|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Compassion and humanism were a virtue
And what is the revolution, World Revolution? Well, maybe...
But there's another type of revolution, facing everyday struggles like those of the poorly paid workers at the factories, or those of the cyclists who are discriminated on our Darwinistic roads... It's the revolution that starts like a wheel revolving around its axis, practical and natural... "Life in the sea may never be the same. Nor will life be in the factories. Join the Union!" (sharks beware!) http://www.zazzle.com/the_big_fish_s...46719847173049 WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
there's hope
On Jan 15, 9:54*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote: Mr. Robert Hunt wrote: On Jan 12, 8:33 am, Tom Sherman wrote: Stephen Harding wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: donquijote1954 ??? wrote: ... *Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic, non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with social and ecological awareness. However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning out of the darkness.... Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy. With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so openly in public? You're obviously a very brave person. Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard. I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment. No, I ignored it. * Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England, Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio. Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back at you? I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up. * It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident. Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several countries friendly to the neocon agenda. Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of evidence of any such conspiracy. * Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they took full advantage of its occurrence politically. Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of 9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for. I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic of introducing a "strawman". * Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so* good that it left no evidence, right? * Guess what you want about the strawman. * BTW, why not stop hiding behind the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you mean? Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or corporate power with political power) government has come into power, with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The "representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections. Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. Regards, Bob Hunt |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
there's hope
Bob Hunt wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:54 pm, Tom Sherman wrote: Mr. Robert Hunt wrote: On Jan 12, 8:33 am, Tom Sherman wrote: Stephen Harding wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: donquijote1954 ??? wrote: ... Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic, non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with social and ecological awareness. However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning out of the darkness.... Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy. With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so openly in public? You're obviously a very brave person. Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard. I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment. No, I ignored it. Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England, Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio. Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back at you? I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up. It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident. Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several countries friendly to the neocon agenda. Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of evidence of any such conspiracy. Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they took full advantage of its occurrence politically. Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of 9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for. I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic of introducing a "strawman". Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so* good that it left no evidence, right? Guess what you want about the strawman. BTW, why not stop hiding behind the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you mean? Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or corporate power with political power) government has come into power, with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The "representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections. Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they are more likely to stay in power. The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people are kept too small to have any real influence. The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
there's hope
On Jan 16, 10:36*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote: Bob Hunt wrote: On Jan 15, 9:54 pm, Tom Sherman wrote: Mr. Robert Hunt wrote: On Jan 12, 8:33 am, Tom Sherman wrote: Stephen Harding wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: donquijote1954 ??? wrote: ... *Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic, non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with social and ecological awareness. However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning out of the darkness.... Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy. With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so openly in public? You're obviously a very brave person. Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard. I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment. No, I ignored it. * Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England, Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio. Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back at you? I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up. * It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident. Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several countries friendly to the neocon agenda. Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of evidence of any such conspiracy. Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they took full advantage of its occurrence politically. Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of 9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for. I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic of introducing a "strawman". * Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so* good that it left no evidence, right? Guess what you want about the strawman. * BTW, why not stop hiding behind the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you mean? Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or corporate power with political power) government has come into power, with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The "representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections. Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of * a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they are more likely to stay in power. The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people are kept too small to have any real influence. The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I subscribe to this "make believe" theory. Funny, communism too had a "democratic system" in which nearly eveybody voted for "the party." Perhaps they were more "perfect" or more "crude" in the show, but eventually everything (the lie) came crumbling down. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
there's hope
On Jan 16, 9:36*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote: Bob Hunt wrote: Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of * a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they are more likely to stay in power. The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people are kept too small to have any real influence. The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text - Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy? A- None. Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork doesn't leave a bad aftertaste. Bye, Bob Hunt |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
there's hope
Mr. Robert Hunt wrote:
On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman wrote: Bob Hunt wrote: Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they are more likely to stay in power. The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people are kept too small to have any real influence. The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows. Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy? A- None. Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork doesn't leave a bad aftertaste. Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy. Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
there's hope
On Jan 19, 11:15*am, Tom Sherman
wrote: Mr. Robert Hunt wrote: On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman wrote: Bob Hunt wrote: Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of * a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they are more likely to stay in power. The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people are kept too small to have any real influence. The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows. Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy? A- None. Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork doesn't leave a bad aftertaste. Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy. Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist. As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without relying on implication and innuendo? You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has "won". Bob Hunt |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Here are 14 points that Bush meets to qualify as a Fascist
On Jan 21, 3:53*am, Bob wrote:
On Jan 19, 11:15*am, Tom Sherman wrote: Mr. Robert Hunt wrote: On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman wrote: Bob Hunt wrote: Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of * a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they are more likely to stay in power. The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people are kept too small to have any real influence. The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows. Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy? A- None. Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork doesn't leave a bad aftertaste. Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy. Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist. As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without relying on implication and innuendo? You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has "won". Bob Hunt- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Here are 14 points that Bush meets to qualify as a Fascist... For example: 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. http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm It's very interesting, and I'd say he's as fascist as he can be while still having the democratic camouflage. Yet I prefer to qualify this system as Darwinistic, with no other ideology than profit and money. It even deals with Communist China! No sel-respecting Fascist would have done that. The perfect metaphor for it is THE HUNGRY LION! |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
there's hope
Mr. Robert Hunt wrote:
On Jan 19, 11:15 am, Tom Sherman wrote: Mr. Robert Hunt wrote: On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman wrote: Bob Hunt wrote: Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling! Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly. That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they are more likely to stay in power. The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people are kept too small to have any real influence. The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows. Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy? A- None. Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork doesn't leave a bad aftertaste. Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy. Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Will someone at Google fix this!!! Ignoring the signature separator and "Hide quoted text" and "Show quoted text" in the reply. Sheesh!!! The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist. Not everybody will fit in a concentration camp. Only those who mobilize others to a point that threatens the establishment are disposed of, whether in prisons (through false charges), mental institutions or assassination (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. - highly appropriate example for today's posting). As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without relying on implication and innuendo? You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has "won". ---- 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 homo-sexuality 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 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. ---- The US currently meets criteria numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 to near full extent, and numbers 10 to 12 to a partial extent. Number 5 is in the agenda of many of the politicians and judges currently in power. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hand driven Unicycle | fontiminal | Unicycling | 15 | December 11th 08 11:45 AM |
What would the Devil have driven? | donquijote1954 | General | 109 | January 22nd 08 03:28 AM |
chain driven question | tjheller | Unicycling | 7 | November 8th 06 08:02 AM |
Chain driven dynamo? | Chris Eilbeck | UK | 8 | September 28th 06 06:36 PM |
Chain driven question | glopal | Unicycling | 5 | September 13th 03 02:04 PM |