[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Danny

The wording is simple

Indeed it is - this would lead me to then choose between #1 & #2 of my options. I don't see how they can twist that wording to threaten me too greatly - but, it could be a first step toward greater measures. You can get us used to little things and build up to great ones (like how Kelly Clarkson keeps jumping genres album to album).

[adamwagg]

Honestly I can never figure out this whole burning flag thing anyway. Who cares enough about the flag to actually burn it (well obviously people over there do, but not here) It just seems a waste of money to buy something and then burn it like that. Perhaps I am not patriotic enough, but my allegience is to my country mates not my flag or PM or that stuff, and I think I would probably get in trouble if i started to burn them.

[JerryLove]

The issue is degree and relevancy. For example, when comparing Hitler and Stalin as fascists, pointing out a difference in hair color or height doesn't indicate that one was a fascist, and therefore the other one wasn't, because fascism has nothing to do with hair color or height. Obvious an extreme example, but it is not simply a matter of pointing out similarities, but pointing out relevant similarities. The fact that Bush supports the death of people and Stalin supported the death of people is not a good way to compare them because the people and the reason for their deaths are so completely different. I am trying to say that the differences contextually outweight the similarities, making the comparison weak as evidence.

~Sigh~

I could sit and point out far more signifigant difference between the Nazis and Stalin-Era Soviets (again, I didn't say Stalin, I just said Soviets); including signifigant differences in who they killed and why. The *point* is that there are always differences.

This ammendment is a crackdown on free speech in the name of patriotism / nationalism. This is the same *rhetoric* used by one despot after another in order to abridge freedom.

I'm not attempting to. I'm just evaluating the evidence you have put forth.

In what way does my support not fit my claim, or does another fit it better?

The only stance I am taking is that the evidence I have seen presented here does not seem to support the idea that Bush is fascist. Bad president? Interested in money/oil, in addition to neo-conism? Both possibilities, but fascist? No.

In what post did I claim Bush was a facist?

"And I've not called him [Bush] a facist" - Me - Post 42

Donny. Please stop with the "facist" straw-man.

If you can tell me how oil is linked to fascism

It's not. I've never said it was. Stop with the "facist" straw man.

What does global warming have to do with fascism?

Nothing. Stop with the "facist" straw-man

And why can't it just be that someone screwed up about the WMD intelligence and there was an overreaction based on faulty intelligence?

Becuase Bush said that there was no doubt at all... despite the UN's actual weapons inspectors (and several other countries) calling it faulty.

Further, the invasion plans go back farther than the WMD claims.

What do you think about the revisions that the Bush administration has made on other reports (like global warming)? Do you think that a pattern of taking data and changing it to fit administratoin policy would indicate a tendancy to take data and change it to fit administration policy?

Yes, that part does seem hypocritical, but I'm not about to form an opinion based simply on a surface level look at the situation.

But that's a lie in that you have formed an opinion. You've formed the opinion that my conclusions are false.

Elimination of the opposing political parties. Actually fascist neo-cons. I don't know, but I'm not seeing it.

Even the Nazis had opposing political parties. So did the Soviets, so do the Chinese. I suspect that Saddam had an opponent in his last election... on paper at least.

Again, what about WWII? Furthermore, setting up a democracy is an expected neo-con approach.

WWII was under Clinton?

This began when I responded to someone else who, IIRC, did use the word fascist.

I have not.

This began when I responded to someone else who, IIRC, did use the word fascist.

But what you've also said is that you don't have enough information to form an opinion.

Because there is an alternative explanation that doesn't involve any conspiracy theories and is just overall more moderate and simple, I do not see enough proof to sway me to believe that Bush is an aspiring emperor or a fascist, or whatever.

But when I've asked you to name an alternative explanation, you've not come up with one (not a comprehensive one anyway).

Nor have you defined and defended what "normal neo-con" is, nor whether it is tantamount to my claims.

Furthermore, I find the comparisons to people like Hitler and Stalin illegitimate because of how much the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities.

It all depends on what parts you are comparing.

All the comparison shows is that neo-conism has some things in similar to horrific examples of fascism, but the differences mean that one must horribly abuse neo-conism to bring it to that level, as neo-conism opposes what makes those fascist leaders so horrible (persecution, death, purges, etc.).

I'm not clear that neo-conservativism opposes that at all. We've had prisoners get tortured to death, we have prisoners held with no habius corpus, we've invaded and occupied a country (or two), with little apparent regard for the people involved (much of the power in Afghanistan is in the hands of the same people it was before the war, except now they are drug-lords).

Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, this country was founded in part on the idea that one gives up freedoms for safey, so just because Hitler used that reasoning to justify his abuses doesn't mean the reasoning itself is wrong. Some things that can be abused can also be used properly and for good.

Where do you get the idea that the US was founded on such a way? Show me the part of the constitution or declaration that sacrifices freedom for safety.

[Grasshopper359]

I'm not clear that neo-conservativism opposes that at all. We've had prisoners get tortured to death, we have prisoners held with no habius corpus, we've invaded and occupied a country (or two),

The Bush Administration does do a lot of winking and nodding when it comes to things like this, such as looking the other way as a profiteering arms dealer set out to make his fortune by arming anti-insurgant groups (essentially, members of the former security services who had found themselves unemployed when the services were disbanded)(Source: Washington Monthly, June 2005) or handing the most senior soldier convincted in relation to Abu Ghraib eight years in prison. in 1995, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded for less. Or calling detainees of the former Iraqi and Afghan National Armies "terrorists" rather than "prisoners of war", which would have accorded them certain protections under the 3rd Geneva Convention...

What I see is a mix of ideology, idealism and self-interest wherein the neo-cons genuinely believe that the ends justify the means, and that when the dust settles, everybody will be happier; Iraqis will have a free and democratic goverment, American businesses will rebuild Iraq, trade will resume and both countries will prosper. Exclusive access to oil and drilling rights is a fair price for ridding Iraq of Saddam. Terrorists will think twice about attacking America, Americans will be safer, etc.

Unfortunately, the element missing from that equation is reality. They've been operating in a perpetual state of revery since this affair began, having their campagn run by recruits from think-tanks rather than those who were politically experienced in the area in question. They're a Young-Turk-type crowd who appear to think that they're clever enough and tough enough to make the world (but more specifically, Iraqis) see things from their perspective. And I think that they overestimate their abilities while simultaneously underestimating Iraqi nationalism.

with little apparent regard for the people involved (much of the power in Afghanistan is in the hands of the same people it was before the war, except now they are drug-lords).

Indeed, they're left with no choice. Afghanistan's only other major industry is mining rubies, which the central government has banned over a dispute over mining rights with the population (the Kirzai government wants all mining operations to be state-owned and operated, and the people are afraid that they'll be shut out when huge foreign operations move in). So the people have a choice of making a living illegally mining rubies, or illegally growing poppies.(Source: Maclean's, 20 June 2005) Add to this the fact that nowhere near the amount of time, effort or money has been put forward to rebuild Afghanistan, which is in much worse shape than Iraq ever was, leads me to believe that at least in the rebuilding phase, economic self-interest is much more the motivating factor than an altruistic desire to help fellow human beings.

[+Donny]

~Sigh~

I could sit and point out far more signifigant difference between the Nazis and Stalin-Era Soviets (again, I didn't say Stalin, I just said Soviets); including signifigant differences in who they killed and why. The *point* is that there are always differences.

This ammendment is a crackdown on free speech in the name of patriotism / nationalism. This is the same *rhetoric* used by one despot after another in order to abridge freedom.

Okay, in this, yes, I agree. I probably overreacted against you because I was initially responding to someone using the words like "fascist" to describe the neo-con administration. Some of the things they are doing are comparable to fascism, yes, but the administration as a whole is not legitimately comparable to fascism overall.

In what way does my support not fit my claim, or does another fit it better?

Your suggestions seemed to imply some big neo-con conspiracy to overthrow the present system of government and establish a fascist regime that steals everyone's oil and creates puppet democracies all over the place. This is exaggeration, yes, but still, I thought what seemed to be your suggestion was pretty far-fetched.

In what post did I claim Bush was a facist?

"And I've not called him [Bush] a facist" - Me - Post 42

Donny. Please stop with the "facist" straw-man.


If you can tell me how oil is linked to fascism


It's not. I've never said it was. Stop with the "facist" straw man.


What does global warming have to do with fascism?


Nothing. Stop with the "facist" straw-man

I'm sorry, but the confusion did not come out of nowhere. I initially responded to someone who did use that word, and you responded to me, implying defense of the original post, and that's how this developed. You began by comparing American to modern Iran and China in the context of me objecting to the use of terms like "fascism", so of course I would link what you said to the "fascism" claim. What exactly are you saying, then?

Becuase Bush said that there was no doubt at all... despite the UN's actual weapons inspectors (and several other countries) calling it faulty.

Further, the invasion plans go back farther than the WMD claims.

What do you think about the revisions that the Bush administration has made on other reports (like global warming)? Do you think that a pattern of taking data and changing it to fit administratoin policy would indicate a tendancy to take data and change it to fit administration policy?

I know absolutely nothing about global warming, so I can't comment.

But that's a lie in that you have formed an opinion. You've formed the opinion that my conclusions are false.

No, I am saying the evidence I have seen isn't convincing to me, not that you are necessarily wrong.

Even the Nazis had opposing political parties. So did the Soviets, so do the Chinese. I suspect that Saddam had an opponent in his last election... on paper at least.

"on paper at least" being key. We have free elections. Not perfectly free, but that's impossible.

WWII was under Clinton?

? I wasn't talking about Clinton, but nevermind, I think I'm missing your point.

I'm not clear that neo-conservativism opposes that at all. We've had prisoners get tortured to death, we have prisoners held with no habius corpus, we've invaded and occupied a country (or two), with little apparent regard for the people involved (much of the power in Afghanistan is in the hands of the same people it was before the war, except now they are drug-lords).

I hardly think the administration has supported torture, and reasons for invading those countries were in the name of a spread of human rights and democracy. Yeah, it sounds stupid, but it's not empirical.

Where do you get the idea that the US was founded on such a way? Show me the part of the constitution or declaration that sacrifices freedom for safety.

That was natural law theory. In the state of nature, we have certain freedoms, and in forming a state, we give up certain freedoms for the benefits the state will bring.