Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]BH6 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Funny, the oath I took was, “I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

It’s been a few years, but I can’t recall anything in there about rounding up unpatriotic bastards.

Then you got the point of my post, and took it to its logical end. The Constitution of the United States is still intact, until that day we aren’t facist, just poorly managed at the executive branch level. [/quote]

Our Constitution is intact much in the same way the British one was two-hundred years ago. They kept talking about their rights under their Constitution and the damn thing had never even existed!

Our Constitution is a paper tiger that is violated with impunity by every branch of our government and at all levels.

mike

82

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
BH6 wrote:
I’m in the military so I’ll point a gun at whoever the government says is the bad guy, as long as I get paid. I’ll be rounding you un-patriotic bastards up one day.

You’re probably right.

I sincerely hope that you are never ordered to round up any of your friends and family.

Funny, the oath I took was, “I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

It’s been a few years, but I can’t recall anything in there about rounding up unpatriotic bastards.[/quote]

There is an alternate scenerio…

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
–Henry Kissinger - May 21, 1992

Congressman Ron Paul Reiterates Danger Of Foreign Troops Being Used For Martial Law
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/241105martiallaw.htm

83

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A website of “270” architects and engineers. So the 270 includes all types of engineers, from around the globe, and architects. Talk about a superminority. Which independent, peer-reviewed, journal have they published their demolition paper in?

Some comments from a blog devoted to Civil and Structural engineers and the WTC, about this Architects and Engineers conspiracy site.

[i]"I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won’t find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don’t believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don’t seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?[/i]
[/quote]

Also see:
Vast Majority Of Iraqis Still Alive
“As anyone who’s taken a minute and actually looked at the figures can tell you, the vast majority of Iraqis are still alive–as many as 99 percent.”
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30610/print/

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
October 16, 2007
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim’s family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the “collapse initiation” proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics…

NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building’s collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST’s investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST’s conclusions were “questionable”, that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm

World Trade Center Building 5 ~ Why No Collapse?
Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/050807Collapse.htm

84

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A pre-emptive strike on WTC 7. You’ll hear that there was little damage done to WTC 7, therefore, it shouldn’t have collapsed. This is usually followed by photographs selectively chosen, and omission of fire fighter radio traffic and post 9-11 interviews.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

[i]Boyle: …on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.[/quote]

This “hole 20 stories tall” makes the official story even more ridiculous than it already is. If thats the case it should be even EASIER to figure out why WTC 7 fell than WTC 1 & 2, yet this bldg is the “Ron Paul” of the 9/11 story.

Also, if you scoop out most of one side of a 47 story building, it only makes sense that it would collapse in PERFECT SYMMETRY… it also helps to have a degree in “Cartoon Physics”

85

Actually, here is what NIST said. Read it for yourselves, as there’s way too much left out by the CT’er site.

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

86

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A pre-emptive strike on WTC 7. You’ll hear that there was little damage done to WTC 7, therefore, it shouldn’t have collapsed. This is usually followed by photographs selectively chosen, and omission of fire fighter radio traffic and post 9-11 interviews.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

[i]Boyle: …on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

This “hole 20 stories tall” makes the official story even more ridiculous than it already is. If thats the case it should be even EASIER to figure out why WTC 7 fell than WTC 1 & 2, yet this bldg is the “Ron Paul” of the 9/11 story.

Also, if you scoop out most of one side of a 47 story building, it only makes sense that it would collapse in PERFECT SYMMETRY… it also helps to have a degree in “Cartoon Physics”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_physics[/quote]

And there you have it folks, the FDNY is part of the Jewish conspiracy. Those fire fighters stating the building was visibly in danger of collapsing are part of it!

Cartoon physics?

Anyways, here’s NIST’s working hypothesis for WTC 7’s collapse.

[i]"An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[/i]

Oh, an what’s this?! An article published in an independent, peer-reviewed journal about WTC 7? No mention of demolition?!
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

So again, what independent, peer-review journal has your super-minority of scholars published in? That’s right, none. They can’t get their papers past publication on conspiracy sites. Cartoon physics indeed, JTF. On your side of the debate, that is.

87

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, here is what NIST said. Read it for yourselves, as there’s way too much left out by the CT’er site.

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf [/quote]

Why?

Why even waste time arguing with these idiots? These are people who watch two fully fueled airliners crash into buildings, and then, when the buildings later collapse, tell you “Well, if you think those planes had anything to do with it… pfttt!”

88

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, here is what NIST said. Read it for yourselves, as there’s way too much left out by the CT’er site.

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

Why?

Why even waste time arguing with these idiots? These are people who watch two fully fueled airliners crash into buildings, and then, when the buildings later collapse, tell you “Well, if you think those planes had anything to do with it… pfttt!”
[/quote]

It’s not that I think JTF can be de-programmed, or somesuch thing. But, if anyone else is curious to what happened, I pretty much already know where to look for factual rebuttals, so it requires very little of my time to challenge these theories.

89

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Also see:
Vast Majority Of Iraqis Still Alive
“As anyone who’s taken a minute and actually looked at the figures can tell you, the vast majority of Iraqis are still alive–as many as 99 percent.”
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30610/print/
[/quote]

Dude, do you realize you put a link in to “The Onion?”

90

[quote]orion wrote:

Fascism and Corporatism is when Big Government and Big Business dance together.

Fascism means the government leads, corporatism the businesses lead.

[/quote]

A corporation doesn’t necessarily have to be a business, just some kind of civilian group. Corporations DO lead policy under a fascist system, but it is not necessarily business that is in control. It could be a cultural, economic, industrial, Oprah’s Book Club, etc. group.

Where fascism differs from corporatism is the overblown nationalism and militarism (see Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex”) usually associated with fascist states. Both these traits are present in the society in question.

91

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
orion wrote:

Fascism and Corporatism is when Big Government and Big Business dance together.

Fascism means the government leads, corporatism the businesses lead.

A corporation doesn’t necessarily have to be a business, just some kind of civilian group. Corporations DO lead policy under a fascist system, but it is not necessarily business that is in control. It could be a cultural, economic, industrial, Oprah’s Book Club, etc. group.

[/quote]

Heil Oprah!

92

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
orion wrote:

Fascism and Corporatism is when Big Government and Big Business dance together.

Fascism means the government leads, corporatism the businesses lead.

A corporation doesn’t necessarily have to be a business, just some kind of civilian group. Corporations DO lead policy under a fascist system, but it is not necessarily business that is in control. It could be a cultural, economic, industrial, Oprah’s Book Club, etc. group.

Where fascism differs from corporatism is the overblown nationalism and militarism (see Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex”) usually associated with fascist states. Both these traits are present in the society in question. [/quote]

Fascism was initially a workers movement and is very close to socialism.

Therefore I do not think it is irrelevant if a government coerces businesses to implement governments policies, or if businesses buy governments to make more money.

Fascism is a form of socialism combined with caesarism, i.e. the strong man at the top unites with the unwashed masses to break he power of the “rich”, “cosmopolites” which is surprisingly often code for “jews”.

Corporatism is just a form of oligarchic corruption ,there is no real collectivist idea behind it, it just emulates fascism for practical reasons.

I.e. Hitler took control of the heavy industries to produce weapons to go to war, the MIC makes the government go to war to sell weapons.

Maybe your idea of corporatism is more that of a “Ständestaat”, where everything is organized in unions and guilds and associations and the individual has no power whatsoever?

Fascism is a hard topic, because most people on the left call people like Pinochet “fascists” though they clearly weren`t, just because they do not want to look into fascisms intellectual roots that are the same as their own philosophies.

93

It is mathematically certain that we will become a totalitarian society.

Right now, about 52% of the Federal budget is earmarked for mandated spending. These can’t be altered short of a revolution. This sort of spending is increasing at roughly 12% per year. Soon, this will simply become mathematically untenable.

At that point, the system will begin to break down (probably from wild inflation) and a military solution will be taken to restore order. Severe price controls and some sort of servitude will have to be introduced, similar to a draft.

The only thing we can do is become highly educated, and hence more valuable as a commodity. Engineers, doctors, scientists,(teachers?), will probably not be put into work-battalions, but given some sort of protected existence.

Surprisingly though, it may lead to a ‘Golden Age’ for valuable people. The rest will be serfs.

http://www.ravibatra.com/

94

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It is mathematically certain that we will become a totalitarian society.[/quote]

Really? Could you post the mathematical proof? I’d be nice to argue in absolutes for once.

95

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is mathematically certain that we will become a totalitarian society.

Really? Could you post the mathematical proof? I’d be nice to argue in absolutes for once.
[/quote]

Certainly…though I don’t see a basis for arguing — spending is rising at a very fast pace and mandated ‘cast in stone’ spending is a huge percentage (52% was my last take). If spending rises 12% year over year while GDP/income grows about 3% per year, what has to happen?

I’ll do some hunting down of the numbers after I’m done teaching.

96

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is mathematically certain that we will become a totalitarian society.

Really? Could you post the mathematical proof? I’d be nice to argue in absolutes for once.

Certainly…though I don’t see a basis for arguing — spending is rising at a very fast pace and mandated ‘cast in stone’ spending is a huge percentage (52% was my last take). If spending rises 12% year over year while GDP/income grows about 3% per year, what has to happen?

I’ll do some hunting down of the numbers after I’m done teaching.

[/quote]

That’s not a mathematical proof. Of course, I forgot you teach mathematics, so obviously, you know very little about the subject. If you were a math whiz, they’d have you teaching something else… like Empathy 101 maybe.

Anyway, the flaw in your reasoning is that actually nothing is cast in stone. All laws can be modified or repealed; even your Constitution has mechanisms in place to bring amendments to it.

So please, cut out the “inevitable” doomsday scenario crap. Although mildly entertaining to debate in a “what if” mindset, to pretend that they actually have a chance of becoming true is childish.

97

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is mathematically certain that we will become a totalitarian society.

Really? Could you post the mathematical proof? I’d be nice to argue in absolutes for once.

Certainly…though I don’t see a basis for arguing — spending is rising at a very fast pace and mandated ‘cast in stone’ spending is a huge percentage (52% was my last take). If spending rises 12% year over year while GDP/income grows about 3% per year, what has to happen?

I’ll do some hunting down of the numbers after I’m done teaching.

That’s not a mathematical proof. Of course, I forgot you teach mathematics, so obviously, you know very little about the subject. If you were a math whiz, they’d have you teaching something else… like Empathy 101 maybe.

Anyway, the flaw in your reasoning is that actually nothing is cast in stone. All laws can be modified or repealed; even your Constitution has mechanisms in place to bring amendments to it.

So please, cut out the “inevitable” doomsday scenario crap. Although mildly entertaining to debate in a “what if” mindset, to pretend that they actually have a chance of becoming true is childish.

[/quote]

Well, unlike you, I have a job. Unless we count being an annoying little twit, then you DO have a job.

I said it would have to wait until I was done teaching and on a break.

‘All laws can be modified and repealed’? Yeah, what would happen if your gov decided to scrap National Health Care or Social Security?

Anyway, bugwit, here you go: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

The first thing you notice is that, in 1981, our debt was about 1 trillion. In 2010, it will be about 11 trillion. The interest on that debt is approaching the 1981 TOTAL debt level.

The next thing to pop out is how MANDATORY spending is rising. As boomers age, this amount MUST increase (they vote the most btw). On top of the 11 trillion and the interest, mandated spending must skyrocket.

When we can’t borrow anymore and when no one else around the world will accept our dollars any longer, what’s going to happen?

98

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, unlike you, I have a job. Unless we count being an annoying little twit, then you DO have a job.[/quote]

Pays well too.

There’s a difference?

They’d disappear the following elections.

Look at what happened to our old Progressive Conservative Party who got so soundly trounced in the 1993 elections that it lost it’s official party designation.

And they didn’t even do anything as remotely suicidal as repealing health care…

[quote]Anyway, bugwit, here you go: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

The first thing you notice is that, in 1981, our debt was about 1 trillion. In 2010, it will be about 11 trillion. The interest on that debt is approaching the 1981 TOTAL debt level.[/quote]

Stop spending 55% of your tax money on waging useless wars everywhere and you’ll recover.

You could even afford to take care of your poorest citizens.

You could solve all those problems by gutting your ridiculously high defense budget and still have more than enough for proper defense.

Stop running an empire on credit and you’ll look and feel much better.

You’ll do like all other empires have done historically: Collapse and let the next one take over. Hopefully you collapse softly enough that you don’t precipitate the whole world in a decade long recession.

99

A recession? Only if we’re very lucky…

Defense is only 20% or so of the budget. Far more of that is in social spending and that is soaring.

Bush got reamed for proposing that the budget for the Dept of Education ‘only’ grow by 11% instead of 12%. Dems screamed it was a cut (LOL!) and that he wanted poor children barefoot and uneducated.

Maybe we SHOULD be like Canada and become insignificant. Good idea, Pooks!!

Jeeeezzz…

100

A recession? Only if we’re very lucky…

Defense is only 20% or so of the budget. Far more of that is in social spending and that is soaring.

Bush got reamed for proposing that the budget for the Dept of Education ‘only’ grow by 11% instead of 12%. Dems screamed it was a cut (LOL!) and that he wanted poor children barefoot and uneducated.

Maybe we SHOULD be like Canada and become insignificant. Good idea, Pooks!!

Jeeeezzz…