[quote]Headhunter wrote:
or he could demonstrate that its moral to sacrifice the individual to the group[/quote]
Actually, the ability to do so (sacrifice the individual to the group) is considered one of the necessary markers of sentient life. Necessary, but not sufficient, since many non-sentient life-forms do so routinely. If you teach Math, you certainly now what “necessary but not sufficient” conditions are and what they mean.
So, if you refute that as being moral, you refute sentient life as ever being moral, which opens a whole can of worms, since non-sentient life cannot be moral by definition, which would mean morality doesn’t really exist. Either that or you’re claiming that YOU are not sentient…
Pick one.
Then again, us scientists are a bunch of God-hating pedophiles, so what do we know, right?
[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think totalitarian fascism has been defined down if all that it takes to implement it is a string of speeches from a President who can’t be re-elected in 2008 that are critical of those who disagree with him…
Yeah, 'cause his speeches are of no consequence – neither is his (probably successful) attempt at blackmailing our legislators.
Nor is the fact that his popularity INCREASED during that same week.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
Having a president that you disagree with - as you have described here - is a far cry from fascism.
You just sound angry. Methinks that if this were indeed the totalitarian state you say - you would already be dead.
I love the way you take extremist postitions - then throw rocks at the other side for doing the same thing.
How smart must one be to do nothing more than be a partisan hack?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Having a president that you disagree with - as you have described here - is a far cry from fascism. [/quote]
Sure. But you continue to chose to ignore my real point – the problem is not that we disagree with him, the problem is that he is being allowed to continue to do whatever he pleases, including blackmailing legislators into doing what he wants.
That is the fascism part.
If this was a true Democracy this is what would happen:
His blackmail attempt would be foiled, and no amendment/clarification to the convention would be passed, not even a “sanitized” one
He would be impeached for his actions (with regards to torturing prisoners)
The American people would send a strong message that they will not respond to fear mongering any longer, i.e., we would stop seeing that technique being reinforced by increases in popularity.
I’m willing to bet none of the above will happen – and that is my problem here.
By the way, let me define fascism for you, in case you’re… confused:
Robert O. Paxton, for example, defines fascism’s essence as:
a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions;
CHECK.
belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits;
CHECK.
need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts;
CHECK.
right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint;
CHECK.
fear of foreign “contamination.”
CHECK.
Fascism is associated by many scholars (besides Paxton) with one or more of the following characteristics, all of which Bush defends: 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.
Mussolini’s words have therefore never been more chilling:
“We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’: a Fascist century.” – from “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism”
[quote]hspder wrote:
Sure. But you continue to chose to ignore my real point – the problem is not that we disagree with him, the problem is that he is being allowed to continue to do whatever he pleases, including blackmailing legislators into doing what he wants.
That is the fascism part. [/quote]
You are going to have more than just the wild accusation of blackmail - as that is a crime, and an impeachable offense.
Seriously. Even though I love to make fun of you - and God knows you serve up enough ammo for WAY more than a 30 minute set - I can usually find something in what you say that will at least give me pause and furrow my brow.
But this is just plain partisan bullshit. You have no proof. No logic beyond that of emotional rhetoric. And equating the bully pulpit with fascism? Good God - FDR would be a raging communist.
[quote]If this was a true Democracy this is what would happen:
His blackmail attempt would be foiled, and no amendment/clarification to the convention would be passed, not even a “sanitized” one[/quote]
No - if this was a true democracy that did exactly what you want it to do his bill would fail. You use the word “blackmail” as if Bush is the first person to ever use politics to get what he wants. Once again - see FDR.
If there has been an impeachable act committed - then he should be. Personally - the folks we have captured are not soldiers of an army and therefore are not protected by the GC’s. Torture should be the first item on the menu. There are many that think this way. Why should we defer to you?
People agree with the President - and this is a bad thing? This is fascism?
I am not affraid - but I want to win this war and be done with it. There is no amount of force I am against if it means finishing the job and coming home.
Unlike your accusation that we are a fascist state - we get to vote. We get to vote in less than 60 days to completely change the make up of our congress.
I can read Wikipedia just as easily as you can, thanks.
I categorically disagree with all of the CHECKS you have with Paxton. I agree with his definition - but your interpretation of it is as partisan as your original post.
I will refer back to BB’s statement - he’s out in 2 years. The idea of him being a fascist is reeee-diculous.
FDR fit the bill of fascist to a much higher degree than Bush has - and we got past his reign…with the exception of Social Security.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are going to have more than just the wild accusation of blackmail - as that is a crime, and an impeachable offense.
But this is just plain partisan bullshit. You have no proof. No logic beyond that of emotional rhetoric. [/quote]
Huh? What part of “you either pass this law or I’m going to stop interrogating” part is NOT blackmail?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No - if this was a true democracy that did exactly what you want it to do his bill would fail. You use the word “blackmail” as if Bush is the first person to ever use politics to get what he wants. Once again - see FDR.[/quote]
Again, you’re the one refusing to accept reality: blackmail means “extortion or coercion by threats”, which is exactly what he is doing: he is coercing legislators by threatening them.
There are two fundamental differences between Bush’s blackmail and previous political plays: first and foremost, the threat is only truly a consequence of what he is trying to coerce if he wants it to be (interrogations COULD continue without this law if he wanted them to). Second, what he is trying to coerce is NOT in the best interest of America or Americans, by any stretch of imagination – the people who actually know what this is about, who have BEEN THERE – people like McCain and Powell – have said as much.
Bush’s real intentions are obvious for anyone who is not too blind to see them – and they are purely and utterly selfish.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If there has been an impeachable act committed - then he should be. [/quote]
Unless, of course, he changes the rules of the game and transforms an impeachable act in a non-impeachable one – which is what he is trying to achieve.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Personally - the folks we have captured are not soldiers of an army and therefore are not protected by the GC’s. Torture should be the first item on the menu. There are many that think this way. Why should we defer to you? [/quote]
Don’t defer to me. Defer to the Supreme Court.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Unlike your accusation that we are a fascist state - we get to vote. We get to vote in less than 60 days to completely change the make up of our congress. [/quote]
You do realize that many Fascist regimes had elections, right?
Please drop the “Bush is fascist” bullshit. He’s not a fascist, he’s an idiotic figurehead for the industrial/business interests that got him into power.
In order for fascism to rise in the US we will need to lose our personal liberties – by definition. I haven’t lost any personal liberties since I have been alive, with the exception of my second amendment rights being infringed upon a few years back when it became annoying to buy firearms for a little while.
Anyway, you’ve were bellyaching about how libs don’t stick together, right? Well, I would back you 100% if you would get focused on reality and call the duck a duck instead of calling it a vampire bat.
Hspder wrtoe:
"The reason I play a caricature is precisely for the same fundamental reason Al played his – because people respond strongly to it – if I just play myself around here, and stick to the science, I usually get no response; however if I add a few over-the-top remarks around it, people will respond, and react.
Conservatives in particular, who are ever annoyed by the elitist prick character (for some reason) or the Stuart character (it annoys Bill, so it must annoy all his audience!). Nothing new there, it’s Internet forums 101 – the fact that I have to explain it to you is what is amazing here."
So Hspder is an internet character portrayed for the benefit of the masses. How much of the Hspder character is real and how much is made up? At least you’ve finally come clean to some degree.
[quote]hspder wrote:
You do realize that many Fascist regimes had elections, right?
[/quote]
How many of them had vociferous opposition that had the right to run?
Say what you want - but this country is not fascist.
If we can impeach a President for perjury, surely we could impeach one for blackmail. The burden of proof is on you - and all you can come up with is partisan rhetoric.
You seem to think that Bush has trashed the checks and balances set forth in the constitution. You are wrong. Just because events aren’t unfolding to your liking does not mean we are fascist.
If there was a crime committed by the President - he should be impeached. But playing politics by your definition is blackmail. It happens all the time.
You do better when you are being condescending and elitist. Crying the Soros talking points does not become. you.
I’ll stop short of calling Bush a facist, although I do believe he certainly has those tendencies.
He has done more to strengthen the excutive office than anyone has previously, and his disregard for congressional oversight on anything is well documented. With things such as the NSA program (done without Congress knowing) and the torture bill where he interjected the “But we can still torture” at the end, he’s made it clear that he thinks he is the sole protector of America and Congress is just an inconveniant annoyance.
Facist? Not yet. Power hungry and delusional? That sounds better.
When the Capitol building miraculously burns down, then I’ll start calling him a facist.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Dammit hspder, THIS IS WHY OUR SIDE SUCKS.
Please drop the “Bush is fascist” bullshit. He’s not a fascist, he’s an idiotic figurehead for the industrial/business interests that got him into power.
In order for fascism to rise in the US we will need to lose our personal liberties – by definition. I haven’t lost any personal liberties since I have been alive, with the exception of my second amendment rights being infringed upon a few years back when it became annoying to buy firearms for a little while.
[/quote]
Re-read that PATRIOT Act. Because it hasn’t affected you yet does not mean that your rights are still there.
With the fear mongering jive bullshit that Bush/Cheney have been pulling, they can get away with far too much as far as infringement on personal rights (and they have).
[quote]
Anyway, you’ve were bellyaching about how libs don’t stick together, right? Well, I would back you 100% if you would get focused on reality and call the duck a duck instead of calling it a vampire bat.[/quote]
If this is indeed a “time of war”, than we must be as vigilant of our own “leaders” as we are of the enemy.
Trusting any government is risky, no matter whose it is. With Bush’s bumbling track record, well, I wouldn’t be too comfortable.
So you’re basically repeating a Bill O’Reilly quip, which consists of “confusing” Al Franken with his creation, Stuart Smalley, but you can’t figure out that, it is a caricature, and, hence, the character is not really, well, me – or him? Are you really that much of a Bill O’Reilly wannabe?[/quote]
Well, since I have never watched a Bill O’Reilly show and have consistently said I despise the guy, you’ll have to find a better go-to move.
Heh. So now it is just a ruse in order to elicit a response? Just a caricature?
Who do you take us all for, Hspder?
No, actually you don’t have to explain it - I suspect it is more a convenient and timely excuse at this point now that you have been called on it. Translated: I don’t believe your excuse now.
Laughable. I suggest that your fears don’t parallel your actions - and now you want to project yourself as some kind of anti-fascist action hero whereas I would meekly exit?
I also suggested that if I thought the fascist state was hovering over the top of me, I’d look to get out before the fascists told me I couldn’t get out. You’re saying you’d do different? Hogwash - especially if you are half as brilliant as you pretend to be.
And spare me the empty romantic rhetoric - try your noise on the legions of Jews that wish, in retrospect, that they had gotten out of Germany before the Nazis locked the borders. Do you think the ones who left were cowards for getting out of Hitler’s Germany?
Secondly, when the resistance army to the great American fascist state is formed, rest assured that Bay Area dilittantes will be the last to be called up.
Nor did I suggest so - improve your reading comprehension.
I said exactly what you suggest - that it provides the best opportunity at it, providing other things are in order, but guarantees nothing.
Your problem is that you think that democracy-creating-happiness can only be the result of blind luck - after all, you don’t posit that people are merely imperfect, you say they are incurably stupid. I suggest that we would not fired up democracy unless we believed people were better than stupid.
Nope - I think people are fit to govern themselves, but not by direct democracy. There are varying points in between - as a man of nuance, surely you know this?
I had an idea - next time you are chatting with [insert famous person’s name here], ask them to explain the Federalist Papers to you.
Only someone as sheltered as an academic could ask this.
How would you describe the unprecedented rise in material prosperity and personal self-satisfaction that has occurred since the late 1700s?
Nonsense - again, what accounts for our levels of wealth and health? What accounts for the fact that we get to communicate over the internet, enjoy fine wines from Napa, and have moved away from backbreaking work to service oriented employment? Look around your privileged lifestyle - the world has improved.
And, let’s have a reckoning - of the brutal mass war and genocide of the 20th century, how many of the offending parties had ‘socialist’ in their titles?
Let’s also have some fun with the concept of ‘progress’ - so, in your view, since people are irredeemably stupid, there is no such thing as progress? If people don’t get any better and remain idiots, how is progress possible? People - stupid people - have improved society over time: that is every liberal’s mantra. We are marching on a linear path of progress - this is liberal dogma. But that can’t be if people are stupid and always will be, subject to no improvement.
So where does this liberal view of progress come from? Don’t try and say it was accomplished by the really, really bright minority - they needed democratic empowerment to get it done. So the stupid people are just getting lucky over and over and over?
Conservatives are realists - and if there is something scary on the horizon and policy must address it, it is fair to bring up. You are speaking out of two mouths on this lately, given your approach to global warming.
See above - and stop wasting my time with such a ridiculously misplaced ad hominem attack.
Translated: you can’t tell me.
No one is this forum has satisfied this request.
And no, you can’t help me, you can’t even point to a civil liberty that has been restricted that affects you. Is there something you can’t say about the government? Is there a book you can’t buy? A meeting you can’t attend?
Just tell me how you have been harmed - we can have a good cry together.
Cop-out. If it is so obvious, how hard could it be to point out where your civil liberties are being cramped?
A ridiculous statement - firstly, because executive prerogative will always be measured against previous uses of the executive prerogative.
Bullshit, Professor, and you are showing your limitations. Wartime requires balancing security interests, and a range of tools are used under executive privilege to get it done.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, shut down critical newspapers, and ignored a Supreme Court ruling. Has Bush had the audacity to do any?
You say there is no difference - but you never explain why. Part of Lincoln’s decision was based on trying to control the dangers of irregulars - sound familiar?
Run away! Have they responded adequately? You haven’t - can you?
Ridiculous. FDR wasn’t just being a weathervane. You can’t even pretend to be objective.
Good - so you have no objection to the invasion of Iraq when it occurred, given that it had public support and Congressional approval? Bush was just being a good democrat?
So, in order for something to be fascism, it now need only rise to the level of tough-talk? Hilarious.
If this were true, how in the world could you possibly know this?
Which begs a different question under your Stupid People theory - what defines ‘stupid’ and what defines ‘not stupid’? I am itching to know.
You claim lots of blue collar workers are not stupid - no problem, just tell me why that is and how you know it.
Dark looming shadow alert: does it have to do with political preferences? I get a sense it does.
Utter therapeutic garbage. I realize this makes you feel all tingly inside, but you must quit trying to pass this off as truth. It has become a cartoon that the Left is into ‘independent thought’ whereas conservatives engage in groupthink. It serves to inflate your ego - it does not pass muster on the ground.
[quote]That would be true if we were talking about a rational enemy AND we were making any kind of progress in Iraq.
Neither is true. They will not be emboldened by us pulling out…[/quote]
Nonsense. You try and pass this off, despite the fact that it is contradicted by what the jihadists say themselves. OBL and his ilk routinely say the West doesn’t have the stomach to see the fight all the way through and that this figures into their strategy.
Let me guess - you know better than they what they think?
[quote]And yes, there were Jews in Portugal. Surprise! Yes, because I have no doubt you were too dim to have realized by now I was Jewish (the clues were all there, you know).
[/quote]
I have an even more important point - I neither knew nor cared. Why would you make it an issue?
Who said this? I said the UN would take notice and wouldn’t turn a blind eye to it. It is laughable that you can suggest I endorsed the UN as good at diplomacy by merely mentioning that genocide would not go unnoticed by the powers-that-be acting in a UN format.
And you mean to tell me that if one Muslim state invaded another, that other countries would sit idle and do nothing? Even the humanist, tolerant Europeans?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Facist? Not yet. Power hungry and delusional? That sounds better.
When the Capitol building miraculously burns down, then I’ll start calling him a facist.
[/quote]
See? Now I can get behind stuff like this. The debate here should revolve around GWB’s tendency to overstep his bounds. He’s kinda like a puppy who test you to see if you’re paying him enough attention.
That’s like a bunch of presidents though… how many times have the other branches of government had to roll up a newspaper and “correct” a sitting president, scolding him about didling on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
I don’t see our checks and balances failing any time soon, do you guys?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Dammit hspder, THIS IS WHY OUR SIDE SUCKS.
Please drop the “Bush is fascist” bullshit. He’s not a fascist, he’s an idiotic figurehead for the industrial/business interests that got him into power.[/quote]
[quote]hedo wrote:
So Hspder is an internet character portrayed for the benefit of the masses. How much of the Hspder character is real and how much is made up? At least you’ve finally come clean to some degree.[/quote]
Well, everything I revealed about my professional and academic life (as well as my wife’s) is absolutely real. It is my personal life and my personality that I will keep you wondering about…
I mean, even if I wanted to tell you anything about my personal life, you wouldn’t believe half of it anyway.
Either way, I can safely say that if you met me in real life, you probably would have a hard time reconciling the real me with what is undoubtedly the image you created of me.
