[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Astonishingly liberal Donny, you have to admit this is some pretty ****ed up ****. I don't think we're being Chicken Little, I think that all the sudden, in the last four years, our country has taken a dramatic and accelerated turn towards fascism, and this flag burning law is revving even more on the gas pedal. We are not there yet, and I doubt we ever will be, but the speed at which we have suddenly gone down that road (and are continuing down on it) is truly frightening.

That's like saying that if I turn to go north on the interstate, it's scary how fast I'm going to Canada. Is it possible I could be going to Canada? Sure, but is it reasonable to think so? Probably not, unless you have some really stinking good evidence to suggest I would be going to Canada.

Similarly, we have this situation. Yes, the neo-cons have made moves that go in the direction of fascism. Does that mean they are trying to set up an empire, though? Come on, be reasonable. It is a heck of a lot more likely that they are just pursuing their neo-con idealogies, which only end up in fascism is they are taken to the absolute extreme.

This brings me to another point. These things only end up in fascism is abused and taken farther than the present neo-cons believe they should be taken (if you tell me Bush is an aspiring an emperor, I am not arguing with you). Sure, if we take them too far, they end up fascism, but we can take the other side's principles too far and end up in socialism, or, in the case of more libertarian minded people, anarchy. Does that mean all democrats are socialists and all libertarians anarchists? No, and to say otherwise is intellectually irresponsible.

Finally, we have the issue of this specific example. Is this flag-burning law a fascist law? Depending on the definition of fascist, probably. It is impeded on Constitutional rights, it would seem, and I think it's absurd. However, just because a government does something that is fascist does not mean the government itself is fascist. If I do something selfish, does that mean I am overall a selfish person? If I act like an _______ on certain occasions, boes that necessarily mean I am an _______? While I would oppose this law vehemently, it is simply going too far to compare the government, as a whole, to fascism. It's the good ol', "The commies do that, and you do, too, so you must be a commie" logic, which is simply moronic. I would actually argue that this law shows that we are not under a fascist government, given how much we have reacted against it. It is out of place. It doesn't seem American. Why? Because American isn't fascist.

Originally Posted by Jerry

So no, I think that it's not particularly similar to Nazi Germany, so much as it is similar to modern Iran, or China (only neither of those countries has invaded anyone recently... perhaps Soviet-era Russia?)

When the government starts persecuting certain religions, you come back to me and tell me that. I can't believe you just said that America's government is similar to Iran or China.

[JerryLove]

When the government starts persecuting certain religions, you come back to me and tell me that. I can't believe you just said that America's government is similar to Iran or China.

You mean like the "who to flag" database for commercial airlines that flags people with arab names? Or perhaps you mean like the use of fraternal, theistic statements added to the pledge, the money, and traditionally in oath of non-purgery.

Then there's the move to ID and Creationism in some governmental institutions, the general lack of effort on the government to protect Wiccans and other "unChristian" religions from religious persecution, etc.

Then again, I'm not aware that Soviet Russa was religiously discriminitory; so I'm unsure how "persecution of religion" is neccessairy for a parallel. I would think secret courts, detainment without habius corpus, secret searches without warrant, etc would be a good case.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Danny

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html

Ummm... Is anyone else just a little concerned about the implications of this bill? I mean, I'm not exactly pro-flag-burning, but when the government bans a completely harmless form of protest, based (I guess?) on some sort of ideal that the government is above criticism/disrespect/whatever.... Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a free nation doing something like this? Since when is un-patriotism a punishable offense?? The more I think about it, the more this amendment deeply disturbs me. I really hope it doesn't pass through Senate.

I would not burn a flag except as disposal. Too many I have known have died for it to do that. But I am really disturbed by this. Its very clearly unconstitutional, and I don't like it when exceptions start to be made. Because that opens the door to all things being reviewed, and we could end up much like france, where fear of Islam, has barred the wearing of overt religious symbolism.

For the record, I am not opposed to US Policy consistently, but I do not like this one little bit, though I think we are hardly fascist as a government. We are missing two major components to be widespread. (The myth of heroic origins, and the charismatic leader to bring us back to our rightful position)

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You mean like the "who to flag" database for commercial airlines that flags people with arab names? Or perhaps you mean like the use of fraternal, theistic statements added to the pledge, the money, and traditionally in oath of non-purgery.

Then there's the move to ID and Creationism in some governmental institutions, the general lack of effort on the government to protect Wiccans and other "unChristian" religions from religious persecution, etc.

Then again, I'm not aware that Soviet Russa was religiously discriminitory; so I'm unsure how "persecution of religion" is neccessairy for a parallel. I would think secret courts, detainment without habius corpus, secret searches without warrant, etc would be a good case.

My first name is classed middle eastern by those computers... Its slightly annoying. I mean I get searched every time I go to an airport, but thats just part of life.

If you are complaining about the 100 year old deistic references to God on money and the pledge and oaths... That is old tradition, nothing more.

The move to inteligent design and an honest teaching of evolution need to be made. Basically, evolution has gotten a pass that other theories have not, and they need to be taught as objectively as possible.

I am wondering where you get that wiccans, and other religions do not get equal protection under the law. I think that sounds rather propagandized unless you have some facts to back up this claim.

[Art]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I would not burn a flag except as disposal. Too many I have known have died for it to do that. But I am really disturbed by this. Its very clearly unconstitutional, and I don't like it when exceptions start to be made. Because that opens the door to all things being reviewed, and we could end up much like france, where fear of Islam, has barred the wearing of overt religious symbolism.

For the record, I am not opposed to US Policy consistently, but I do not like this one little bit, though I think we are hardly fascist as a government. We are missing two major components to be widespread. (The myth of heroic origins, and the charismatic leader to bring us back to our rightful position)

Nobody I know of has died for a flag.

The country it represents? Yes.

I also would never burn a flag except for disposal.

[JerryLove]

My first name is classed middle eastern by those computers... Its slightly annoying. I mean I get searched every time I go to an airport, but thats just part of life.

It's not part of life in Canada.

If you are complaining about the 100 year old deistic references to God on money and the pledge and oaths... That is old tradition, nothing more.

The words "under God" were added to the pledge in 1954 after a short campaign by a Christian group (the Knights of Columbus). That's 51 years, not 100.

God was added to some coinage back in 1837, with the emphasis "our God" pressed by the Secretary of the Tresury Salmon P. Chase.

But it's not simply "an old tradition upheld" either. It was ADDED to paper money by an act of congress in 1957 (48 years ago).

Further "In God We Trust" Was made the national motto of the US by that same act.

The move to inteligent design and an honest teaching of evolution need to be made. Basically, evolution has gotten a pass that other theories have not, and they need to be taught as objectively as possible.

There is no support whatsoever for ID. It is pure speuclation. It makes no predictions, and cannot be tested for. When asked recently bt the PA legislature "when did it occur", Behe himself had no answer to give.

I am wondering where you get that wiccans, and other religions do not get equal protection under the law. I think that sounds rather propagandized unless you have some facts to back up this claim.

Did I say "unequal"? I don't believe I did. In this case I'm complaining about government complacency in regards to religious descrimination. I can give you a half-dozen anticdotes which made national news.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You mean like the "who to flag" database for commercial airlines that flags people with arab names? Or perhaps you mean like the use of fraternal, theistic statements added to the pledge, the money, and traditionally in oath of non-purgery.

Then there's the move to ID and Creationism in some governmental institutions, the general lack of effort on the government to protect Wiccans and other "unChristian" religions from religious persecution, etc.

Then again, I'm not aware that Soviet Russa was religiously discriminitory; so I'm unsure how "persecution of religion" is neccessairy for a parallel. I would think secret courts, detainment without habius corpus, secret searches without warrant, etc would be a good case.

Bill responded well, but a couple points:

I was referring to the religious persecution in places like China and Iran, not Cold War era Russia.
The issues surrounding national security and the freedoms being forfeited there are of a different nature than that of the Soviet Union. We don't have a secret police established to keep the neo-cons in power. We don't have purges. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the logic behind the examples you cited our government doing, but they are of an entirely different nature. The neo-cons are trying to protect America from terrorist attack, Stalin was keeping up his fascist regime. It may be that the neo-cons are going too far, but their intentions are not even close, and thus I find your comparison illegitimate and unnecessarily rhetorical.

[JerryLove]

We don't have a secret police established to keep the neo-cons in power.

Who tampered with the polls in Ohio? There's quite the group, both covert and overy keping the neo-cons in power.

As to other "secret police" actions, take a look at the patriot act. As if the DEA wasn't bad enough before the Patriot act, take a look at instancice like Watauga County district attorney Jerry Wilson, who has prosedcuted drug-dealers as posessing WMDs under it.

Then there's the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, whcih grants the FBI unprecedented power to obtain records from financial institutions without requiring permission from a judge.

Under the law, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to access such records, nor does it need to prove just cause.

And the law broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships.

The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions.

We don't have purges. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the logic behind the examples you cited our government doing, but they are of an entirely different nature.

Everything is differnt, that's why they are not the same. Don't forget that all of their laws were written in Russian/Chinese/Arabic... very different from us.

The neo-cons are trying to protect America from terrorist attack, Stalin was keeping up his fascist regime.

Iran is trying to protect the Iranians from moral and religious perversion by the outside, China is attempting to protect tranquility and national unity as well as protect their way of life. Stalin did much of what he did to advance Russia, and help them survive in a hostile time. Remember, he had enemy nations all around.

If Orwell wrote another book on facism in the US, he'd likely use in parody what we've swallowed whole (that disagreeing with the president is "unpatriotic" and that we should sacrifice our freedom for safety (when you do that, you loose both))

It may be that the neo-cons are going too far, but their intentions are not even close, and thus I find your comparison illegitimate and unnecessarily rhetorical.

So you are categorically asserting that neo-con politicians are not acting to secure or advance their power or wealth; but purely in philanthropic generosity?

[Qingu]

If this amendment passes, I am going to go into business making and selling American flag rolling paper. I bet I could make a fortune!

[grand_master_d]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Who tampered with the polls in Ohio? There's quite the group, both covert and overy keping the neo-cons in power.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry... I think you're an intelligent man, I agree with a lot of what you say... and when I don't, I still respect your stance. But this! When I hear this crap it just makes me... wonder. The fact is, the Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because they had idiots for candidates. No conspiracies, buddy.

[grand_master_d]

Originally Posted by Qingu

If this amendment passes, I am going to go into business making and selling American flag rolling paper. I bet I could make a fortune!

I would never burn a flag... if you look closely, you can even see there is a flag on my super cool stocking cap... but if this passed, I just may burn one in protest of this "ammendment".

(What is it with this 'constitutional ammendment' thing lately? Is it the latest trend? It seems like everyone wants to do it for one reason or another.)

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's not part of life in Canada.

*rolls eyes*

Im not moving to frickin' Canada over getting stopped at the airport, checked, having my bags checked, and getting checked for Nitrates. Its annoying, but I fly maybe twice a year, totals maybe 30 minutes of my time a year...

The words "under God" were added to the pledge in 1954 after a short campaign by a Christian group (the Knights of Columbus). That's 51 years, not 100.

Remove it for all I care, I don't pledge my allegiance to a flag anyway.

God was added to some coinage back in 1837, with the emphasis "our God" pressed by the Secretary of the Tresury Salmon P. Chase.

In the US I believe it was added in 1864 to the 2 cent piece as the first US coin to read in God we trust. That is to what I was reffering as an old tradition. Now I am curious as to what currency had it in 1837.

There is no support whatsoever for ID. It is pure speuclation. It makes no predictions, and cannot be tested for. When asked recently bt the PA legislature "when did it occur", Behe himself had no answer to give.

If you are correct, the subject should be breached and the pros and cons taught, if there are no pros, that would be a pretty short segment... But we both know there are flaws in evolution as presented. There are issues of intellectual honesty that are flat out ignored in textbooks on the subject of evolution.

And when did the singularity occur precisely? I seem to recall that number changing routinely.

Did I say "unequal"? I don't believe I did. In this case I'm complaining about government complacency in regards to religious descrimination. I can give you a half-dozen anticdotes which made national news.

I think Wicca is down on the totem pole of discriminated against religions. Islam has that in the bag right now.

[+Donny]

Who tampered with the polls in Ohio? There's quite the group, both covert and overy keping the neo-cons in power.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

As to other "secret police" actions, take a look at the patriot act. As if the DEA wasn't bad enough before the Patriot act, take a look at instancice like Watauga County district attorney Jerry Wilson, who has prosedcuted drug-dealers as posessing WMDs under it.

Then there's the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, whcih grants the FBI unprecedented power to obtain records from financial institutions without requiring permission from a judge.

Under the law, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to access such records, nor does it need to prove just cause.

And the law broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships.

The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions.

This all falls under the category of what I was talking about. Again, I highly doubt what we have is legitimately comparable to the Russian secret police, which I'm sure anyone who has researched the Soviet Union could tell you (I haven't, but if I have to in order to show how absurd your comparison is, I will).

Everything is differnt, that's why they are not the same. Don't forget that all of their laws were written in Russian/Chinese/Arabic... very different from us.

Looking at financial records is nothing compared to purges, and you know that.

Iran is trying to protect the Iranians from moral and religious perversion by the outside, China is attempting to protect tranquility and national unity as well as protect their way of life. Stalin did much of what he did to advance Russia, and help them survive in a hostile time. Remember, he had enemy nations all around.

There is perverse and immoral reasoning behind all all of that. In the case of Iran, their absurd religious zeal causes them to persecute other religions. In the case of China and Russian, their communism results in absolute moral atrocities. Yes, you can word their justification in a way that sounds good, but the essence of it is not righteous. In the case of neo-con idealogy, they are geniunely trying to protect American from attack. The threat from terrorists is actual. People lose their lives to terrorist attacks. The threat of moral and religious perversion in Iran is not.

If Orwell wrote another book on facism in the US, he'd likely use in parody what we've swallowed whole (that disagreeing with the president is "unpatriotic" and that we should sacrifice our freedom for safety (when you do that, you loose both))

I have never once heard the claim that it is unpatriotic to disagree with the president. The idea of sacrificing freedoms for safety is the basis of natural law theory, which this government was founded on.

So you are categorically asserting that neo-con politicians are not acting to secure or advance their power or wealth; but purely in philanthropic generosity?

Their drive to do things in order to secure power or wealth is not anymore than any other politicians in the mix. They just happen to be succeeding, it would seem.

[JerryLove]

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry... I think you're an intelligent man, I agree with a lot of what you say... and when I don't, I still respect your stance. But this! When I hear this crap it just makes me... wonder. The fact is, the Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because they had idiots for candidates. No conspiracies, buddy.

I saw the head of the DNC on TV last night talking about voters in predominately black areas of Ohio getting carded for ID (illegal in OH), and consistantly longer waits at polling booths in such neighborhoods.

Election tampering happens in every election (and from all sides). The question is whether the tampering was of a higher level than normal, and whether said tampering resulted in a different outcome than would have occured under neutral elections.

Never think that there isn't more in a campaign than an honest attempt to get people to see your policy and why its the right one... that's just reality.

(What is it with this 'constitutional ammendment' thing lately? Is it the latest trend? It seems like everyone wants to do it for one reason or another.)

because we are trying to inact into law something which has already been deemed unconstitutional.

[grand_master_d]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Their drive to do things in order to secure power or wealth is not anymore than any other politicians in the mix. They just happen to be succeeding, it would seem.

Hmmm... maybe this is a really good point. I like it.