fascism, does it exist in 21st Century America?

[Polk]

They could have and should have went through a real Chapter 11 so they they could finally put salt on the Leach-like UAW.

That assumes someone would have been willing to finance the process. Furthermore, I love your respect for contracts. The "law and order" of conservatism really comes shining through.

Contracts should not be an economic suicide pact. The UAW is a festering boil on teh US Automotive industry and it must be lanced with we're ever to have a meaningful auto industry in the USA again

So contracts are only valid as long as you like them? Perhaps you should charge a bunch of money on your credit cards and then call them and say you're not going to pay because doing so would be a suicide pact.

 

[Polk]

Now was this action by the government before or after said car companies voluntarily begged said government to bail them out and keep them from going out of business?

Indeed. Frank's retarded analogy only works if all automakers had been nationalized.

LOL

You fucking moron.

Obama got 2 out of three.

What a DICK!

The government owns a stake in General Motors. Ford is still independent. Chrysler was purchased by an Italian automaker.

So how's that two of three?

That's right, you're just talking out your ass again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That assumes someone would have been willing to finance the process. Furthermore, I love your respect for contracts. The "law and order" of conservatism really comes shining through.

Contracts should not be an economic suicide pact. The UAW is a festering boil on teh US Automotive industry and it must be lanced with we're ever to have a meaningful auto industry in the USA again

So contracts are only valid as long as you like them? Perhaps you should charge a bunch of money on your credit cards and then call them and say you're not going to pay because doing so would be a suicide pact.

Hard to debate with someone so clueless, but I'll give it one last try.

GM and Chrysler both went bankrupt. Did you know that?

They went bankrupt because they have a labor cost basis that is unsustainable and makes them unable to compete.

The purpose of filing bankruptcy is to either get the company on a better cost basis, reduce debt and carry or just liquidate it. Obama demanded that GM And Chrysler do neither.

Now they have the same unsustainable cost structure and now the UAW owns a large share of each.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Indeed. Frank's retarded analogy only works if all automakers had been nationalized.

LOL

You fucking moron.

Obama got 2 out of three.

What a DICK!

The government owns a stake in General Motors. Ford is still independent. Chrysler was purchased by an Italian automaker.

So how's that two of three?

That's right, you're just talking out your ass again.

Did you follow the Chrysler "Bankruptcy" filing at ALL? Did you read a single word about it it?

Did you know the pressure Obama brought on the Chrysler creditors?

No. because you have your face in the Obama Kool Aid can

 

[Xenophon]

Fair enough. IMO fascism in twenty-first century America is characterised by jingoism, chauvinism, unilateralism, zero sum game politics and hypocrisy; militarism, disdain for human rights and academic freedom, obsession with national security, scapegoating, and propaganda infused with hate and fear of some group (by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity or region). For a start.

That defines to a large part the Obama administration.

Do you consider the current US government fascist?

And by Obama, you mean Bush.

No I do not, and do not attempt to speak for me.

You have no idea 'what I mean' as i opposed Bush while you stood there with the other sheep and rooted for Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

I believe this Statement of Principles is a prima facia example of American fascism. Posted below are a list of those who signed this document. For further information google each and PNAC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

See above for the full context of this post, and why I believe fascisim exists in our nation at this time.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

These individuals signed this document in June 1997. Notice they include business and political actors as well as leaders from the religious communities.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Well, I believe the neoconservative movement is a contemporary fascist movement. Was it Sinclair Lewis who suggested when fascisim comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and holding a cross?

Wry,

Indeed the NeoCon movement, which was behind many of the foreign policy boondoggles of the Bush/Cheney Administration, was a facist movement. Good luck getting Conservatives to agree with you.

Many of the "Conservative" leaders like Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Ann defended legislation like the Patriot Act, the creation of the DHS, and other expansions of Executive Power which they now bemoan as such powers have ended up in the hands of Mr. Obama.

The NeoCon movement has completely captured and supplanted the Conservative Movement, and it is a truly sad thing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, I believe the neoconservative movement is a contemporary fascist movement. Was it Sinclair Lewis who suggested when fascisim comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and holding a cross?

Wry,

Indeed the NeoCon movement, which was behind many of the foreign policy boondoggles of the Bush/Cheney Administration, was a facist movement. Good luck getting Conservatives to agree with you.

Many of the "Conservative" leaders like Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Ann defended legislation like the Patriot Act, the creation of the DHS, and other expansions of Executive Power which they now bemoan as such powers have ended up in the hands of Mr. Obama.

The NeoCon movement has completely captured and supplanted the Conservative Movement, and it is a truly sad thing.

Dr. T.
I suspect real (and by this I mean traditional) Republicans already understand the true nature of Bush&Co. Those I hope to educate are the modern version of a hippie; I see them as members of a class I label the "conservative chic" (CC). They find it cool to be 'conservative' and play that role based on easy to understand talking points - the truth of which they never question. The CC are easy to identify because they debate with these talking points, use pejoratives liberally and made up words ("libtard"); and, rarely posting reasonable, substantive messages (some never do) or suggesting solutions to the many problems which plague our nation.

 

[beowolfe]

Don't be so quick to judge Wry. I know him from a previous MB and while I don't always agree with him, I have found him to be a fair and honest debater. Give him some latitude, please.

And he got it wrong more often than not on the other MB too.

 

[Polk]

That defines to a large part the Obama administration.

Do you consider the current US government fascist?

And by Obama, you mean Bush.

No I do not, and do not attempt to speak for me.

You have no idea 'what I mean' as i opposed Bush while you stood there with the other sheep and rooted for Afghanistan and Iraq.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, so you can't saddle me with that one. Furthermore, those characteristics are much more descriptive of the Bush administration policy that than of the current administration. Bush frequently stated that if you weren't with him, you were siding with terrorism (check the box for jingoism, chauvinism, and scapegoating). Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and invading Iraq without Security Council approval (check the box for militarism and unilateralism). The color-coded homeland security watch system (which just happened to be adjusted at political sensitive moments) (check the box for obsession with national security). As for hate and fear of certain groups, take your pick between gutting the civil rights division at the Justice Department, TIPS (aka, "look out for the scary darkies"), or the Federal Marriage Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

George Will, New Gingrich, and Dick Army all had in common a less than stellar admiration for neo-con and Bush cons. I think the Teabag Movement is silly, yet I admire the enthusiasm. Perhaps it can get rid of the dross and the farcons. If so, perhaps it goes somewhere. That would be interesting.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, so you can't saddle me with that one. Furthermore, those characteristics are much more descriptive of the Bush administration policy that than of the current administration. Bush frequently stated that if you weren't with him, you were siding with terrorism (check the box for jingoism, chauvinism, and scapegoating). Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and invading Iraq with Security Council approval (check the box for militarism and unilateralism). The color-coded homeland security watch system (which just happened to be adjusted at political sensitive moments) (check the box for obsession with national security). As for hate and fear of certain groups, take your pick between gutting the civil rights division at the Justice Department, TIPS (aka, "look out for the scary darkies"), or the Federal Marriage Amendment.

All correct, which is why I've always considered the Bush Administration the closest we've come to losing a democratic form of government since World War I or the Great Depression.

To Bush's credit, I don't think he was the primary motivator behind the administration's more facist tendancies. As President, Mr. Bush could have provided the final push over the line into tyranny. In the end I think he turned out to be more of a voice of reason than we'll know.

 

[Polk]

I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, so you can't saddle me with that one. Furthermore, those characteristics are much more descriptive of the Bush administration policy that than of the current administration. Bush frequently stated that if you weren't with him, you were siding with terrorism (check the box for jingoism, chauvinism, and scapegoating). Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and invading Iraq with Security Council approval (check the box for militarism and unilateralism). The color-coded homeland security watch system (which just happened to be adjusted at political sensitive moments) (check the box for obsession with national security). As for hate and fear of certain groups, take your pick between gutting the civil rights division at the Justice Department, TIPS (aka, "look out for the scary darkies"), or the Federal Marriage Amendment.

All correct, which is why I've always considered the Bush Administration the closest we've come to losing a democratic form of government since World War I or the Great Depression.

To Bush's credit, I don't think he was the primary motivator behind the administration's more facist tendancies. As President, Mr. Bush could have provided the final push over the line into tyranny. In the end I think he turned out to be more of a voice of reason than we'll know.

I think Bush was an empty vessel who just did whatever his advisers told him to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

I believe this Statement of Principles is a prima facia example of American fascism. Posted below are a list of those who signed this document. For further information google each and PNAC.

It would have been friendlier on the environment if, instead of posting this electron wasting, Globe warming gibberish, you just posted "I don't really know what Fascism is"

 

[Wry Catcher]

Don't be so quick to judge Wry. I know him from a previous MB and while I don't always agree with him, I have found him to be a fair and honest debater. Give him some latitude, please.

And he got it wrong more often than not on the other MB too.

Interesting choice of words, "... he got it wrong more oftern than not...". What did I get wrong? There and here I rarely, if ever, pretend to know the future. Primarily, I share my opinions - as I have on this thread - and hope to get others to do the same. I enjoy debate and learning new things, but the opinions of others must be supported by facts and in the context of historical events not rewritten history.

 

[Si modo]

... but the opinions of others must be supported by facts ....

But not by you, eh?

I wonder if you can guess what word is on my mind right now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

I believe this Statement of Principles is a prima facia example of American fascism. Posted below are a list of those who signed this document. For further information google each and PNAC.

It would have been friendlier on the environment if, instead of posting this electron wasting, Globe warming gibberish, you just posted "I don't really know what Fascism is"

Without a doubt CF, and with all honesty, you're really dumb. I would suggest you're willfully ignorant, but that would require a rational decision - something you are incapable of making.

 

[Wry Catcher]

... but the opinions of others must be supported by facts ....

But not by you, eh?

I wonder if you can guess what word is on my mind right now.

Would that be hypocrite? Few ever ask why I hold the opinions I do, the brighter ones are critical thinkers and understand my postion based on their practical and academic experiences, historical fact and current events. Others - can you guess who I mean - rarely express opinion but are quick to play NIGYYSOB.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wry,

You keep embarrassing yourself by posting "Examples" of "Fascism"when it's clear that you don't like Republicans and want to find any excuse to use that word, but I'll bet you'll use this post as an example of my "Fascism"