Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
GRRRRRRRRRRr
Do you even know what a fascist is rabelais? Or do you believe its ok to just throw around terms ignorantly? Considering your brazilian Peronist comment I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Here's the pertinent definition of fascism from dictionary.com.
"governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism"
A fascist is someone who supports such a system of government (also from dictionary.com).
Calling our present system of government - or the republican party in general fascist fails on at least 4 fronts. First, republicans are opposed to the regimentation of business by the state. Second - our system of government is a representative democracy. You might have heard of checks and balances. Since you say in one breath that Stephens can finally retire it seems you might have heard of the supreme court. Consider that the supreme court has ruled against the govt on numerous occassions (club gitmo, for example) and the congress is held by democrats - the idea that we might have a monolithic central and fascist government is .. well.. ridiculous.
Third - The very fact that the Dem party and 527's will have raised close to a BILLION dollars for this election (far in excess of any other campaign in history) pretty convincingly says that democratic activity is alive and well.
Fourth - no American I know is arguing for anything removal of your right to vote. Or a switch to dictatorship.
I said immature previously, I believe its an appropriate word. You can't just sling terms - it is inappropriate to call political opponents fascists simply because you dislike their politics. Calling people fascists is incendiary, and wrong.
|
Um. Breathe. Again I really shouldn't wade in, but you keep accusing me of idiocy and then using such splendid displays of illogic and grade-school level rhetoric, that I apparently can't resist.
The interesting thing about the current GOP's take on comprehensive authoritarianism is that its not so much about government controlling industry as the reverse. the whole point is to use government to engineer the socialization of risk, while maintaining the privatization of profit. Note the current financial industry bailout for examples. Thus republican scruples (ahem!) are uncompromised, since industry is pitching and the rest of us catching.
Does suppressing opposition, militarism, aggressive nationalism and racism seem to you like they don't describe the current administration?
The intentions of the administration and the current Republican party are antidemocratic, that they have no been entirely successful hardly mean that criticism of them is out of bounds until they get all their DOJ and/or talk radio jackboots in a row.
The imperial executive doesn't care about congress, to the best of its ability, ruling though executive orders and signing statements or extreme legal dubiety. Commander-in-chief is really where its at these days. Does anyone else think the Department of Homeland Security sounds like a bunch of deranged Boers went crazy at the cabinet stationary store?
The supremes got us into this mess and republicans have had the last two appointments, to describe them as a check or balance to Addington et al. is really absurd. The omni-filibuster plus joe Lieberman make democratic congressional "control" a legal fiction. Check back after February after we have 56-58 seats, not counting Holy Joe. It *might* improve, but I'm not confident. Reid is kinda a (yellow+blue= green?)-dog and a schmuck.
Obama has shut down most of the 527's on the democratic side, although they are still being heavily used on the GOP side to evade the public financing restrictions. That Obama has raised serious cash is indeed heartening, whether it will triumph in the face of vote suppression and smearing remains to be seen.
Very few people, not even Lord Voldem... Vice President Cheney or Rudy Giuliani would openly suggest limiting the franchise, they just want to make it harder for certain demographics to make their preferences binding in this time of conveniently perpetual national crisis.
I don't call them fascist because *just* because I dislike their politics... I call them fascist, because... their meta-politics are deeply authoritarian and they appear to be trending toward full-blown fascism with frightening consistency. Their behavior from november 2000 has been grotesquely antidemocratic and anti-constitutional. I will be genuinely relieved and at least a little surprised if bush/cheney leave office will no further wagging of the dog promptly on jan 20.
Besides, I tried calling them *******s for years, but that eventually just seemed wholly inadequate for the horror show they have brought upon the country and world, and unfair to mere garden variety *******s, who lack their insitutional leverage to create misery.
Chris do me a favor, send me your best idea for a MA man pretender for the doedicurus MP game... if I like your ideas I'll stop arguing with you, and if I don't like your ideas, we'll at least have something Dominions related to argue about instead. Deal?
Rabe of the Immature writing--- editing takes WAY too long!
