|
A while ago people made the argument that there should be a middle column for not choosing a side of
the debate but still spout opinion. But i do think here what may be a good innovation for
forandagainst would be some slider bar that determines how far on the left or right you are on the
issue.
Fascism is a point of view anyone can have. It has attractive elements to it, of course, its alive
and well. I don't see fascism as the cause of bureaucracy though. Big business has some secret
pact with big government. Nobody knows what's really going on there and everyone is sick of it.
Whatever it is though is giving big business freedom deluxe while the people who work for those
people wind up getting freedom basic. There's nothing in the deluxe package but more money, but
somehow that makes them politically affiliated.
Personally, im all for a reserved sense of reflectively sitting back and watching it unfold. But
the urge to want it to be resolved is so frustrating. I can't understand how stupidity doesn't give
bush some niche of risk of being impeached. That isn't trite to say anymore. Reworded: How was
clinton more of a threat to the presidency than bush. Is it not clear enough? Is it even more
convoluted than im making it?
I wish it was fascism. Its just corruption gone a-muck, flung in our faces and in our gas tanks,
while other parts of the world have war and missleheads for dinner. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Can only agree with Grenache. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yep. We definitely have powerful elite willing to use influence or force to keep large segments of
the population in check. They've channelled public protests off to the side where it's easy to
ignore, black listed and spied on those same protesters, given themselves the right to detain
indefinitely at Guatanamo Bay (until that recent Supreme Court decision). We've become a shut-up,
sit-down, pay-the-man society. If 60s activists tried to do the same thing today they'd probably
end up sharing a cell with terrorists in Cuba. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I would like to know what your definition of fascism is. The problem, as I see it, is that the term
"fascism" is used far too often by left-wing groups in the US, Western Europe and elsewhere, to
describe a political situation that might not appeal to them, but one which has nothing to do with
fascism. Many historians would argue that this term can only really be applied to Italy after 1919,
and to a few marginal movements elsewhere, but not to any other country. Rather than saying that the
US and the current Republican administration is fascistic, we can argue that th |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Look I agree that America has issues, but I hardly think the word fascism applies. We’re not run
by a dictator just a tater head. We have plenty of racists of every stripe but they don’t run the
country the cl assists do. Industry is not being nationalized but instead the opposite, we are
privatizing government functions, like farming the prison systems out to be run by private
companies. No I think the far more accurate word for America would be a Plutocracy, or at least
there are a number of people who want to turn it into one. Although I will say that the people in
charge love racial tension, it divides the voting base helping to insure that we are unable to
effectuate significant change in our government. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
05 Jul 2008 04:40
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
