Pacifists are the enemy?

[yendi]

So, Bush and his Merry Organization of Fascist Scum have placed anti-war activists on the no-fly list. Because if you don't restrict the movement of and harass good citizens, the terrorists win!

Of course, since Bush has conveniently thrown the gay marriage issue front and central, and the conservative-run media is eating it up like candy, don't expect any serious outrage from the sheep over this one, any more than over his last 84 offenses.

Wonder how long before all Libertarians are on the no-fly list. Ditto the Green Party. And then all Democrats. Followed by all Blacks and Jews, of course.

Comments

[vyseryn.livejournal.com]

Do you know what a fascist government is like? Think Nazi Germany. Think Mussolini's Italy. Think the Hussein Regime. There is absolutley NO comparison to the Bush administration and these governments. Such a statement is pure rhetoric. Only in politics can people redefine a powerful, negative term to suit their own needs...

Don't think for a moment that this type of stuff wasn't going on in previous administrations. Politics will be politics, and power will be power, regardless of the party the administration represents.

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

And how do you think Mossolini and Hitler and Stalin started? Do you think they started as full-blown murderers? No. Look back hard at history. It does repeat itself, and it is doing so now.

Look up fascism in the dictionary. Democracy is dead in this country. The people have no say.

[vyseryn.livejournal.com]

First - This country is not, nor has it ever been a "Democracy". That is a common misconception people have. The United States has always been a "Constitutional Republic". Constititional Republic is not a democracy.

Democracy is no more dead than it was 8 years ago.

Do people have a say? No more than they normally had.

Why don't people have a say? That is pretty simple. They don't pay attention to politics or how it affects their lives. This means they don't vote. Because the average American does not vote, that means that the fringe elemements represent the American people at the polls. Why do you think Howard Dean is leading the Democratic Primary so far? Because the average American is supporting him? No, it is because the Far left in the democratic party is supporting him. If the average american cared about primaries or chosing the people who would run for President, the leader would probably be Joe Leibermann.

The only way to change the direction of the country is to bring it back to the center. Not further right, and not further left. The only way this will happen is if the people speak. Since they believe their votes won't make a difference, they don't vote. Sadly, their lack of voting DOES make a difference.

As for Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin - What happened there is alot more difficult to start here, because the government does not control the media - That is where it all starts. There are certain checks and balances in our model of government that did not exists in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy. So long as the constitution is followed, we will never suffer the same as these other nations. No administration will be so bold as to strip the bill of rights from the constitution. If the supreme court does the job they are being paid to do, it will never happen. In those nations there was a central political body who decreed all policy. Such is not the case in this country.

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

There are aspects of your arguments that I agree with. Surely, the apathy of the general public has a great deal to do with it.

However, I beg to differ that the government does not have control over the media. Well, it doesn't have absolute control, and thankfully there still is some alternative press out there, but it weilds strong influence. Why do you think our government hired a PR firm to put a positive spin on our need to get involved in the first Gulf War?

[dwivian]

Because it doesn't control the media, and can't mandate what they print, so instead had to produce a story interesting enough that the media might swallow?

The government has to spin to get the story told the way they want, and the press still has the right to ignore them and their spin, or report it as spin, which happens quite a bit...

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

I think that modern leaders realise that they have to be more covert in their persuasion. People aren't so beaten down that they'll tolerate overt supression.

[dwivian]

Then you have to accept that persuasion, which differs from oppression, means that the Government has no control over the media, and must resort to being a good story to get their point out in their way.....

[maida-mac.livejournal.com]

Personally, I believe it's oppression and suppression, not persuasion. I just think that they're kind enough to provide that stories that the news outlets give as the distractions. I honestly do think that they're behind the scenes, calling in favors and using force as necessary, to distract the American public with red herrings and hide the major lies behind the scenes.

[maida-mac.livejournal.com]

Excuse me? The government doesn't control our media? Um, where the hell have you been recently?

Media control does NOT have to be overt. Listen for what's not there.

As far as the constitution goes, look at the Patriot Act and some of the other laws that have been passed recently. They are in direct conflict with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[amokk]

Hitler was asked to be Chancellor of Germany because he claimed he could quick-fix their economic woes, and was given total control. Regardless of histrionics about Florida in 2000, that's yet to happen in this country.

Also as stated, Democracy has never existed in this country. Well, it did, for a few years. 1776-1783, to be exact. The Articles of Confederation made it a full democracy, and Shea's Rebellion pointed out exactly why such a thing was a Bad Idea. The Constitution as we know it was then ratified, and the next rebellion, Washington gathered up 10,000 soldiers against the 1000 or so rebels and killed most of them.

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

From dictionary.com:

fas·cism
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Take note to the text that I've hightlighted in bold. People are blind if they do not see that this is something that is happening right now. Insert any sort of "ism" where racism exists in that definition.

[vyseryn.livejournal.com]

This definition does NOT fit the description of the current administration.

I must be missing the terror thing. The only exception to that is the IRS. I live in fear of them. Are you being forced by the government to do something by way of Terror?

There is no "Central" authority in this country that dictates policy. We still have a system of check and balances between Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. So long as the Supreme Court upholds the constitution, there will never be a supreme authority that can dictate policy at a whim.

Belligerent Nationalism? If this was the case, the borders would be closed, and all of the illegals would be rounded up and shipped out. Since all administations are afraid to touch this one less they be labled a racist, this will never happen. Funny how it is that every country in the would can show nationalistic pride, but when it happens in this country, it is looked down upon a fascist. Sad, very sad.

Censorship - The government does not control the media. The government does not control the content of the WWW. People are free to speak their minds. You aren't going to get locked up for standing on the sidewalk of the white house and criticizing the president. In a fascist regime, you would be shot on the spot or locked up for life.

This administration is not oppressive, or dictitorial. If you belive it is, you should really spend some time in a country where this is an every day thing. You will be longing for the Tyranny, and Fascism of the US rather quickly.

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

I'm merely trying to point out that if people don't start waking up and speaking out against our administration, and hold it accountable, that we will be on the road to tyranny.

[dwivian]

But, that's true no matter which party is in 1600 Pennsylvania....

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

Of course. I just feel particularly threatened by this administration, because I feel like it's going in the direction of fascism faster than any other I can think of in our history.

[dwivian]

As this administration promotes individualism severly, it will never succeed in the fascist model (which promotes group identity over the individual - a key requirement of fascism).

In fact, the Democrat/Socialist tradition is closest, there, but they fail at the nationalist ideology, so it seems that the best way to avoid fascism is to keep the Democrats and Republicans apart...

I'm all for that. :)

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

How is it that this administration promotes individualism?!? When it's trying to force its mandate upon the people of this country, and the rest of the world?

[dwivian]

Because the promotion of individualism is in HOW you push a mandate. Every political group forces a mandate, you see...

...but the GOP and this administration sees people as people, not as groups.

Their principle opposition sees you not as a person, but as the power of the groups you represent (female voters, hispanic voters, the poor, the evil rich, etc).

You are allowed to be an individual, under the current administration... they just want to tighten the rules on what is acceptable behaviour.

The Democrats want you to be governed by the rules of every subgroup you embody, first, and then the government will put a strong limit on what is left, too.

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

Tightening the rules on acceptable behaviour is an attack on individualism, in my personal opinion. Especially when what is deemed acceptable is done so by a select group of people. This denies the notion that there are different ways of thinking and doing, and that most of them are valid, so long as they don't infringe on another person's safety or liberties. I'm sure we could go on and on about where that line is drawn...

[dwivian]

there is a distinction between anarchy, which is a individualistic position, and the requirements of a society, which supports individualism, but within the parameters of the society.

And, there will always be a select group defining the terms of the society, as only a few aspire to be leaders, and asking the whole of the people leads to mob rule and destruction (just ask a sheep and four wolves what's for dinner sometime).

There are no problems with different thinking and doing, within the broad rules. But, there is no limited scope requirement that you act like your social/ethnic/economic group, in such a broad based position. You are allowed to be as individual as you can, within the framework. Both parties want to do this kind of limitation. However...one party also wants to deny to the individual their position of diversity, by building inclusions on top of inclusions, and enforcing stereotypical ideologies as to what those inclusions mean....

I've never heard a Republican slam someone for "not acting ", but I have heard a Democrat do so. Why? Because the Republican doesn't care how you act, so long as it is within the guidelines of the entire society.

Yes, that line moves, and we'd be here forever arguing where to put it. But, let's try this one on for size -- you can do whatever you want so long as you deprive NONE of their life or liberty by force or fraud.

Does that work for you?

[stormy-brow.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't, because I know where you're going with that.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

[dwivian]

I had actually gone as far as I needed to.... where was I going?

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I must be missing the terror thing. The only exception to that is the IRS. I live in fear of them. Are you being forced by the government to do something by way of Terror?

Well not really, but they're sure keeping us all afraid of boogeymen with their multi-colored Threat Alerts.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Well, let's see... since the first necessity for fascism is centralisation of power under a dictator, perhaps you'll explain the recent Supreme Court decisions in Lawrence v. Texas or Grutter v. Bollinger to my humble, uneducated self, who believed that fascism was a proper political term, and not an epithet to be meaninglessly hurled about?

Or is G. W. a closet homosexual sympathiser, and Lawrence was decided at his behest, just in secret? (Yep, that would explain why Scalia was so pissed off.)

If you want to be taken seriously (and Yendi does point to a serious issue here), baseless accusations are not a good start.