate. End of story. Bush actually did better in 2004 than in 2000.

In the UK about 100 servicemen had died, almost a quater of them in none combat related accidents. The economy was doing ok, or at least better than mainland Europe. The main opposition party not only voted for the war but would have probably done what Labour did had they been in power, they did not have a moral high ground to exploit. The UK electorate "adjusted" Labour's majority to a point where they could no longer railroad legislation but that was all. Howard Dean's political guru Joe Trippi (?) apparently worked as an analysist at the election and said the anti war movement got no traction in the UK despite the big public demonstrations. The big surprise vote catcher against the government proved to be immigration.

So there's your answer. The war is not as big a deal for voters as it is for talking heads. If the economy is good and your son isnt the one being shot at you will vote for the guy you think is most likely to keep you safe and the economy good over the peacenic whose security and economic record you dont know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So anyway, I intend to get back to Geezer (aka 'Slick') later on ... I've gone through about 1/3 of all archived threads to find his postings by which to hang him - metaphorically speaking. He is blatantly partisan.

But I found an interesting statistic. Bill Clinton left office with a 2/3 job approval rating - the highest of any president (even though 2/3 disliked him personally).

Who were the remaining 1/3 who rated Clinton 'poor'? I suspect they are the same 1/3 who still support Bush - partisan to the core and unable to accept reality. They couldn't admit Clinton did well back then, no matter how plain the truth. And they can't admit Bush is a failure now. Hence, they struggle to cover up, excuse away, minimize, distract from ... in other words, do anything, anything ... to erase the gap between what they want (Bush God) and what is (bushbaby).



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:20 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, I intend to get back to Geezer (aka 'Slick') later on ... I've gone through about 1/3 of all archived threads to find his postings by which to hang him - metaphorically speaking. He is blatantly partisan.



Geez, Rue. Can't we just discuss the topic at hand, without having to go back to the stone age to prove that I don't agree with you? Just take it as read. I'm really not interested in you taking fragments of statements I made and interpreting them totally out of context once again. If you want to discuss, instead of villify, try responding to this.

Quote:

Sure I have a point, and I'd have thought it would have been pretty clear. After reviewing Mr. Britt's 14 warning signs of fascism, the article in which they appeared, the organization which published the article, Mr. Britt's other work that I cound find, and the interiew in the Rochester City, I've come to the conclusion that Mr. Britt wrote the article as a spin, or more accurately a propaganda, piece, to support his own poor opinion of the US government. He provides a little pseudo-scientific dressing by talking about analysing fascist governments, but provides no research data or statistics. He provides no method of evaluating pass/fail levels for any of his criteria, leaving them wide open for any interpretation one might want to apply. I consider it bogus. That's BOOOOOOOOOGUS!


And try for a logical argument, not just the ad hominem (in its actual meaning) "Geezer's just a tool of the "whatever" and a liar" mode.

I've already posted my critique of the first criteria.

Quote:

Both fascist Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union were big on flags, parades, monumental buildings and the other trappings of Nationalism. Various monarchies have also encouraged nationalism in this way. The US had a spate of massive building in Washington, D.C. and giant public works across the country in the FDR era. I'd say this criteria isn't a standalone marker for fascism. It seems pretty general across the political spectrum, and should probably not be weighted too high as a combined marker either.


Respond to that...if you possibly can, leaving out personalities and insults. I dare you.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:26 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
You both miss the point I think. Both governments are still there because the war didn't matter enough to the people that were voting at the time they voted. This is not a world war, people are not dying on your street in bombing raids, chances are that Joe Q voter doesn't personally know anyone that has died.

Political parties tend to be big tents, they attract all kinds of people and organizations. Not all Republicans are also conservative, not all Democrats are that liberal, parties horse trade issues between their own internal factions then try to condense and polish a message for the voter. Few elections are about single issues and few voters find any party to be an exact fit for their own beliefs. They choose based on which parties are closest to them in general or on key issues. Some voters vote party line no matter what. Let's look a specifics.

At the time of the US election more people in favour of the war than against it. Now you can argue that they are not informed, ill informed or misinformed but that's the truth that the war had majority support. About 1000 US service personel had died, less than died on Sept 11th and the chance that significant numbers of voters knew a GI that was killed are slim. Bush played the national security card to a populus that is in general scared. The Dems put up a weak canidate. End of story. Bush actually did better in 2004 than in 2000.

In the UK about 100 servicemen had died, almost a quater of them in none combat related accidents. The economy was doing ok, or at least better than mainland Europe. The main opposition party not only voted for the war but would have probably done what Labour did had they been in power, they did not have a moral high ground to exploit. The UK electorate "adjusted" Labour's majority to a point where they could no longer railroad legislation but that was all. Howard Dean's political guru Joe Trippi (?) apparently worked as an analysist at the election and said the anti war movement got no traction in the UK despite the big public demonstrations. The big surprise vote catcher against the government proved to be immigration.

So there's your answer. The war is not as big a deal for voters as it is for talking heads. If the economy is good and your son isnt the one being shot at you will vote for the guy you think is most likely to keep you safe and the economy good over the peacenic whose security and economic record you dont know.



Boy, I wish I'd said that. You the man (or woman)!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:47 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be."
—President Thomas Jefferson

"A shocking crime was committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive acquiescence of all. This I regard as history's highest function, to let no worthy action be uncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobation of posterity as a terror to evil words and deeds. The more corrupt the state, the more laws. Rumor is not always wrong."
-Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Histories (written during Roman Empire)

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-George Santayana

Quote:

BRIEF HISTORY OF COVERT "INTELLIGENCE" OPERATIONS

by Hitler's Nazis and George Bush's CIA

Dirty tricks and lies create dictatorships, deal drugs & start wars




US Big Business sold to Nazi Germany during World War 2
US Big Business bought from Commies during Vietnam
Reagan/Bush White House & CIA convicted as Drug Warlords: Iran-Contra
Nazi worship at Secret Society Skull & Bones (CIA) at US colleges

Nazi Germany and United States of America are now United under George Bushes

edited by John Lee

Quote:

"It is the business of a general to be quiet and thus insure secrecy. He must be able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances, and thus keep them in total ignorance."
—Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, was hired as commanding general after chopping off the heads of the Chinese Emperor's wives for giggling in their first military parade. His book is still a standard primer for American business and war colleges, and his techniques are used against billions of people today and every day

"The people resemble a wild beast, which, naturally fierce and accustomed to live in the woods, has been brought up, as it were, in a prison and in servitude, and having by accident got its liberty, not being accustomed to search for its food, and not knowing where to conceal itself, easily becomes the prey of the first who seeks to incarcerate it again. There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless. If sometimes you need to conceal a fact with words, do so in such a way that it does not become known. Or, if it does become know, make sure you have a ready and quick defense."
—Niccolo Machiavelli, from The Prince

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself. The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
—Adolf Hitler, President of the Reichstag and Reich Chancellor, Nazi Party

"Naturally, the common people don't want war. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
—Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.... The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism, ownership of the government by the individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
—President Franklin Roosevelt

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarrented influence by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
-President Dwight Eisenhower, 5-star general, former commander of Allied Forces in World War 2, in his final radio and television address to the American People, January 17, 1961

"Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind."
–US General William Westmoreland, Commander in Vietnam

"Machiavelli has been invoked for centuries as the incarnation for cynicism. Yet he thought of himself as a moralist. His maxims describe the world as he found it, not as he wished it to be. Indeed, he was convinced that only a ruler of strong moral conviction could keep a steady course while engaging in manipulations on which survival regrettably depended."
-Sir Heinz "Henry" Kissenger Knight of the British Empire, Nixon's Secretary of State who arranged illegal grants of billions of US taxdollars to Saddam Hussein in Iraq for the Reagan/Bush White House's Iran-Contra-Iraqgate, and his machinations at BNL Bank in Atlanta were closed down by the FBI, Jr Bush's first choice to lead the 9/11 Commission Whitewash Coverup

"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
—Constitution of the United States



Bibliography

Quote:

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
by William Shirer

Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1950
by Charles Higham

The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia
by Prof Alfred W McCoy

Iran-Contra trial documents and Congressional Hearings
35 volumes of Congressional reports available in public libraries

www.amazon.com


REICHSTAG ARSON BY HITLER

Blamed on German Commies, Excuse to destroy Constitution and declare dictatorship

(just like Bush's attack on USA on 9/11/2001, then U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act that was written before 9/11, and Congress was not allowed to read before voting on it)

January 30, 1933
Weimar Republic President Paul von Hindenburg appoints Adolph Hitler Chancellor


Hitler arsoned German Reichstag parliament to blame the Commies and declare dictatorship in German
www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm

February 27, 1933

The German Parliament (Reichstag) burned down. A dazed and beaten Dutch Communist named Marinus van der Lubbe is found at the scene and charged with arson. Hundreds of others were also arrested, from all political parties, including elected members of the Reichstag.

Hitler surveying his handiwork at Reichstag

William Shirer writes:

In the former Austrian vagabond the conservative classes thought they had found a man, who while remaining their prisoner, would help them attain their goals. The destruction of the Republic was only the first step. What the conservatives then wanted was an authoritarian Germany which at home would put an end to "democratic nonsense" and in foreign affairs tear off the shackles of Versailles, rebuild a great army and with its military power restore the country to its place in the sun.

Such a commanding position would allow the conservatives, they thought, to achieve their ends without the barabarism of unadulterated Nazism. Admittedly, they were decent, God-fearing men, according to their own lights.


US Congress signing Bush Jr's U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act without being allowed to read it, prewritten before 9/11, that makes all crimes acts of terrorism, and since all normal human activities were already crimes, all US citizens are now terrorists

The Germans imposed the Nazi tyranny upon themselves. Many of them, perhaps a majority, did not quite realize it at that noon hour on January 30, 1933, when President von Hindinberg (senile like Ronald Reagan and surrounded with conspirators in his palace court), acting in a perfectly constitutional manner, entrusted the chancellorship to Adolf Hitler.

But they were soon to learn.

Acting with speed, brutality and consumate trickery which were always the hallmarks of his tactics, he first consolidated his power within Germany.

For the first time—in the last relatively free election Germany was to have—the Nazi Party could now employ all the vast resources of the government to win votes. Goebbels was jubilant. "Now it will be easy," he wrote in his diary on February 3, "to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the state. we shall stage a masterpeice of propaganda."

The Hitler government had banned (all opposition) meetings and shut down the (opposition) press. Social Democrat rallies were either forbidden or broken up by the (Nazi) SA rowdies, and the leading Socialist newspapers were constantly suspended. Even the Catholic Center Party did not escape the Nazi terror. Altogether, 51 anti-Nazis were listed as murdered during the election campaign.

Goering removed hunderds of republican officials and replaced them with Nazis. He ordered the police to show no mercy to those who were "hostile to the State." He urged the police to "make use of firearms" and warned that those who didn't would be punished. This was an outright call to shooting down of all who opposed Hitler by the police. Police power was thus largely carried out by Nazi thugs.

On February 24, Goering's police raided the Communist headquarters in Berlin. It had been abandoned some weeks before. But piles of propaganda had been left in the cellar and these were enough to allow Goering to announce in an official communique that the seized "documents" proved the Communists were about to launch the revolution. The reaction of the public and even of some conservatives in government was one of skepticism. It was obvious that something more sensationalmust be found to stampede the public before the election on March 5.

On the evening of February 27... at Goebbels' home, Chancellor Hitler had arrived to dine. According to Goebbels in his diary, "Suddenly a telephone call: 'The Reichstag is on fire!'"

Suddenly, General Papen wrote, we noticed a red glow through the windows and heard sounds of shouting in the street. President von Hindenburg got up and from the window we could see the Reichstag. Every now and again a burst of flame and a swirld of smoke blurred the outline.

That it was a crime, a Communist crime, they proclaimed at once upon arrival at the fire. Goering (declared): We will not wait a minute. We must show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very night be strung up.

The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known. Nearly all those who knew it are now dead, most of them slain by Hitler in the months that followed. At Nuremburg (trials) there is enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends.

From Goering's Reichstag President's Palace and underground passage, built to carry the central heating system,ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst led a small detatchment of storm troopers to the Reichstag where they scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals.

Hans Gisevious, an official at the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, testified that, "it was Goebbels who first thought of setting the Reichstag on , and Rudolf Diels, the Gestapo chief, added in an affidavit that, "Goering knew exactly how the fire was to be started" and had ordered him "to prepare, prior to the fire, a list of people who who were to be arrested immediately after it." General Franz Halder, Chief of the German General Staff, recalled at Nurenburg (trial) how Goering had boasted of his deed.

Van der Lubbe, it seems claer, was a dupe of the Nazis. He was encouraged to try and set the fire. But the main job was to be done--without his knowledge, of course--by the storm troopers. Two and ahlf minutes after he entered, the great hall was feircely burning. He had only his shirt for tinder.

Van der Lubbe was arrested on the spot... and the subsequent trial before the Supreme Court turned into a fiasco for the Nazis, and especially for Goering, whom Dimitroff, acting as his own lawyer, easily provoked Goering into making a fool of himself in a series of stinging cross-examinations. Torgler and the trhee Bulgarians were aquitted. Van der Lubbewas found guilty and decapitated.

The Peoples Court convicted and executed hundreds of "conspirators" after Reichstag fire. In USA, Judge "Raving Bitch" Judy is twice married to Judge Wapner of The Peoples Court TV show, and writes in her book Don't Pee On Me And Tell Me It's Raining that sick Americans should be given the Death Penalty

The trial, despite the subserviency of the court to the Nazi authority, cast a great deal of suspicion on Goering and the Nazis, but it came too late to have any practical effect. For Hitler has wasted no time in exploiting the Reichstag fire to the limit.

February 28, 1933

On the day after the fire, President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permits the suspension of civil liberties in time of national emergency, "for the protection of the people and the State, as a defendive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the State." This Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State eliminated the following constitutional protections:

Free expression of opinion
Freedom of the press
Right of assembly and association
Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications
Protection against unlawful searches and seizures
Individual property rights States' right of self-government
Like the Holy Bible's 600 Commandments, it instutituted the Death Penalty for a variety of new "crimes", including "serious disturbances of the peace". (Report by American Automobile Association proves American police summarily execute 1,000 Americans every year for civil--not criminal--traffic violations and for other civil--not criminal--allegations, including hundreds on innocent bystanders. The current US Supreme Court opins that thises executions without trial are legal. In 2001 George Bush Jr and US Congress passed legislation to label hundreds of ordinary alleged crimes as "terrorist acts" worthy of summary execution by paramilitary police.)

Summary arrests and executions of Nazi opponents
in wake of Reichstag fire

Some 4,000 Communist, Social Democrat and liberal leaders were arrested, including members of the Reichstag, who, according to law, were immune to arrest [exactly like Mafia Mayor Giuliani constantly does to United Nations diplomats who likewise have immunity]. Only the Nazis and their Nationalist allies were allowed to campign for the election.

Shirer writes: "The elctorate was in turn cajoled with promises of a German paradise, intimidated by the brown terror in the streets and frightened by 'revalations' about the Communist 'revolution'."

A supplemental decree creates the SA (Storm Troops) and SS (Special Security) Federal police agencies

Nazis immediately took advantage of the situation in order to advance their cause at the expense of civil rights. The Decree enabled the Nazis to ruthlessly suppress opposition in the upcoming election

March 5, 1933

National "selections" give Nazis 44% plurality in the Reichstag. Herman Göring declares that there is no further need for State governments. Hitler had only gained 37% of the vote in the previous election, back when democracy actually existed.

Over the next few weeks, each of the lawful Weimar State governments falls to the same ruse:

Local Nazi organizations instigate "disorder" (what the US Pentagon, Office of Special Plans calls, "Controlled Chaos"); The "disorder" is quelled by replacing the elected state government by appointed Nazi Reich Commissioners

March 24, 1933

The Reichstag passes the Law for Terminating the Suffering of People and Nation, also known as the Enabling Law, essentially granting Adolph Hitler dictatorial power

June 30, 1933--The Blood Purge and Night of the Long Knives

Hitler was "forced" to massacre over 1,000 of his own Secret Police, the SA Brownshirts, along with with its commanders, in order to avoid President Hindenburg and Vice Chancellor Papen from ordering the Army to declare martial law and destroy the Nazi Party. Shirer writes: "Some 150 SA leaders were rounded up and stood against a wall of the Cadet School and shot by firing squads of Himmler's SS and Goering's special police.

Nazi propaganda machine demonized its own citizens
group by group with Divide and Conquer tactics.
In 2001, George Bush used alleged invasion of USA by Afganistan to incite US "Christians" to hate all Arabs

Hitler got support of Christian leaders,
although eventually he attacked them too,
and established Satanic pagan religion of Nazism

"In Germany the Nazis came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, but by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
–Pastor Martin Neomoller, eventual leader of Underground Resistance to Nazis

May 5, 1937--Coup D'etat conspiracy against Hitler

Shirer writes:

The first crisis arose within the German ranks--a rift between Hitler and some of the highest-ranking generals of the army. The opposition to the Fuehrer's grandois plans for aggression was led by general Ludwig Beck, chief of the Army General Staff. Beck now began to perceive that Hitler's policy of deliberately risknig war... against the advice of his top generals, would, if carried out, be the ruin of Germany. His long-range predictions turned out, so far as Germany was concerned, to be deadly accurate.

Beck arranged a secret meeting of the commanding generals. The meeting broke up without their having had the courage to call Hitler to account, and Beck saw that he had been defeated by the spinelessness of his brother officers On August 18, Beck resigned.

Ordinarily the resignation of the chief of of the Army General Staff in the midst of a crisis would have caused a storm in military circles and even given rise to repercussions abroad. But here again Hitler showed his craftiness. He forbade any mention of it in the press or even in the official government or military gazettes and ordered the retired general and his officers to keep it to themselves. Had the (French or British) heard, one could speculate, the appeasement of the Fueher might not have been carried so far. He was a man of principles and thought, but not of action.

Beck's successor was Franz Halder. Halder, like Beck, though not at first a member of the growing conspiracy against Hitler, knew about it, and apparently, like Beck, was willing to back it. As the new chief of Army General Staff, he became the key figure in the first serious plot to overthrow the dictator of the Third Reich.



Operation Himmler and Canned Goods

Hitler stages fake invasion by Polish Army
as excuse to invade Poland and start World War 2

March 15, 1939--Planning Begins for Bogus Invasion of Czechoslovakia
Shirer writes:

Hitler instituted a campaign of propaganda and internal subversion sesigned to force the nation to break up, which would afford him a pretext to march in and restore order. Before leaving Berlin, Hitler had issued a grandious proclamation to the German people, repeating the tireless lies about the "wild excesses" and "terror" of the Czechs which he had been forced to bring an end to, and proudly proclaiming, "Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist!"

April 1, 1939--Speech for Bogus Peace
Shirer writes:

Hitler ordered that the direct radio broadcast of a speech be cancelled, and that it later be broadcast from recordings, which could be edited. Even the broadcast version was sprinkled with warnings to Britain and Poland. But, as so often before, Hitler ended on a note of "peace": "Germany has no intention of attacking other people."

That was for public consumption. In the greatest secrecy Hitler gave his real answer to Chamberlain two days later, on April 3. In a top-secret directive to the armed forces, of which only five copies were made, he inaugurated "Case White" -- the attack on Poland. "Preparations," it stipulated, "must be made so that the operation can be carried out anytime after September 1, 1939."

May 22, 1939 -- the Pact of Steel
Hitler signed the Axis alliance with Fascist Italy

May 23, 1939 -- Mission Statement for Bogus Invasion of Poland

Hitler calls a top-secret meeting of his military chiefs.

Hitler declared that Germany's problems could not be solved without annexation and enslavement of nations: "This is imppossible without invading other countries or attacking other people's possessions. Further successes can no longer be obtained without shedding of blood. There is no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision: to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity." There will be war. The aim must be to deal the nemy a smashing blow right at the start. Considerations of right or wrong, or of treaties, do not enter into the matter.

August 17, 1939 -- Plans for Controlled Chaos
General Halder writes in his diary: "Canaris checked with Section 1 (Operations). 150 Polish uniforms with accessories for Upper Silesia."

Shirer writes:

The code name was "Operation Himler". The SS Gestapo would stage a fake attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz, near the Polish border, using condemned concentration camp prisoners outfitted in Polish Army uniforms. Thus Poland would be blamed for attacking Germany.

A young SS secret-service, Alfred Naujocks, deserted to the Americans and at Nuremburg (Trial) made a number of sworn affidavits:

On or about August 10, 1939, the chief of the SD, Heydrich, personally ordered me to simulate an attack on the radio station near Gleiwitz near the Polish border and to make it appear the attacking force consisted of Poles. Heydrich said: "Practical proof is needed for for these attacks on the Poles for the foreign press as well as for German propaganda."

My instructions were to seize the radio stations and to hold it long enough to permit a Polish-speaking German who would be put at my disposal to broadcast a speech in Polish. Heydrick told me this speech would state that the time had come for conflict between Germans and Poles. Heydrick also told me he expected an attack on Poland by Germany in a few days.

I went to Gleiwitz and waited 14 days. Between the 25th and 31st of August, I went to see Heinrich Mueller, the head of the Gestapo. In my prescience, Mueller discussed with a man named Mehlhorn plans for another border incident, in which it should be made to appear that Polish soldiers were attacking German troops. Mueller stated that he had 13 condemned criminals who were to be dressed in Polish uniforms and left dead on the ground of the scene of the incident to show they had been killed while attacking. For this purpose they were to be given fatal injections by a doctor employed by Heydrich. Then they were also to be given gunshot wounds. After the incident members of the press were to be taken to the spot of the incident.

Mueller told me he had an order from Heydrich to make one of the criminals available to me for the action at Gleiwitz. The code name by which he referred to these criminals was "Canned Goods".

August 23, 1939 -- Hitler and Stalin sign non-agression treaty Hitler sets date for Operation Himmler and bogus invasion of Poland for August 26.

August 26, 1939 -- Britain signs treaty with Poland

Hitler recalls Operation Himmler after shooting and invasion already begun. Date reset for September 1.

An eyewitness to Hitler's decision recalled:

Hitler suddenly got up and, becoming very excited and nervous, walked up and down saying,as though to himself, that Germany was irresistable. Suddenly he stopped in the middle of the room and stood staring. His voice was blurred, and his behavior that of a completely abnormal person. He spoke in staccato phrases: "If there should be war then I shall build U-boats, build U-boats, U-boats, U-boats, U-boats, U-boats."

His voice became more indistinct, and finally one could not follow him at all. The nhe raised his voice as if addressing a large audience and shreiked: "I shall build airplanes, build airplanes, airplanes, airplanes and I shall anhialate my enemies!" He seemed more like a phantom from a storybook than a real person.

August 31, 1939, noon -- Hitler issues written orders for Operation Himmler and invasion of Poland for September 1, 4:45 am.
Shirer writes:

As darkenss settled over Europe on the vening of August 31, 1939, and a million and a half German troops began moving forward for the jump off at dawn, all that remained for Hitler to do was perpetrate some propaganda trickery to prepare the German people for war.

They were in need of the propaganda treatment which Hitler, abetted by Goebbels and Himmler, had become so expert at applying. I had been in the streets of Berlin, talking with the ordinary people, and that morning noted in my diary: "Everybody against the war. People talking openly. How can a country go into a major war with a population dead set against it?"

Despite all my experience in the Third Reich I asked such a naive question! Hitler knew the answer very well. The week before on his Bavarian mountaintop he had promised the generals that he would "give a propagandist reason for starting the war" and admonished them not to mind whether it was plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth. In starting and waging war it is not right that matters but victory."

Now there remained only the concocting of a deed which would "prove" that not Germany but Poland had attacked first.

The plan had been revised. SS men outfitted in Polish Army uniforms were to do the shooting, and drugged concentration camp inmates were to be left dying as "casualties" -- with the delectable code name "Canned Goods". There were to be several such faked "Polish attacks" but the principal one was to be on the radio station at Gleiwitz.

Naujocks affidavit explained:

At noon on August 31 I received the code word for the attack which was to take place at 8 o'clock that evening.... I received this man and laid him down at the entrance to the [radio] station. He was alive but completely unconscious. I tried to open his eyes. I could not recognize by his eyes that he was alive, only by his breathing. I did not see the gun wounds but a lot of blood was smeared across his face. He was in civilian clothes.

We seized the radio station as ordered, broadcast a speech of 3 or 4 minutes over an emergency transmitter, fired some pistol shots and left.

April 3, 1939 -- Hitler's armies invade Poland
Shirer writes:

In Berlin, the people in the streets were apathertic, despite the immensity of the news which greeted them in the morning newspapers. Perhaps they were simply dazed at waking up to find themselves in a war which they had been sure the Fuehrer would somehow avoid.

There were no such demonstrations as those of 1914 for the troops or for the Nazi warlord, who drove to the Reichstag to address the nation on the momentous happenings which he himself, deliberately and cold-bloodedly, had just provoked.

Though truculant at times, he seemed strangely on the defensive, and throughout the speech ran a curious strain, as though he himself were dazed on the curious fix he had got himself into and and felt a little desperate about it.

Having lied so often on his way to power and in his consolidation of power, Hitler could not refrain at this serious moment in history from thundering a few more lies to the gullible German people in justification for his wanton act:

"You know the endless attempt I made for a peaceful clarification and understanding of the problem of Austria, and later in the problem of Sudetenland, Bohemia and Morovia. It was all in vain. In my talks with Polish statesmen, I should like to say this to the world. I alone was in a position to make these proposals, for I know full well that i doing so I brought myself into opposition to millions of Germans. These propsals have been refused."

Britain and France declared war on Germany.

The German submarine U-30 sank British passenger liner Athenia, killing 112 passengers, including 28 Americans.

World War 2 began.

April 30, 1945 -- Adolf Hitler murdered his wife and then murdered himself

May 8, 1945 -- Germany surrenders, the Thousand Year Reich dies after 12 bloody years
20 million people dead because of Adolf Hitler and his Nazis, including wealthy Fascists in America who did business with him throughout the war. Less than 1% of Nazi war criminals were executed after the war. Many Nazi war criminals were employed by US military, CIA and NASA

www.geocities.com/skull_and_bones_nazis



Graverobbing Skull & Boner Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr, grandfather of Bush Jr, was arrested and handcuffed 3 times, and paid a $750,000 forfeiture, for arming Nazi Germany DURING World War 2. The multi-trillionaire Jewish Rockefellers (Lawrence Rockefeller's bastard son was Jewish President Bill Clinton-Blythe III), via their Standard Oil monopoly, did the same, but threatened to cut off their supply of oil to USA if USA tried to arrest them for treason. Prescott was then elected to US Senate and played golf with President Ike. President FDR's Trading with the Enemy Act actually LICENSED trading with the enemy, and is still in effect today, allowing US presidents to arm all enemies of USA, before, DURING and after war...

OSS/CIA, MI6 and Pentagon's Project PAPERCLIP hired these Nazi warcriminals to work for US Govt BEFORE the end of World War 2, to kick off the Cold War on our allies, the Communists. Thus was born Pentagon and CIA's Operation NORTHWOODS...

Quote:

"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
-USAma Bin Laden (CIA code name Jew Tim OSSman when in California buying SAMS from CIA), business partner with Bush family since 1947, brother Salem Bin Laden was George Bush Jr's first business partner in Arbusto Oil in Texas, his other brother Shafig Bin Laden was dining with Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the British Empire and Carlyle Group (owner of Serenity) on 9/11/2001 in Washinton DC, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

"I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people."
-Usama Bin Laden, Ummat magazine, September 28, 2001

"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information. It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
—US Solicitor-General Theodore "Ted" Olson, in Jennifer K. Harbury vs. United States, at the US Supreme Court, on 17 March 2002 (his estranged 3rd wife Barabara Olson, attoney at law and CNN talkinghead disappeared on September 11, 2001, allegedly on American Airlines Flight 77 that never hit the Pentagon)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-William Colby, Director CIA, assassinated 60,000 people via CIA Death Squads in Vietnam Wars with Phoenix Project ("drowned" in a suspicious "canoe crash" while cooking dinner in Washington DC)

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Bush Sued by RICO Act - 9/11 victims sue Bush Gang under RICO Act for perping domestic terrorism and mass murder on 9/11/2001. Stanley Hilton vs traitorous media whores Shaun Hannity and Alan Colmes for Jewish Australian porno king pimp daddy Rupert Murdock on Faux News.
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/7209.php

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Operation Northwoods - James Banford from ABC News reported on Pentagon's Operation Northwoods plot to perp domestic terrorism in USA to blame a foreign nation and "justify" invasion, declassified in 2000
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/7209.php
http://BodyOfSecrets.com

"Towers that fell 'like a controlled demolition'. Planes that vanished then mysteriously reappeared, and crucial evidence that has been lost for ever. In the Pentagon, a top secret team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America, the other from a secret military airbase nearby. The one from the airport would have military personnel on board who had checked in as ordinary passengers under false names. The one from the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft. Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the airbase and unloading its occupants in secret. Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane's designated course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under attack from enemy fighters. The world would be told that a plane load of blameless American holidaymakers had been deliberately shot down by Fidel Castro's Communists - and that the US had no choice but to declare war and topple his regime. This Top Secret 'agent provocateur' plan - code named Operation Northwoods and revealed in official archives - dates from 1962 when the Cold War was at its height and was declassified in 2000."
-Tony Rennell, London Daily Mail, "9/11 ON TRIAL -Towers that fell 'like a controlled demolition'. Planes that vanished then mysteriously reappeared, And crucial evidence that has been lost for ever. A new book raises bizarre yet deeply unsettling questions about the world's worst terror atrocity…" August 6, 2005
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm

"Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of terrorism within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba."
—James Bamford, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
http://bodyofsecrets.com

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation NORTHWOODS, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military. Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job. Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. "The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford."
—David Ruppe, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

"We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. Use of MIG-type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type palnes would be useful. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce that fact. Hijacking attampts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged. It is possible to create an incident which would demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civilian airliner from the United States. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rondevous. From the rondevous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly to an auxiliary airfield at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. Meanwhile the drone aircraft will continue to fly the filed flight plan. The drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency "MAY DAY" message stating it is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident. It is possible to create an incident that will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly Tail-end Charlie. While near the Cuban island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. This pilot would then fly at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who performed the mission under an alias would resume his proper identity. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared. A submarine or small craft would distribute F-101 parts, parachute, etc. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found."
—Jewish Zionist General L.L. Lemnitzer, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon, Memo to Secretary of War Robert McNamara - Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba - Operation NORTHWOODS, March 13, 1962 (declassifed 2000)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Jewish Fox TV's Lone Gunmen pilot episode - Broadcast in March 2001, re Jewish General LL Limnitzer's Operation Northwoods plot by Pentagon, CIA and Jewish Ike/LBJ White House to hijack a US airliner by remote control and crash it into the Jewish Rockefeller's World Trade Center, declassified in 2000
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6758.php

"I don't trust government. And neither should our citizens."
—US Senator Larry Craig, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, "DOJ Oversight: Terrorism and Other Topics", testimony by US Attorney General John Ashcroft re President George Bush Jr.'s Executive Orders to "legalize torture" of US citizens and refusal to release that memo (felony Contempt of Congress), C-SPAN2, June 8, 2004

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. I don't know where Usama is, and I don't care. The Constitution is just a gorram piece of paper. My daddy owns Serenity The Big Dang Movie - it's FABULOUS!!!"
-George Bush Jr

VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
September 911 Surprise
The shockumentary miniseries - 9 hours
FREE VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
http://september911surprise.com

VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
Thermite Incendiary Firebombs Melting WTC - Video shows molten steel falling from the South Tower one minute before the "collapse", looking like a welder's cutting torch. "OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!" Camera Planet Archive on Google
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=camerap
lanet%2B9/11


VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
Thermite Music Video - Watch Thermite melt a car's engine block in 5 seconds. Notice the identical appearance to the previous video of molten steel spraying ouf of WTC 30 seconds before it's "collapse". Anyone can purchase Thermite, which is a common chemisty school experiment, and used for welding and incendiary explosives by US Govt. Thermite is composed of powdered iron-oxide rust and powdered aluminum-oxide, and burns at 2,500 degress Centigrade (4,500 degress Fahrenheit). Thermite was invented in 1893 and patented in 1895. Jet fuel burns at under 1,000 deg F in uncompressed air, and the official reason the WTC melted was due to "paper fire" not kerosine fire
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585&q=thermit
e&pl=true




Wish my little brother good luck vs election fraud, in his campaign for Republican Party nominee for county judge this week. The current Yale/Harvard/professor judge locked him up for 10 days in unconstitutional debtor's prison, so my brother decided to take the judge's job. Now my TV show and website are censored by this judge, temporarily. www.PirateNews.org website is down for exceeding bandwidth, from Google image searchers wanting my nude photos of George Bush Jr, as posted on public billboards by Austrian govt.
www.geocities.com/RedneckElectionDeathmatch

and I WON my pro se legal defense to a traffic citation for driving safely at 5mph. The prosecutor dropped all charges, rather than face the grand jury on Monday, and a real jury trial. I filed criminal charges against the copster, since his in-car video did not back up his allegation, but did prove his 5 crimes. I also filed criminal charges against the court clerk, for refusing to issue subpoenas for ALL defendants, and refusal to allow access to audiotapes from the probable cause hearing. To read my court files:
www.dealsgapdragon.com


Forget the lies of our oppressive Kaballistic Allied Governments.
-Huckster, The Message

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:23 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
You both miss the point I think.


Not at all, I'm well aware of all the points you raise, but they're irrelevent. My point is that people in a democracy (democracy as it is commonly used ) share the responcibillity of their nations actions.

Your posts supports my point if anything, in so much as people may not support the war but they green lighted it because a tax break or cheap goods or a slightly stronger economy was more important to them.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:33 AM

CITIZEN


PirateNews:
You haven't been studying your diagram properly again have you?

Have you lost it?

Here's a new one:
http://www.twisted-imaginings.com/Share/dreamreal.GIF



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Both governments are still there because the war didn't matter enough to the people that were voting at the time they voted.
I don't know about Britain, but Bush achieved power and has remained in power because he grossly manipulated the election process. The people of the USA did NOT support Bush through the election process. Y'all keep assuming that Bush won. He didn't: Point No. 14- Fraudulent Elections.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and mug.

---------------------------------
I want one of those beer milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:19 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Slick,

YOU made it about you when you said those who disagree with you are fixated on being anti-Bush and full of - - - spin.

YOU are part of the pro-Bush crowd, though you claim not to be. YOU are partisan beyond reason though you pretend impartiality. All YOU have is spin, lies, distortions, excuses and distractions. Your posts prove it.

YOU qualify as one of the 'fake patriots' - the topic, you may recall, of the thread. And that is what I will prove with YOUR own words.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 28, 2006 5:51 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

YOU made it about you when you said those who disagree with you are fixated on being anti-Bush and full of - - - spin.


Rue. Anyone who reads your posts for more than five minutes could figure out you're fixated on being Anti-Bush, and I believe that applies to SignyM, Citizen, and some others here. I believe I said that Mr. Britt had put spin in his article about fascism, not you. I think he did. Spin is interpreting things to agree with your view. If you say you don't do this, then you are a liar. I have no doubt I often do. That is one of the tools of debate and discussion, to see things from your own point of view. Hardly a deep technique of evil.
Quote:

YOU are part of the pro-Bush crowd, though you claim not to be. YOU are partisan beyond reason though you pretend impartiality. All YOU have is spin, lies, distortions, excuses and distractions. Your posts prove it.

{deep sarcasm}Well of course. Anyone who disagrees with you has to be a liar and a partisan. No one could actually have a valid difference of opinion. It's all just part of the conspiracy.{/deep sarcasm} Do you realise just how nuts you sound here? You KNOW what I really am, through your powers of deduction, or mind reading, or...paranoia? Hey, if you're gonna call me a liar, why can't I call you a nutcase?

Quote:

YOU qualify as one of the 'fake patriots' - the topic, you may recall, of the thread. And that is what I will prove with YOUR own words.

This is where you get really scary. You're going to go back to every post I've ever written, take remarks out of context, and assemble them in a PirateNews-like mega-post along with snide comments about how every one of them shows I'm really part of some grand plan to discredit you and you alone. O.K. Capt. Queeg, it really was the strawberries. Knock yourself out.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:04 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't know about Britain, but Bush achieved power and has remained in power because he grossly manipulated the election process. The people of the USA did NOT support Bush through the election process. Y'all keep assuming that Bush won. He didn't: Point No. 14- Fraudulent Elections.



And the referees are reviewing the instant replay...and the decision is...Bush wins!

You can keep having this opinion if you want to. In my opinion, if the Democratic candidates in either the 2000 or 2004 elections had believed they were ripped off, they would still be challenging the results in court. I can't see where they would have anything to lose. If you can clarify this for me, please do so. My candidate wouldn't have won either way, so it's a rather moot point to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:24 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Rue. Anyone who reads your posts for more than five minutes could figure out you're fixated on being Anti-Bush, and I believe that applies to SignyM, Citizen, and some others here.


As long as you recognise such a thing doesn't rubbish anything we say on the matter anymore than it does you with your fixated pro-bush.

However most of what I'm anti-Bush about I'm also anti-Blair about, and I voted for Blair in the elections before last, so I really can't see how you could say I was 'fixated' on being anti-Blair.

So logically does it necessarily follow that I am fixated on being Anti-Bush, or do Bush's actions and policies run completely counter to my ideas and morals?

I don't much care whose administration thinks tortures a good idea; I think its wrong full stop. You're the one that says inflicting pain and discomfort on a detainee isn't torture because they're not using thumb screws or a rack, or makes excuses as to why it's okay, but only if it's 'us' doing it too 'them'.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 2:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

In my opinion, if the Democratic candidates in either the 2000 or 2004 elections had believed they were ripped off, they would still be challenging the results in court. I can't see where they would have anything to lose.
[ You're basing your conclusion on a belief/assumption about what you think Dems would/should do which is far shakier grounds than exit polls, statistical analysis and historical fact. It's a historical fact that 19,000 people- mostly black- were erroneously tossed off the voter rolls By Katherine Harris in Florida, the Scy State who also happened to be running the Bush campaign. It's a fact that exit polls (which we count on to tell us whether elections were manipulated in the Ukraine but not here) were at statistically impossible odds (250,000: 1) with the vote count. Your position is not only weak it's willfully blind. Not that you're biased or anything... you just don't apparently understand that facts and reality actually *do* exist.

It's that kind of comfy-cozy view that caused people to be SHOCKED... SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! on 9-11. And they say I'M blind to reality! Heh heh heh.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 2:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Actually more like "Use the system", or "Work the system". It's functioned pretty good for the past 200 years. Do all the things interest groups, be they the NRA or the Million Mom March do. Write letters, lobby, demonstrate, support candidates favorable to your position. If you're doing all this, then you're doing all you legally can. Maybe you'll just have to wait for things to get worse, as you expect, before you get the momentum needed to throw the bums out. Maybe things won't get worse. There's an election coming up in a couple of years and Bush clones don't look to have a good chance. Maybe it'll all go away. You can work on that, too.
Here's my response to this part of your post: But you use every opportunity to discourage involvement. Unless specifically challenged you simply never bring up direct action. My summary of your typical response (It's not that bad, it's happened before, trust the system, others do it, it's for a good cause.) is accurate and your typical reponse is defensive of status quo and non-action. I stand by my opinion.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 3:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

SignyM, if you're going to attack me, please do it to my face.

Sure, happy to:

Quote:

“You've passed the test and your Fascista membership card is in the mail... -Geezer
STDOUBT is a fascist, ad hominum (OK, one could say that STDOUBT engaged in the same behavior- that doesn’t make in-kind response right either)-signy
But what better way to make it clear that the "warning signs of Fascism" could be applied to almost anybody, making them less than useful?-Geezer


The criteria as a whole make it plain that they characterize a system, not a person. Since most criteria DON'T apply to individuals it's clear that you simply took the oppty to attack STDOUBT personally. ad hominem

Quote:

Most symptom tests give a pass-fail number, i.e. "If you have more than 8 of the 14 symptoms, contact a doctor immediately". Is there a make/break for this test, or does meeting any one condition lead irrevocably to Fascism? geezer
Trivialization, how to “score” the test-signy
Hardly trivial to me. without some concrete criteria, almost any country could be labeled fascist or given a pass depending on how loosely or strictly the test is applied.-Geezer

Really? Such as? Unless you detail your points, you're just trivializing.

Quote:

I also wonder if there are similar tests for, say, Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, etc., so we can spin their OK.-Geezer
Innuendo, disguised as “equal time” .That assumes that the cited article is spin, and only spin.-signy
Hardly innuendo. I come right out and say I consider the article spin. And I do.

You call it spin, but you don't prove it spin. That is simply unsupported opinion at best, slipped in as a conclusion. Innuendo.

Quote:

“Then I went looking for "Dr. Lawrence Britt"...and can't find a thing about him other than he writes for the Council for Secular Humanism and the Rochester City newspaper, and has written a book entitled "July 2004" which is #1,273,771 in the Amazon.com books sales ranking. No evidence anywhere he's a Doctor of anything.-Geezer
Ad hominem-signy
How ad hominim? Come here, Webster's II:
Ad hominem - Appealing to personal prejudices or emotions rather than to reason. I report exactly what I found by Googling Mr. Britt's name. I was interested in the "Doctor" bit because an article authored by "Dr. Britt" would be assumed to be within his area of expertise, and therefore carry more weight.

First of all, you chopped Webster's definition. A full defintion is right here: A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form 1. A makes claim X 2. There is something objectionable about A 3. Therefore claim X is false. Britt is not a doctor, his book is sold poorly, therefore his article is wrong. Ad hominem ("against the man")

Quote:

“Free Inquiry is apparently the house organ of the Council for Secular Humanism.” -geezer
So??? innuendo- signy
Back to Webster's II:"House Organ n. A periodical published by a business organization for its employees or clients." No innuendo there either, Just noting who publishes "Free Enquiry". Sheesh.-Geezer

Yeah, and back to chopped defintions. "Where the worlds of publishing and politics meet, "house organ" is frequently used in a pejorative sense for a magazine or newspaper that is overly partisan for a political party, corporation, or ideology. Innuendo.


Quote:

"Looks like Mr. Britt's worldview falls right in with the "Bush is Evil" crowd here” -Geezer
Ad hominem. And FINN-PLEASE NOTE, HE IS REFERRING TO PEOPLE HERE, not just to Dr Britt.-signy
So if I said your worldview seems to me to fall right in with Rue and Citizen, then that would be ad hominem? When I say "...crowd here." that's who I'm referring to...you guys on FFF.

If I said that your worldview falls in with the "Bush is God" crowd here, is that a substantive argeument? Once again you argue the man, not the argument. Clearly ad hominem. And prolly innuendo, because you imply w/o proving that the "Bush is evil" crowd is wrong.

Quote:

“I'm surprised he hasn't been quoted here before, what with stuff such as an essay titled, "Resolved: George W. Bush Is the Worst President in American History".-geezer
Putting words in peoples mouths (straw man)-signy
Nope. Really am surprised. His stuff reads just like so much other stuff quoted here. I'm not sure how this could be considered putting words in anyone's mouth. If I'd said something like "SignyM obviously thinks "Dr." Britt is the only choice for World Dictator (in only the nicest Progressive way, of course)." that would be putting words in someone's mouth.

Dr Britt said nothing about Bush in this article. YOU put those words in his mouth. Straw man.

Quote:

But he’s more interested in trivializing and diverting the topic than actually discussing it. Geezer doesn’t HAVE any “points”. That’s the point. Geezer is a walking, one-man propaganda machine, full of innuendo, ad hominem, and straw man distractions.-signy
Sure I have a point, and I'd have thought it would have been pretty clear. After reviewing Mr. Britt's 14 warning signs of fascism, the article in which they appeared, the organization which published the article, Mr. Britt's other work that I cound find, and the interiew in the Rochester City, I've come to the conclusion that Mr. Britt wrote the article as a spin, or more accurately a propaganda, piece, to support his own poor opinion of the US government. He provides a little pseudo-scientific dressing by talking about analysing fascist governments, but provides no research data or statistics. He provides no method of evaluating pass/fail levels for any of his criteria, leaving them wide open for any interpretation one might want to apply. I consider it bogus. -geezer


You "conclude"? But you didn't even examine the argument! Did you do a point-by-point? Bring up alternate defintions? Examples that didn't fit? Nope. You leapt right into personal attacks on posters here, on Dr Britt, on innuendo, on everything else except actually discussing the topic. I conclude that your conclusion is pseudo-meaningful because you haven't proven it.

Quote:

So, how about talking about whether the USA is trending towards fascism, with the help of people who THINK they're being patriots?-signy
No more than it trends toward Socialism with the help of those who think they're being patriots when the Liberals are in power. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Hitlerian fascism, five being democracy, and 10 being North Korean socialism (or viceversa if you like) I think the US probably wobbles between 4.9 and 5.1. Not really accurate, because ploting fascism, democacy, socialism, etc. on one line is kind'a simplistic, but you get my drift.=Geezer

Yeah, I get your drift- you feel you can toss off opinion and assumption as conclusion, attack people that you disagree with by any means possible, think that we're too stupid to notice that you're pissing in our faces, and justify it afterwards with lies, half-definitions, evasion, and basically more of the same.

Okey-dokey!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You're basing your conclusion on a belief/assumption about what you think Dems would/should do which is far shakier grounds than exit polls, statistical analysis and historical fact.



I'm assuming that any party which thinks they were cheated out of the presidency by election fraud would be doing everything legally possible to prove it, including plastering the entire country with lawsuits. If you can tell me why this is not a reasonable assumption, go ahead.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Here's my response to this part of your post: But you use every opportunity to discourage involvement. Unless specifically challenged you simply never bring up direct action. My summary of your typical response (It's not that bad, it's happened before, trust the system, others do it, it's for a good cause.) is accurate and your typical reponse is defensive of status quo and non-action. I stand by my opinion.



Okay. You don't think the system works. Do you have viable alternatives to propose? Something that actually has a chance of happening, not "Bush should resign"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Okay. You don't think the system works.
No, I didn't say the system doesn't work! There you go putting words in people's mouths again! God what IS it with you, Geezer? Reading your posts is like watching someone with a serious compulsion... to wreck trains. Over and over. What I mean is that the system doesn't work if people fall asleep at the wheel. Which you seem intent on encouraging, especially when Bush is involved.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm assuming that any party which thinks they were cheated out of the presidency by election fraud would be doing everything legally possible to prove it, including plastering the entire country with lawsuits. If you can tell me why this is not a reasonable assumption, go ahead.
It's an unreasonable assumption because it's been clearly disproved by facts that prove that the Dems WERE cheated out of elections. There may be many reasons why they don't respond as you assume they should- from collusion (as DT thinks) to failure of will to long-term strategy. That doesn't change the facts.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Rue. Anyone who reads your posts for more than five minutes could figure out you're fixated on being Anti-Bush, and I believe that applies to SignyM, Citizen, and some others here.


As long as you recognise such a thing doesn't rubbish anything we say on the matter anymore than it does you with your fixated pro-bush.



The "fixated" comes from the impression I get that in your view, no one can have an honest difference of opinion about Bush/Blair/whoever. Anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, or twisting the facts, or have an agenda to discredit you. I know you've accused me of all these things. I respectfully decline the honor. Hell, I didn't vote for Bush in either election.

But, then, you're the person who thinks accusing someone of "Spouting Drivel" is not an insult.





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, I accuse you of lying and twisting facts because it appears that you do so. I just spent the last several posts pointing out examples of it in detail.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Okay. You don't think the system works.
No, I didn't say the system doesn't work! There you go putting words in people's mouths again! God what IS it with you, Geezer? Reading your posts is like watching someone with a serious compulsion... to wreck trains. Over and over. What I mean is that the system doesn't work if people fall asleep at the wheel. Which you seem intent on encouraging, especially when Bush is involved.



So I don't think that Bush is as evil as you do. I don't think the house is on fire. You do. If I don't think the house is on fire I'm not going to get out the hose and try to put the fire out. Why should I? If you think the house is on fire, get the hose. Why should I tell you to do this if I don't think you need to?

We have a differnce of opinion. It's not a plot. Sheesh.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I accuse you of lying and twisting facts because it appears that you do so. I just spent the last several posts pointing out examples of it in detail.



How Orwellian. Lying and twisting facts = not agreeing with your opinion.

Got to go buy flowers for the front yard now. See you later.

ps. Yes I'm really going to buy flowers, not to a secret cabal meeting.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Deleted in favor of the next post, which pretty much says it all!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

... in your view, no one can have an honest difference of opinion about Bush/Blair/whoever. Anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, or twisting the facts, or have an agenda to discredit you. I know you've accused me of all these things. I respectfully decline the honor. Hell, I didn't vote for Bush in either election.
The man who repeatedly uses ad hominem, innuendo, and straw-man devices is calling for an honest differnce of opinion??? I'd welcome it, if I could get it!
Quote:

How Orwellian. Lying and twisting facts = not agreeing with your opinion.
Name calling??? You're resorting to name calling?? You neglected to respond to the many posts in which I pointed out instances of that kind of dishonest discussion. And you haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong. In fact, I think you just proved my case.

Case closed!



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:32 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
The "fixated" comes from the impression I get that in your view, no one can have an honest difference of opinion about Bush/Blair/whoever.


I'm not the one accusing everyone who has a difference of opinion too me of trying to insult me. Maybe your impression is merely your impression, rather than anything real.
Quote:

Anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, or twisting the facts, or have an agenda to discredit you.

Quote me, in context, where I've said any of that. I'll take no quotes which I can't reasonable argue against or demonstrate as out of context as you rescinding this statement.
Quote:

I know you've accused me of all these things.

Of what? Lying, spin etc? Quote me.

You know I can say Geezer constantly accuses me of being a horse molester, doesn't make it true. I'd appreciate it if before you accuse me of something you back it up.
Quote:

But, then, you're the person who thinks accusing someone of "Spouting Drivel" is not an insult.

But then your the one who thinks the current situation in Iraq and WWII are the same.

I attacked your point, and trying to compare the Second World War to the current situation in Iraq (which is exactly what you did) is drivel.

I'd also point out that I haven't attacked you personally or your character at all, where as you have attacked me personally and my character in nearly every post, and certainly at every oppertunity. Like the final statement of your post, or the proceeding paragraph full of unsupported unsubstantiated accusations.

Lying/Spin/Partisanship/Insulting/Having an agenda to discredit you/twisting the facts being an Anti-American who hates freedom, you know you've accused me of all these things. Many of them in the post I just replied to.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Citizen- Geezer doesn't know how to have a clean discussion. If he would just STOP with the stupid tricks people might actually take him seriously. Don't take it personally.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 29, 2006 7:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, you chopped Webster's definition. A full defintion is right here: A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form 1. A makes claim X 2. There is something objectionable about A 3. Therefore claim X is false. Britt is not a doctor, his book is sold poorly, therefore his article is wrong. Ad hominem ("against the man")

Quote:

“Free Inquiry is apparently the house organ of the Council for Secular Humanism.” -geezer
So??? innuendo- signy
Back to Webster's II:"House Organ n. A periodical published by a business organization for its employees or clients." No innuendo there either, Just noting who publishes "Free Enquiry". Sheesh.-Geezer

Yeah, and back to chopped defintions. "Where the worlds of publishing and politics meet, "house organ" is frequently used in a pejorative sense for a magazine or newspaper that is overly partisan for a political party, corporation, or ideology. Innuendo.



Just this bit right now, maybe when I have a few days, the rest.

My quotes from the Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, copyright 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Co, ISBN 0-395-33957-X, are the complete definitions shown there. It's the dictionary sitting next to the computer, and the one I use every day. If you feel like going in search of the specific definition that supports your point, go ahead. I'm perfectly happy with this one. But please don't accuse me of editing what is written in Webster's II to support my point. I didn't. Go be parinoid some more.

(Ha. My evil plan is working. SignyM, Rue, and Citizen are spending so much time and bandwidth criticising my every utterance that they can no longer provide their vital anti-Bush, anti-American message to the masses. Soon we will...Damn, did I say that out loud? Oops.)


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL