Next Republican Presidential Candidate?

You know what, just because it's sarcasm doesn't mean it's wrong. Oh, and great job interpreting my meaning. Or rather, applying your biases to what I wrote. And I don't believe I ever labelled you as evil or unfair; don't put words in my mouth.
Ahh, right, because you disagree with it it's bullshit. Got it. Continue with the insults. That's now, I believe, three posts in a row where you've insulted me. I may have lost track, though.


Really? I personally attacked you with this post? That's especially amazing because it doesn't even mention you. Do keep in mind that many of my so-called insults started because of this statement by you:

Now think about this. If Bush said "If you don't support me, you're not patriotic" you'd call him a fascist. But if you say it, it's reasonable. Again, the logic escapes me. But I expect this point to escape you, and for you to claim this statement somehow constitutes a personal insult, so feel free to just label it as bullshit and ignore it. Or, accuse me of being deluded. Or the victim of a vast media conspiracy. Really, it's for the benefit of anyone else who might still, for whatever reason, be reading our little exchange.
So, now you're claiming that your personal attacks are exempted because they were "tongue-in-cheek"? And we're supposed to know this how? Maybe we can work out a code system so I can know when to ignore your insults. Or - hey - maybe you just shouldn't write them!

Enough already. You have insulted me far more than I have insulted anybody. Including George Bush.



Every post in response to mine.




He has said it --and He IS a Fascist. Tell me where he's NOT one.




It's called irony.



No --how could being called too stupid to understand your point possibly be construed as an insult.




It's to get you to research more than what you are being told. I'm sorry you don't see that American Media is largely controlled by Corporate interests tied into the giant War Machine.
Belittling me as "conspiracy theorist" is just another one of your tactics.



Kiamat seems to have worked it out.




Nice close. More passive aggressive bullshit. Thank you for that.

Game theory suggests picking the candidate closest to your opponent. Think about it, would the Republicans vote for the Democratic candidate over McCain? My bet is on him, or Mecha-Godzilla.

Mecha-Streisand

The real issue for me here - an issue that has been obscured with tertiary personal debate - is that people who obsess on partisan name-calling make their political party/ideology look bad. We should debate Bush's place in history (and that's what the debate is about now, really; the man's not running again, after all) by having an intelligent, well-reasoned discussion of policy, and his success and failures - not by shouting incendiary, highly charged terms like "treason", "liar", "war criminal", etc. Not only are these terms generally used merely to get an emotional response from your opponent, they're all based on partisan opinions rather than fact. Conservatives in Washington have enough problems that moderates and liberals, whether Democratic or Republican, can be effectively critical without resorting to personal attacks.

The issue is not even whether one believes these things about Bush or not. The issue is that shouting "Bush is a traitor!" will rarely get a moderate, undecided voter to say, "Hey, you know what, that's a good point. I'm going to vote for a Democrat." These kind of harsh partisan opinions only increase the divide between the two parties, a divide that many Americans (like me) find increasingly disturbing.

Now, I'm not saying that one shouldn't express these opinions. I'm just saying that they're ineffective political tools. Usually when I engage in a discussion, I present my opinion in a calm, well-reasoned, intelligent, manner, as you often do. I try to find areas of agreement on the complexities of issues, because that's where we can find effective solutions - not from partisan bumper stickers.

I recognize issues can be emotional. But, you should recognize that you're not doing "your side" any good by reacting in a knee-jerk way. Pretty much by now, everyone thinks Bush lied or that he didn't. That's the kind of black-and-white, political, partisan issue that doesn't leave much room for reasoned debate. If someone is convinced one way on that issue, there's probably little one can do to change their minds. I happen to think he didn't lie, just that he was a moron, approximately a sixteenth the man his father was. That's probably why I voted for H.W. and not for Shrub.

Please, let's try to focus on policy issues that we can change rather than opinions on past events. Whether he did or didn't lie, there's nothing we can do about it now. Even if the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress, there's no chance either body would vote to impeach or convict him on the available evidence. Simply not going to happen. So we vote in Congressional elections this year, and we wait for our next Presidential election - AKA the "Let's-Get-It-Right-This-Time" election - and try to find better candidates in both parties.

It's when I get into back-and-forths like this that I'm reminded of one of my favorite speeches:

"As an American, I condemn a Republican 'Fascist' as much as a Democrat 'Communist'. I condemn a Democrat 'Fascist' as much as I condemn a Republican 'Communist'. They are equally dangerous to you and to me and to our country. "
And later: "It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom."

When were these words spoken, and by whom? On June 1, 1950, by Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, in response to the tactics of her Republican colleague from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy. Unfortunately, her words are rapidly becoming applicable today, as well. We seem not to have learned a lesson.

So shall we drop the pointless debate about who insulted whom and try to get back on track with a civil discussion? Neither of us is going to roll over and say, "Yes, you're right, I was a terrible poster in the past couple pages." So let's both just get past it and recreate a reasonable debate on this thread while we still can - we probably only have a couple pages left.

Except for one simple fact.


Bush IS a Fascist.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

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. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

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 is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

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 leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.




Copyright © 2003 Free Inquiry magazine
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.

Just because ONE PhD writes some obscure article that can't even get published in a academic or scholary journal does not make it factual.

What Dr. Britt is doing is creating the criteria and trying to shoehorn the Bush administration into the description he puts forth.

What a crock of donkey bollocks.


Since when was being a patriot part of facism? A patriot as defined by Merriam-webster.com is "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."
And there is nothing wrong with flags. They have been popular since 9/11 and the brilliant Dr. Lawrence Britt is not pointing out anything we don't already know.



Yes I approve of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
Yes I think torture may be necessary to ferret out terrorist cells
Yes long incarcerations are a good thing for criminals

Once again Dr. Britt is simply adding what already exists into his definition of a facist state.



Hell fucking yea we are in patriotic frenzy - a terrorist attacked us on our own soil destroying the World Trade Towers and killing thousands.
Let's declare war on terrorism and get those filthy terrorist where ever they may hide.



Wide spread domestic problems?? I don't recall Carter having a larger wellfare budget than defense. Nor do I recall Clinton starting any wonderous programs to clean up the streats of the U.S.
The size of our military is nothing but manifest destiny given our history of technological development.
What's wrong with glamorizing our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines? They are dying for our freedoms!!



4 words: Condi Rice, Colin Powell.
Clinton and Carter didn't place black people in powerful positions during their administration. Was that facist of them?
So being against abortion is a sign of facism? Since when?


The Bush administration has zero pull over the media.
The media is not sympathetic towards the Bush administration.
What censorship?????


Jeebus... Our national security was compromised when terrorist took over 4 jets and flew them into the ground and buildings. We have thousands of cargo carriers coming into our country that are never searched. If we were obsessed with national security, surely we would be doing something at the major ports about containers being shipped into the u.s.
Reminding people that we are in a war against terrorism is not using fear as a motivational tool, its called being a realist.


Ya, I recall John Kerry "God blessing" the country in his speeches as well.
Unfortunately Bush is heavy into his christianity, and that makes him or our country facist?


Now, how was Enron protected? How was Martha Stewart protected? What corporate powers are being shielded from governet regulation/scrutiny?
Enron grew under the Clinton administration. NAFTA happened on Clintons watch.



How has Bush suppressed Labor Unions in the U.S.??
Clinton drove businesses into the hands of India, China, Korea, Mexico under the guise of "out sourcing" and once again... NAFTA.


Uh yea..the education police are trying to stop me from pursuing my masters in poli-sci...Oh no, what shall i do?
What freedom of expression in the arts has been attacked by this current administration? If I recall correctly, it was Tipper Gore who made the big push for the v-chip/clipper chip.


Police have limitless power? Not in this country... See they carry these silly little camera's on their cruisers dashboard that film everything they do which has help reduce police brutality significantly.
The government hasn't increased the minimum sentencing for felonies like they did under the Clinton administration.


Uhm, if i became president I'd be appointing my qualified friends to government positions. Friends do that.




Do you hear that sound? It's the dead horse you are beating.

There has been no election fraud.

Dr. Britt needs to get published in real publications.. at least academic pubs.

Briana Dawson

Did you get the point of anything I wrote? Did you even read it? You're only calling him a fascist becaus you disagree with him politically, and it's a despicable tactic. Nothing you say can convince me otherwise. I have no reason not to think that - it's the simplest explanation. It would be like a conservative calling Clinton a Communist.

I find it personally insulting and offensive, moreover, to apply this label to someone like Bush because it, on this Memorial Day, demeans the sacrifice made by people like my grandfather, who died fighting real fascists.

I do find it interesting, though, that you seem so fascianted with a point like this and not a legitimate one like his total lack of an envrionmental policy, his bigotry against gays, his lack of concern for women's health, his mad inflationary spending, his unwavering support for an extremely flawed judicial system in Texas.....need I go on? Pick a real issue and train your interest in that direction.

I don't need to engage in pointless partisan bickering. I'd like to discuss real issues, on reasonable terms, not engage in endless juvenile name-calling that only serves to add to the vitriole already in politics. But if you like negativity and partisan fighting, if you think there's not enough of it, you go right ahead with this whole fascist thing.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. He is already positioning himself as a moderate, and, if you look carefully into how he first became elected to Congress, you will see that he has a certain, um, built-in advantage.

I'll have to read up on his record in Nebraska.

I think I would prefer John McCain unless Chuck takes a strong stance on the Middle-East and with Iran and maintains the doctrine of pre-emption.

EDIT: After reading up on his record, I have come to the conclusion that I could never vote for Chuck.

Briana Dawson

Bush is a Fascist. Deal with it.

Bush is a Fascist, Deal with it.

LOL

What a reply. Very intelligent.

Briana Dawson

ain't it thoiugh --by the way --kudos for you to at least attempt to do something Toni won't do --which is point out why you believe Bush isn't a fascist.

FWIW I admire the effort, even though I disagree with you.

How is this NOT Bush. Anyone?

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy
Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.

The issue is not whether these arbitrary categories apply to Bush; the issue is whether these categories apply to so many people that considering them a definition of fascism is silly.


All political candidates in America try to appeal to many diverse groups to get elected. I don't think trying to be diverse is fascist. Moreover, I think Bush has tried to appeal to less different groups than most Presidents; if anything he's zeroed in on his conservative base to win elections. By this category, Clinton and Reagan were far more fascist than Bush.


I haven't seen that Bush has glorified "the state" more than any other President. Every President tries to increase the power of the Executive while they're in office, even those who previously served in Congress and fought to limit the power of the Executive. It's perfectly natural, not the result of a grand conspiracy - this is why we have separate branches of government, and elections, in the United States.


Uh-huh. Yeah, this past week there's been a controversy over whether the FBI can raid Congressional offices, with the President's conservative allies standing up with liberals in the House to say the FBI crossed the line. That's like a "total state" how?


This is also part of, you know, capitalism. It's a part of a lot of political philosophies, liberal and conservattive, democratic and undemocratic. Believing in social Darwinism doesn't automatically make you fascist.


Bush has launched less military operations, and sent U.S. troops to less countries, than the previous President. While more have died in Iraq than in the previous Administration's military actions, that implies incompetence, not fascism. If sending troops abroad a lot implies fascism, then Reagan and Clinton were both more fascist than Bush. Also, whether you think it was correct or not, Bush's military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan were a response to those nation's actions; they didn't come out of the blue. If Bush suddenly invaded, say, Mexico, you might have a point.

An island of reason in a sea of jingoism.

I <3 Toni.

Thanks, hon! I try. I'm never fond of partisan hatred, however it's focused.

Why didn't you post the other element of Facism listed on that website where you snagged the first and second elements of facism..

I guess I will post it:

Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and “the will.”
------- I grabbed that here: http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/search/search.php?word=fascism

The above passage I think speaks for itself. Not only do the first and second passages not apply to the Bush administration, the third paragraph is 10,000 miles off the mark.

Briana Dawson

Bricka bracka firecracker sis boom ba - jingosim jingosim rah rah rah!!

Briana Dawson

Do you understand what this paragraph is attempting to convey? It states, that an element of fascism can be found in a leader that provides "salvation" from democracy by enforcing through authoritarian powers minority views (the "highest ideals of the nation" on a populace. The author is esoterically stating that an element of fascism is autocracy. Does this apply to the Bush administration? Absolutely.

However, that is beside the point, as you used an obtuse paragraph to deflect Kendra's assertion that the Bush administration has fascist leanings. I'd like to see you address those points instead of running from the issue.


Further, I would state that the administration is by definition fascist leaning: Just as I came to terms with being a Socialist years back, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that you and your favored style of government very well might lean towards the fascist. If you can't overcome the stigma that accompanies that label, call yourself what you want (conservative, religious-right), however it doesn't change its nature.

~Ulrika~

Only if you believe in the Gospel According to Kendra.


You're right, 'cause I for one haven't been able to vote in five years.


Just because you decided you were out of the political mainstream in America doesn't mean that someone who opposes you is. There is such a thing as, you know, moderation. Look it up some time.

Nobody has yet to tell me how someone who has twice stood for election, has had to deal with an independently elected Congress, an independent and often hostile media, and who has a strong opposition party can possibly be considered a fascist.

Do you think if Bush were really fascist they'd let Cindy Sheehan stage anti-war protests outside his home? You think Jews staged protests outside Hitler's home in Nazi Germany? Give me a break.

Whatever he believe in private, his actions and statements in public do not reflect this view, unless you're a partisan Democrat who needs one more thing to bang him over the head with. I for one am more concerned with Bush's total lack of an environmental policy, his madcap fiscal policies, his ineffective foreign policy, and his anti-gay and anti-woman policies than I am whether or not I can justify labelling him fascist. People who don't like Bush should spend time concerned about those issues rather than obsessing with this garbage.

By focusing on things like this, you're actually helping the man in multiple ways. I hope you all realize that.

Only if you believe in the Gospel According to Kendra.

The state of being facist is not digital rather it is analog. Neoconservative fascists exsist in the same way that moderate republicans exist -- by varying degrees and number. I'm sorry your entire post was based upon a false supposition.

~Ulrika~

Which IMHO (and yes I am a Republican) would make him the best choice for the next batch of elections.

Bush was too hard line. You have to bend a bit at some point in order to keep people from raging as they have...