Dear Fake-Patriots,
POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 02:40
VIEWED: 17151
PAGE 1 of 2
/////WARNING - PROFANITY CONTAINED HERIN/////
Stop reading now if you don't wanna see cussing!!
You know who you are,
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. 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.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leader
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey ST -
I know we play it kind of fast and loose sometimes here in the RWED, but don't forget kids come to FFF.net, and "Dear Assholes" probably isn't a good way to keep them coming back.
As much as many here would agree with your sentiments, we could probably almost all agree that you need to change the thread title and watch throwing the f-bombs.
Not trying to take away your freedom of expression, just trying to make this a site we all can enjoy.
Thanks,
7%
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
semi-sanitized because you asked nice, and yeah,
this isn't USENET.
I think I need a big white beach and a Corona. *sigh*
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stdoubt, I applaud you. You've said what I've wanted to say for a long time. I'm not too good with words. Everyone who reads this post and agrees with it should print up flyers and stick them everywhere.
Why does Bush have all his TV's tuned to Fox News? So he doesn't have to hear about the shitty job he's doing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I still have my "nothing accomplished- defeat bush" sticker up on my car. So, yeah- bumper stickers is nice.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What you are saying is (sadly) very true.
So what suggestions do you have as to what to do about it?
Personally (and I'm speaking as an enthusiastic amateur rather than someone "in the know") I think that a good starting point would be the building in the U.S. of a strong and GENUINE party of Labour. One that is not tied to corporate cash or corrupt unions.
Standing up to be counted is great but if you stand up one at a time you will just be arrested under terrorism laws and never heard of again.
Everyone must know that when they stand up to be counted, there will be others standing beside them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm, I see AURaptor. I see AURaptor alluding that you are a terrorist or un patriotic.
I see him proving everything you just said about Bush supporters without realising it.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
You mean like this?
Quote:
You who support the current regime are the sickness that will eventually destroy this nation. You who are too cowardly to accept that our government has been overthrown from within by corporate interest and power-sick greed. You who support 'sneak and peek' law 'cuz it won't happen to you right? You who support 'extraordinary rendition' -I'd cut your throats. You who think
Guantanimo is just what we "have to do now" -fsck you and may you rot in hell.
And you get double points because your screed also uses that classic fascist ploy of de-humanizing your enemies. Much easier to hate "Cowards" who "spit on the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" than to hate otherwise good people who raise families, do good works, but just have different opinions than you about the government.
You've passed the test and your Fascista membership card is in the mail.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, but his points are still valid.
It's really sad to see someone with valid points shoot themselves in the foot by ranting and spewing hate. Even though I agree with many of STDOUBT's points, I am severely turned off by the attitude. You could convince more people if you were less emotional and more to the point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Before I get pushed into a corner for not being completely on the side of the majority here in RWED, let me just say that for the most part I agree with STDoubt (although I don't have such strong feelings about the whole thing, I just tend to ignore ueber-patriots since there's no way of arguing with them).
However (the actual point of this post): Geezer, that was classic 
.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
(although I don't have such strong feelings about the whole thing, I just tend to ignore ueber-patriots since there's no way of arguing with them).
What's your name, Chamberlain?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Stdoubt, we reach, though I try not to be that er, emotional about it. I have been at times, and find it clouds my intake.
That said, YOU GO, GIRL!!
Figure of speech Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is all very true, America under Bush is a very frightening thing. Patriotism and jingoism seem to be a thing interchangeable in some US circles right now. To fear the most powerful nation on earth is a horrible and powerless feeling. But America is not going to be the most powerful nation on earth for much longer and if anything China scares me more. Worrying times.
Anyway I admire your courage for saying this.
--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Standing up to be counted is great but if you stand up one at a time you will just be arrested under terrorism laws and never heard of again.
Everyone must know that when they stand up to be counted, there will be others standing beside them.
That's why we need a People Power Revolution similar to what occurred in the Philippines. Can't necessarily say it's been all great since then, but it got Marcos out of power.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What's your name, Chamberlain?
You think Hitler could have been stopped by ranting at him?
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know what Plato said a long long time ago (obviously)? He said "He will in the first place continue to stir up war in the order that people may continue to need him to be a leader."
And one of my favorite Cambodian proverbs sort of fits the situation. Granted, I first read it in the context of Thailand and Vietnam pushing their respective borders into Cambodia, but still. "When elephants fight the ants in the grass die". Interpret as you will. There is an obvious Elephants=Republicans, but there are deeper ones, too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
I'm talking about you people who think it's OK to kill women and children for continued access to OIL. You who claim to "defend freedom" when you're really just being USED by corporate interest in a war that wasn't even declared by CONGRESS. You who spit on the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA every time you follow an order.
So are you saying that every current and former military member that served in Iraq or Afghanistan is just wrong? I mean, I agree with a lot of your points, but as one of those former military members, I just want to be clear about what you're saying here.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, possibly.
If the Allies had stood up earlier the Germany Millitary may have done the job for us.
Of course may have and the situation was no where near as simple as that I know...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's been established that had the Allies responded more forcefully to Germany's earlier invasions Hitler would have backed down. The problem was that Britain wasn't in a position to fight a war back then and though France had Europes largest standing army they were principly defensive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was also that little 'Great War' thing on peoples minds...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
History in part is a game of 20/20 hindsight. That's why context is an important part of understanding people's motivations. It's easy 50 years on with more information and a modern worldview to say "he should have done this" or "he should have done that." Looked at from a modern perspective every war leader is a fool because you can always make a case that this decision was disasterous, that there was always this alternative or that this decision was plain stupid. At the time, with the world view and information the leaders ahd there may not have been that many apparent choices.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch and Citizen, I agree with both of you, but I think there's a difference in semantics (for lack of a better word). Probably Hitler could have been stopped if other countries threatened him with retaliation if he started being naughty, but threatening and ranting aren't the same. Had they tried to argue with him (or even rant), I still think he wouldn't have cared as long as they didn't seem like they were in a position of power.
Now, back to the original point regarding ueber-patriots (btw, I just realised that we're implicitly implying they're like Hitler - I hope that's not really the case, at least it's not what I meant to do), ranting and arguing is basically all we can do, and making any real sort of threats is both impossible (unless we know them personally) and unethical. So it's unlikely that they'll ever change their minds through people arguing against them.
Not that it shouldn't be tried, of course. They shouldn't think that their opinion is a universal truth because no one seems to disagree, but it's just not worth my time personally. I have people like the ones on this forum to do it for me .
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is a question I want to ask American board users right now and it relates to my previous post. How is the fact that China will soon supersede America in world power being handled in the American media and in America in general? I have heard it said in the media over here that America is in a state of denial about the situation. Is it considered unpatriotic to admit it?
--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes citizen, you are very right in that across a lot of Europe, the memory of WWI was still very fresh. Many people denounced Churchill as a War monger for his belief that Nazi Germany (and the communists) were a large threat and needed to be met with military force.
Stdoubt, I have seen the same (or very similar) thread posted on many sites. You are not saying anything new, even if you do have a point. May I suggest that next time you post something along these lines, you write a more coherent post. People don't want to read unreadable posts as your original post in this thread was. 7% pointed out your use of swearing. He has a very good point. There is no need to swear. I'm afraid that it only makes you sound stupid. I consider FFF (and the show in general) as a site for people of all ages (well almost ALL ages).
I'm not trying to 
you but simply offering advice. Again I do agree that the USA has taken a turn for the worst in recent years. However every government/empire/ dictatorship will eventually fall or be forced to evolve (look at my own country’s monarchy). If you want to actually do something to actually help then may I suggest the following:
1) Use public transport, ride a bike or just walk. I know of even the most ardent environmentalists (particularly in the USA) drive fuel intense trucks/SUVs/sports cars. By reducing the demand for oil you'll reduce support for the companies that support Bush.
2) Campaign hard next election. Tell people that they have other choices. Even if it won't affect the result but it will send a message to the government.
3) Don't post fowl mouthed rants. You may of noticed that firefly as a distinct controlling government voice to it (properly why Fox pulled it.) This is a fan sit for the show. Hence a lot of people on this site properly agree with you. No point, preaching to the converted.
I hope you take my points on board and in the spirit that I intended.
Regards, WishuponaWash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Everyone and their mom is pandering to the Chinese government and overlooking the fact that the Chinese government is evil, guilty of gross human rights violations (some of which we've gotten all worked up about in the Middle East), and guilty of withholding health/medical information that's relevant to the rest of the world. Then when a Chinese government official comes on an official state visit to the U.S., the Chinese official makes a big display of releasing some political prisoner (who was probably imprisoned on false charges or something ridiculous) and everyone goes "oooh, they are taking steps to become more progressive" when in all actuality they aren't.
So to answer your question, I would say it's mostly denial with the occasional voice speaking up. There are grassroots groups, but those groups aren't really the media. Oh! The Falun Gong newspaper had a big spread about the Falun Gong persecution that is ongoing in China--not entirely sure how I feel about the live organ harvesting claims that were being made though. I don't want to believe it, but I guess it's technically possible. I mean, look what Hitler did in Germany.
I don't know that it's considered unpatriotic to mention the China situation, but it's a bad business move to mention it. Look at the market! 1.5 billion people!!! That's way more teenages to coerce and brainwash than the companies will ever find in America.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Haze:
There is a question I want to ask American board users right now and it relates to my previous post. How is the fact that China will soon supersede America in world power being handled in the American media and in America in general? I have heard it said in the media over here that America is in a state of denial about the situation. Is it considered unpatriotic to admit it?
I'm handling it the same as I did in the '80s when it was a fact that Japan was going to supercede us as a world power, and in the '90s when it was South Korea. Maintaining a skeptical wait and see attitude.
This isn't to say China won't cause trouble, especially in Africa. They will do this by sending the kind of aid most governments there really like, not food and medicine, but guns and money to help them maintain their power.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
STDOUBT
Quote:SLICK (I mean, GEEZER)
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
Quote:Slick, look up the definition of scapegoat.
You mean like this?
STDOUBT You who support the current regime are the sickness that will eventually destroy this nation. You who are too cowardly to accept that our government has been overthrown from within by corporate interest and power-sick greed. You who support 'sneak and peek' law 'cuz it won't happen to you right? You who support 'extraordinary rendition' -I'd cut your throats. You who think
Guantanimo is just what we "have to do now" -fsck you and may you rot in hell.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Khyron:
Fletch and Citizen, I agree with both of you, but I think there's a difference in semantics (for lack of a better word). Probably Hitler could have been stopped if other countries threatened him with retaliation if he started being naughty, but threatening and ranting aren't the same. Had they tried to argue with him (or even rant), I still think he wouldn't have cared as long as they didn't seem like they were in a position of power.
Quote:There are lots of theories about where China will be in the coming years, but little can be said with any degree of certainty, at least according to Heisenberg. China is definitely growing as a military and an industrial power, whether that means it will supercede the US or if that should necessary matter is another issue entirely. I wouldn’t say the media in the US is in denial about it. There are varying opinions, but it’s largely speculation. I read an article in Time magazine a year ago that talked about the growing influence of China, and the issue of China concerning trade relations and gas prices is always in the news and the implication of China’s growing industrial or military power is never denied or overlooked. I don’t know what the European media, specifically, is saying about this issue, but based on your characterization, I would say they are probably wrong.
Originally posted by Haze:
There is a question I want to ask American board users right now and it relates to my previous post. How is the fact that China will soon supersede America in world power being handled in the American media and in America in general? I have heard it said in the media over here that America is in a state of denial about the situation. Is it considered unpatriotic to admit it?
Also Stdout is a little bit fruitcakey.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick, look up the definition of scapegoat.
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary gives two:
1. An individual or group bearing the blame for others.
2. A goat sent into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement, symbolically bearing on its head the sins of the children of Israel.
So when StDoubt identifies those he/she (where's that non-gender-specific pronoun when you need it?) calls "COWARDS", curses and rants against them, and attempts to unify those who agree with him by this process, he's using them as "scapegoats", right? Thanks for clearing that up.
...unless you're talking about definition 2. I really don't want to go there and possibly provoke another megabyte's worth of anti-semitism from PN.
ps.
I may have been "slick" back in the day, but am now old, lumpy, and somewhat worn, I am also not MIB Agent J, so please give the nickname stuff a break.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And since Rue's gonna insult me anyway, I might as well make it worthwhile.
So here's a couple of questions about Dr. Britt's 14 Warning Signs of Fascism test.
1. 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?
2. Actually sort of a subset of 1. Are all the questions only yes/no, or on a scale of 1 to 10? If Great Britain imprisons one man without trial for a week, and North Korea imprisons hundreds of thousands for life, is it fair to give them both the same score?
I also wonder if there are similar tests for, say, Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, etc., so we can spin their results as we like as well.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Haze:
There is a question I want to ask American board users right now and it relates to my previous post. How is the fact that China will soon supersede America in world power being handled in the American media and in America in general? I have heard it said in the media over here that America is in a state of denial about the situation. Is it considered unpatriotic to admit it?
I'm handling it the same as I did in the '80s when it was a fact that Japan was going to supercede us as a world power, and in the '90s when it was South Korea. Maintaining a skeptical wait and see attitude.
This isn't to say China won't cause trouble, especially in Africa. They will do this by sending the kind of aid most governments there really like, not food and medicine, but guns and money to help them maintain their power.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
This is a completely different situation, economically the only thing that can stop China now is peak old (which will stop everyone else as well). The realisation that a totalitarian power with an appalling human rights record is going to be a if not the world leader is very disquieting. But it is going to happen.
--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This isn't to say China won't cause trouble, especially in Africa. They will do this by sending the kind of aid most governments there really like, not food and medicine, but guns and money to help them maintain their power.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
What do you think we do? The U.S. is the world's largtest exporter of weaponry. Most powerful governments say they don't like that kind of "aid", but almost all of them are giving it under the table. How do you think they have stayed powerful and wealthy?
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
You people here who support the current US administration make me sick. You claim to be patriots but you're COWARDS. Too afraid to take the blinders off and see what's in front of you.
I'm not talking about Conservative/Liberal or Democrat/Republican. Those are just words used to divide The People.
I'm talking about you people who think it's OK to kill women and children for continued access to OIL. You who claim to "defend freedom" when you're really just being USED by corporate interest in a war that wasn't even declared by CONGRESS. You who spit on the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA every time you follow an order. The American Way does not depend on OIL!!!! Fat Cats paydays do!! Wake the fsck up!! Our "lifestyle" is not worth killing for!! And Israel is not worth World War III!!!
You who support the current regime are the sickness that will eventually destroy this nation. You who are too cowardly to accept that our government has been overthrown from within by corporate interest and power-sick greed. You who support 'sneak and peek' law 'cuz it won't happen to you right? You who support 'extraordinary rendition' -I'd cut your throats. You who think
Guantanimo is just what we "have to do now" -fsck you and may you rot in hell.
Some of us aren't that scared. Some of us know we have a better chance of getting hit by a bus than dying in a terrorist strike. Some of us would rather NOT attack a sovreign nation and get to keep our trillions in taxes. Some of us KNOW that going to a foreign land and killing women and children is EVIL NO MATTER F$CKING WHAT. Yes, even if you call it "collateral damage" -fsck you. Another 6 billion this month.. feel safer yet dumbass? Know where that money comes from? China debt -now we're Chinas bitch -thanks fsckwads!
Some of us know that true strength is gentle. Those "power of pride" bumper stickers? That's what scares me. Pride is a deadly sin. And it goeth before a fall. Fscking idiots. At least I hope it's simple stupidity, because if you really know what you're doing, God help us all.
President Bush was born in Connecticut.
His Texas drawl is as fake as his Christianity.
He's a blasphemer and a war criminal and a traitor.
He's blue blood through to the bone.
Say 'Hi' to Usama for me George. While you rape a state where he wasn't even welcome.
"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial
of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson
I'm not saying Gore would have been better -fsck you with your Liberal vs. Conservative bullshit.
There's no such thing. There is ONE party in the USA and it's not 'of The People'. Fsck -or maybe it is... I guess we get what we pay for.
200 years -it was a nice run-
What will come next is either revolt,
or decay...
But if it means getting to put a cap in you fake fscking "patriots", i'm all about revolt. I'd kill to preserve the Constitution. But I wouldn't kill to keep gas flowing. You who would, I got a lump of lead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H prayer with your name on it.
STDoubt, I agree with most of your points, but you're making the same fundamental mistake that Piratenews makes
: You blast everyone with over-the-top rhetoric that turns many people off to your message from the start.99.9% of the uber-patriots aren't evil, cowardly fools. They are just ignorant of the real goings-on out in the world. How many of them do you think recognized the connection between modern anti-americanism and the U.S.'s ruthless exploitation of third world countries throughout the cold war and into the present? How many do you think know about how the U.S. has propped up dictators like Marcos in the Phillipines, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Taliban in Afganistan,the Shah in Iran, the horribly corrupt and opressive South Vietnamese government, and s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
What do you think we do? The U.S. is the world's largtest exporter of weaponry. Most powerful governments say they don't like that kind of "aid", but almost all of them are giving it under the table. How do you think they have stayed powerful and wealthy?
True, but we also provide quite a bit of that "humanitarian" aid stuff like food, medicine, infrastructure improvements, etc. China doesn't mess with that stuff, just goes straight for the guns and money. And just because the U.S. has done it doesn't make it any less wrong for the Chinese to do it, eh?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, Slick,
You left out a really important part of the definition for scapegoat - BEARING BLAME FOR OTHERS. You see, if you are the cause of the problem, being blamed isn't being 'scapegoated.' Got it now?
And, to answer your question about grading the test - you fail if all of the answers are yes.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point in the 'test' says "enemies/scapegoats". Why are you focussing on 'scapegoat'? Couldn't one regard uber-patriots to be one's 'enemy' in a moralistic way?
Besides, the uber-patriots aren't responsible for the administration's actions, just for voting the administration into power and then defending their actions. I think blaming them for the Iraq war technically is making them a scapegoat.
As much as I agreed with the jist of StDoubt's rant, I think Geezer had a good point and I don't see the need to try to discredit it by arguing about definitions.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OK, Slick,
You left out a really important part of the definition for scapegoat - BEARING BLAME FOR OTHERS. You see, if you are the cause of the problem, being blamed isn't being 'scapegoated.' Got it now?
Actually, I didn't. It's right there in what I quoted, I think. Let me check the dictionary again. Yep. "1. An individual or group bearing blame for others." You have made it perfectly clear in the past that you consider me one of the people StDoubt scapegoats as "cowards' who "spit on the Constitution" but I have to plead innocent. Your irrational and de-humanizing hatred of me reflects more on your qualification as a fascist than it does on me. So there. Ha.
Quote:
And, to answer your question about grading the test - you fail if all of the answers are yes.
OK. Let's first look at the origin of these "14 rules". They come from an article in "Free Enquiry Magazine" titled "Fascism Anyone?" by Dr.(?) Lawrence Britt. Here's a link to the original article.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23
_2
Free Inquiry is apparently the house organ of the Council for Secular Humanism.
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.
So, first of all, why should I give any credance to this cipher's opinions, and second, why should I accept your unsupported word about the interpretation of his already dubious test?
And again, I do you the courtesy of not assigning you arbitrary nicknames. Please return the favor.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
2 OLDENGLANDDRY
Quote:
What you are saying is (sadly) very true.
So what suggestions do you have as to what to do about it?
IMO, the two major parties in this country have been locked down by one group of players. I feel it in my bones that Kerry works for Bush. The Clintons are on their team too. "Vote 3rd party" is all I know to say. A vote for Dems or Repubs is, at this point, the real way to waste your vote.
2 CAUSAL
Quote:
So are you saying that every current and former military member that served in Iraq or Afghanistan is just wrong? I mean, I agree with a lot of your points, but as one of those former military members, I just want to be clear about what you're saying here.
Some of the finest men I have known served in Vietnam. I have great admiration and respect for the US Armed Forces. I hate to see them abused by a government that isn't worthy of them. I have had the pleasure of having friends who served in Vietnam and the honor of caring for aging veterans of WWII (as their nurse). These are fine people. Our government owes them much more than they will ever give them. In the current day, I think the generals should have told Bush to go fuck himself unless he could get Congress to sign off on his warmongering. Allowing the executive branch to ride roughshod over the Constitution is in my view, a sure sign of impending doom. I'm no expert in military law but I support any soldier who 'deserts' from this illegal war. He/She would NOT be deserting America nor her interests! But to dispense with pretty words and answer your question straight up, Yes -I think they are wrong. That also means I want them to come home safe.
2 WISHUPONAWASH
You're right on all counts.
2 RUE
Thank you. That Geezer is one spooky hombre.
2 REAVERMAN
Quote:
Those people aren't horrible Nazi traitors or some such. They are ordinary working class folks that simply dont pay enough attention to the world at large.
You're right, and I know. I'm just angry and admittedly scared. Ignorance is the enemy. I don't want to see anyone hurt. I'm a nurse for hell's sake. I just get worked up seeing my beloved
country going straight down the shitter while people wave the flag and cheer.
2 Geezer
I don't know if he's a Dr., a Baker or Candlestick maker. I liked his article.
Here's one that will give you an in-depth idea of who he is FWIW:
http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3136
Also, I may be singling out a 'group' of people as 'the problem', but I'm the lunatic fringe aren't I? I don't think my war machine poses any threat to the status quo. I don't think my propaganda is reaching many ears. So rest easy.
For anyone:
Instead of posting my original rant I should have simply posted this link to a really interesting short film from 1946:
http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946
I don't know if the guy in it is qualified to say the things he says, I haven't checked his credentials, I haven't made sure he holds a degree.... but I like his words.
peace, hugs and fluffy bunnies everyone
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Besides, the uber-patriots aren't responsible for the administration's actions, just for voting the administration into power and then defending their actions. I think blaming them for the Iraq war technically is making them a scapegoat.
In a democracy the government is working for (at least the majority) of people.
Therefore if people voted for and continue too support the actions of their government they share responcibillity for those actions. A democrating government can't do something if the people don't let it.
Unless your saying the American government is not a democracy, there's certainly arguments down that road.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
2 Geezer
I don't know if he's a Dr., a Baker or Candlestick maker. I liked his article.
Here's one that will give you an in-depth idea of who he is FWIW:
http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3136
Also, I may be singling out a 'group' of people as 'the problem', but I'm the lunatic fringe aren't I? I don't think my war machine poses any threat to the status quo. I don't think my propaganda is reaching many ears. So rest easy.
Thanks for the link. Looks like Mr. Britt's worldview falls right in with the "Bush is Evil" crowd here. 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".
And while I consider your views (and delivery style) somewhat radical, you're not even close to the real "lunatic fringe" as exemplified around here by PirateNews.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except Slick, er Geezer, who is smart and knows better. But he uses his intelligence to try and convince himself - and everyone else- to go back to sleep. So Slick- I mean Geezer, apparently really could be a fascist.
99.9% of the uber-patriots aren't evil, cowardly fools. They are just ignorant of the real goings-on out in the world.
In a soothing drone: There is nothing to the definition of fascism. The test is flawed. The writer is unknown. Other nations do the same. It's happened before. Trust the system. It's not that bad.... Sleep.... go back to sleep... sleep...
Did I get all of it in for you, Geezer?
Oh yeah, except for ad hominem argument of dismissing everyone else as being in the "Bush is evil" crowd. Geezer- what happens if Bush really IS evil? I guess that thought is not to be actually discussed. GOOD GOD! ANYTHING BUT THAT!
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For Slick, who tried to discredit the article on fascism w/o even bothering to look up the topic:
Quote:
Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism [3]. A similar strategy was employed by semiotician Umberto Eco in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt[4]. More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated nation and ethnic people[5].
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
It's a really extensive entry and contains many of the points listed above. If you don't like THIS definition as well, go the the Encyclopedia Britannica. When you have backgrounded yourself in the definition of fascism, then we can discuss whether the USA is heading in that direction.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Geezer was not using any ad hominem, only suggesting that Mr. Britt (NOT “everyone else” as you claim) may be a member, and he may be right. The “Bush is evil” crowd does exist on this board and you are a self-proclaimed card-caring member. There's noting ad hominem about Geezer's point.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh yeah, except for ad hominem argument of dismissing everyone else as being in the "Bush is evil" crowd. Geezer- what happens if Bush really IS evil? I guess that thought is not to be actually discussed. GOOD GOD! ANYTHING BUT THAT!
There is, however, something ad hominem about calling individuals names, whether you're using the word "ass" or "slick." If your intent is to ridicule, it is ad hominem.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
I think the generals should have told Bush to go fuck himself unless he could get Congress to sign off on his warmongering. Allowing the executive branch to ride roughshod over the Constitution is in my view, a sure sign of impending doom. I'm no expert in military law but I support any soldier who 'deserts' from this illegal war.
So you want the military to be making up its own mind on which orders it will or will not obey. You also want them to ignore their duly elected Commander-in-Chief and make their own interrpretation of the Constitution.
I suppose then you'd support the idea that the Generals could simply ignore the President and the Congress, set their own budget, make their own laws and use their military power to enforce those laws because, after all, by their reading of the Constitution, they are acting legally. Sure, you'd probably disagree with the laws and policy they make, but your argument supports their right to act as they please.
Quote:
I'm a nurse for hell's sake. I just get worked up seeing my beloved
country going straight down the shitter while people wave the flag and cheer.
Might want to stick to the nursing and leave the politicing to the professionals.
Quote:
I don't know if the guy in it is qualified to say the things he says, I haven't checked his credentials, I haven't made sure he holds a degree.... but I like his words.
A ringing endorsement, one he shares with used car salesmen, snake oil peddlers, strippers who claim people rape them, and the Democratic National Committee.
You see, thats your real argument with Bush. Its not policy or political ideology...if he used the right words you'd be right behind him. Sure, its shallow, but it saves time on the whole critical thinking thing.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A ringing endorsement, one he shares with used car salesmen, snake oil peddlers, strippers who claim people rape them, and the Democratic National Committee.
And the Republican party and G W B for some.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Except Slick, er Geezer, who is smart and knows better. But he uses his intelligence to try and convince himself - and everyone else- to go back to sleep. So Slick- I mean Geezer, apparently really could be a fascist.
In a soothing drone: There is nothing to the definition of fascism. The test is flawed. The writer is unknown. Other nations do the same. It's happened before. Trust the system. It's not that bad.... Sleep.... go back to sleep... sleep...
Did I get all of it in for you, Geezer?
Oh yeah, except for ad hominem argument of dismissing everyone else as being in the "Bush is evil" crowd...
Ahh. all the golden oldies. Hyperbole, innuendo, putting words in other people's mouths, and that classic accusation of ad hominem argument. It just never gets old. The lack of courtesy about the "slick" nickname I could do without.
Quote:
Geezer- what happens if Bush really IS evil? I guess that thought is not to be actually discussed. GOOD GOD! ANYTHING BUT THAT!
What happens if Bush is really evil? The same thing as if the Duke Lacrosse team or Timothy McVeigh is accused of being really evil. You develop enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indite, and have a trial. There's also plenty of folks in Congress who aren't beholding to the Republicans and could put forth a bill of impeachment. There's been a lot of retoric about this, but no action. Maybe not enough hard evidence.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen, I realise your post was (probably) in jest, but it raised some arguments that other people like to bring so I'm going to briefly respond to it as if it weren't meant as I think it was.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
In a democracy the government is working for (at least the majority) of people.
In theory, yes. In practice, impossible.
Quote:
Therefore if people voted for and continue too support the actions of their government they share responcibillity for those actions. A democrating government can't do something if the people don't let it.
This is simply not true, at least in most countries. For instance, the war with Iraq was quite unpopular in America and hugely unpopular in Britain, and it still happened. There isn't really a way to control an executive once it gets voted into power, unless they screw-up big time (and even then that doesn't really matter if they have the legislative (congress/parliament/whatever) on their side). Without some other government body to keep control over the executive, the only other influence is the media, and most people on this forum realise that the media has its own agenda and can hardly be seen as representative of what the people want. So basically, a government can do almost anything and have a good chance of getting away with it. The people are only important in election years.
Quote:
Unless your saying the American government is not a democracy, there's certainly arguments down that road.
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.
True democracy is possible only in theory or in a small population that is politically aware, but in almost all cases its implementation sucks. Unfortunately, every other form of government that's been tried is even worse.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn- the "Bush is evil crowd" comment doesn't address the question whether Bush is evil, and doesn't respond to the original topic. Geezer uses various tactics (It's not that bad, other countries do it, it's happened before, the author is unknown, etc etc.) to evade and derail substantive discussion. And YOU are evading the discussion by making Geezer its focus. (And BTW- I'm sure Geezer is smart enough to speak for himself.)
You're right- I shouldn't be calling him "Slick" although "Slick" is actually a friendly, joshing recognition of someone's glibness.
So- Do you think that the USA is heading towards fascism, aided and abetted by people who claim to be patriots but who show fascist behaviors?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
What happens if Bush is really evil? The same thing as if the Duke Lacrosse team or Timothy McVeigh is accused of being really evil. You develop enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indite, and have a trial. There's also plenty of folks in Congress who aren't beholding to the Republicans and could put forth a bill of impeachment.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was directed at Finn, but there are some things that are bothering me.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And YOU are evading the discussion by making Geezer its focus.
Geezer was made the focus when rue told him he should look up what a scapegoat is. That's when this discussion for some reason became Geezer vs lots of others. 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. But apparently critical thinking of something that has already been accepted by most people on the forum simply because it's anti-Bush and against Bush-supporters turns one into somebody that needs to be attacked.
Quote:
(And BTW- I'm sure Geezer is smart enough to speak for himself.)
A couple of people are arguing against Geezer at the moment, but once somebody says something on Geezer's behalf it's "stay away, he can handle himself". Fine, in that case, I'm sure STDoubt is smart enough to argue against Geezer's points himself and doesn't need your help either.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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).
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Khyron- You're normally much smarter than this. WHAT "critical" (important, insightful, crucial) questions did Geezer ask?? Here are his points, in order
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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. Ca
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Khyron- You're normally much smarter than this. WHAT "critical" (important, insightful, crucial) questions did Geezer ask??
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
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 thNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:and
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Straw manQuote:
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 LeeQuote:
"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 oNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Both governments are still there because the war didn't matter enough to the people that were voting at the time they voted.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and mug.
---------------------------------
I want one of those beer milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:[ 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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure, happy to:
SignyM, if you're going to attack me, please do it to my face.
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:Really? Such as? Unless you detail your points, you're just trivializing.
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
Quote:You call it spin, but you don't prove it spin. That is simply unsupported opinion at best, slipped in as a conclusion. Innuendo.
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.
Quote: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")
“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.
Quote: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.
“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
Quote: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.
"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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I didn't say the system doesn't work! There you go putting words in people's mouths again!
Okay. You don't think the system works.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:No, I didn't say the system doesn't work! There you go putting words in people's mouths again!
Okay. You don't think the system works.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Deleted in favor of the next post, which pretty much says it all!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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!
... 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.
Quote: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.
How Orwellian. Lying and twisting facts = not agreeing with your opinion.
Case closed!
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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.
“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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME