American Politics

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

So it wasnt a felony? even though  he went to federal prision hes not considered a convicted felon unable to hold elected office?

quote>

I don't recall exactly but I suspect you can't find a jury in DC willing to convict him of a felony.

One of those baffling cases of someone being reelected when no one outside the jurisdiction can understand why.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Political page Flip Bug

[Ntq€310 1]

I think people are going about this Palin thing all wrong. She is doing this for both her family, and her future in politics!

The first point is that her family was a constant target by the media, and talk show host. Just because there is free speech does not make that right though, talking about a 14 year old daughter in such a way, then saying she has a "sluty flight attendant look", is wrong, and he should apologize. It's even more telling that family groups, and women groups did not say "Dave, that was not a nice comment", it took a couple days for even one to say that. Then you have someone to go as far as to Photoshop Trig and just make the situation even worse.

Look, any good politian can take a beating on politics, and they can survive, but I doubt anyone can just sit there while her family is being destroyed, by the "balanced media". Then you count the ethnic complaints, legal battles, etc, her ability to run the state was compromised, and it is better for Alaska she steps out of the way for someone better to take control. She was also cutting her loses, she has become a very polarizing figure in Alaska politics, if she stayed there it could have very well made a bad situation worse.

Now, heres some speculation. I believe she does want to go to a more National Office, or something where she can made a bigger difference, that could be senate, or president. I believe that if she wants to run for President, she should wait till 2016 though. She can be more prepared, have more experience, and Obama for sure would be out of office.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Page flip

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

I know plenty of conservative women who have careers.   They exist in Washington, DC.   I can't speak for the rest of the country but it surprises me that this is an issue.  To the point that I have a difficult time believing it is an issue.quote>

But I bet none of those conservative friends of yours hold political office or are regularly on TV. In other words, their existence is easy to ignore if you don't want to believe they exist. Which a lot of liberal-minded people do not.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is too prominent to just conveniently overlook.

Remember, it's not about reality, it's about (liberal) perception.

To me the more pertinent point is that she gets all cutesy when trying to discuss a serious subject.  Does anyone really believe that the cutesy routine is going to work on world leaders?   These are serious people discussing serious subjects and I've yet to see that she can do that without acting like she is talking to a five year old.  I find it insulting.quote>

Rationally, that is more of a real issue, yes. But since when do people ever look at these things rationally?

Originally posted by: Ntq$310The first point is that her family was a constant target by the media, and talk show host. Just because there is free speech does not make that right though, talking about a 14 year old daughter in such a way, then saying she has a "sluty flight attendant look", is wrong, and he should apologize.quote>

On the contrary. It's just humor. It's not David Letterman's problem if some people can't take a joke; he shouldn't have apologized since he did absolutely nothing wrong. One thing that's wrong with this country is that we're far too worried about offending people, and we get offended far too easily.

It's even more telling that family groups, and women groups did not say "Dave, that was not a nice comment"quote>

Well, good for them! No, it wasn't nice, but he had every right to say it. And he shouldn't have to worry about offending people by doing so.

Originally posted by: mayor_brando

in Socialism, benefits are given back to the people. And just look at modern-day socialist countries. They are actually pretty well off. Take Sweden, for example. It has government run healthcare, insurance plans, and childcare. They are not as badly hit by the bad worldwide economy as the U.S. is. Why? Because they don't have as many big corporations handing out risky loans. Sure, they have high taxes, but Sweden has more money to spend on benefits for the people. That's the idea of Socialism. Get money through taxes, spend much of it on more benefits for the people. See the cycle?quote>

Indeed, that's one benefit of Socialism. Dampening the natuaral swings in economic cycles. The peaks become not as high, the valleys not as low. Of course, the question is, at what cost? Who wants the government handling all those things? I, for one, would like to be able to choose who I go to for those things, rather than just having the government to go to. I also do not have faith that the government will handle those things the best they can be handled (red tape, beuracracy, political correctness, that kind of crap just gets in the way with government run stuff), nor do I trust them not to abuse the power.

Oh, and:

If Europe was a bit more like America, they'd be better off.quote>

Fixed.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Mayor K

Cartoons and comedy are not good sources of information I still find it interesting that at first Coleman was ahead of Franken after the polls closed, till votes showed up in the trunks of cars and double counting votes and lets not forget the fact of having more votes for Franken in counties then registered voters. You dems stole that election and you know it if you liberals and dems believed in the democratic process how about another election between them we'll see who'll win. Now im from California (i apologise for Pelosi) and Liberals have ruined the state: high fuel prices overregulation of agriculture and industy and lets not forget that were broke no more money in the bank! Now im assuming that you weren't there for the Carter years oh god terrible times. Now i have mixed emotions about the democrats and their 60 vote super majority because im hoping it'll lead to a conservative revolution where Ronald Reagan squashed Carter and Mondale and of course there was the Republican Revolution of 92.

A point to make is that Socialism is Facism because both are government control say what was the other name of the Nazi party? the Democrat Socialist party of Germanyquote>

Coleman was only ahead by 700 votes on the night of the election. History has shown that election night tallies and certified tallies 3 weeks later typically shifts on AVERAGE 1500 votes in Minnesota. So sayin that it shifted only roughly 1000 votes is actually BELOW average shift (which most likely can be attributed to vote total changes in Dean Barkley's which no matter how much his changed, wouldn't have affected the margin between the two main candidates). 

Additionally, the "votes in the trunk" story was actually false. Thanks to FOX for spreading that lie. 

Again... the "more votes than voters in some counties" is also a lie. NO counties in Minnesota had anywhere near a 100% turnout out, and especially not in Franken Counties where the large cities like Duluth, Minneapolis and Saint Paul were DEFINITELY not over. Now lets assume you meant precincts. This would still be false as conservatives merely played with numbers for this argument. Some precints on paper had more votes than registered voters because... not all votes in ANY county are from previously registered voters. But because you can register same day during the election, you tended to have more votes than "registered voters" whos numbers conservatives took from PRIOR to election day. Most same-day registrations were in Democratic strongholds. Additionally, only 25 precincts... out of 4131... went over. This happens yearly... generally in areas of great growth where population estimates are off so there isn't a known number of eligble voters.

And even though you didnt' bring this up, the other issues were the Minneapolis Missing Ballots which were counted but lost, which A) would only have shifted 60 votes away from Franken and B) would DEFINITELY violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution and C) was still accepted by both the Election Contest court made up of 1 Democrat, one Independent, and one Republican, and further accepted by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. I'd be very upset if my VALID vote was lost and the other side said "oh look at that, it doesn't count". Sorry, its not my responsibility to make sure my vote is not lost days after the election in a secured warehouse. 

As to the double counting, simple statistical measures proved that double counting was almost impossible. If double counting had occured, the chances of having single votes for 3rd parties would... well be impossible (anything multipled by 2 would be greater than one.....even one ). Also, Coleman provided NO instance of double counting occuring, Duplicates and Originals were never discovered to be in the same pile. So again... no double county, just another scare tactic to make it seem like Coleman won. 

In terms of counting absentee ballots. Norm FAKED his lead by contesting ballots during the recount despite them being CLEARLY for Franken so after the first round of recounts, he appeared to have a 215 vote lead. But AFTER the contested ballots were ruled and then the absentee ballots that were rejected illegally were put into the pile, Franken pulled ahead. ALL of this was reaffirmed by the overwhelmingly conservative Minnesota Supreme Court. 

Additionally, Minnesota's ballot counting and arbitration is VERY specific compared to Florida so the "equal protection" argument posed in Bush V Gore doesn't apply. And don't you find it funny that Minnesota's Supreme court ruled UNANIMOUSLY despite being conservative (all five were appointed under Republican administrations, the only DFL on the Supreme Court respectfully bowed out as she was on the Election contest board). Minnesota took 8 months to make sure this was legally sound. Coleman lost FAIR and SQUARE. This recount was taken to the bitter end. It was Coleman's burden of proof to show that there was a systematic denial of voter rights and he produced NO evidence of such a thing and merely said "it could happen". Sorry, Minnesota do this right. At the very least, Minnesota GAVE Coleman a chance to contest his point of view for over 8 months. Can't say Gore got the same treatment AND Gore had nearly a million votes over Bush nationally. 

I mean,... there's NO WAY Coleman won, all his arguements couldn't hold water to either the Minnesota Statues, the Minnesota Constitution, or the United States Constitution. He was trying to include votes that CLEARLY were illegal as in having falsified signatures because "we at least know the intent". Franken won, albeit by a miniscule margin of 0.01%, but he still won.

[Metsrule865 0]

Originally posted by: Mayor K

Cartoons and comedy are not good sources of information I still find it interesting that at first Coleman was ahead of Franken after the polls closed, till votes showed up in the trunks of cars and double counting votes and lets not forget the fact of having more votes for Franken in counties then registered voters. You dems stole that election and you know it if you liberals and dems believed in the democratic process how about another election between them we'll see who'll win. Now im from California (i apologise for Pelosi) and Liberals have ruined the state: high fuel prices overregulation of agriculture and industy and lets not forget that were broke no more money in the bank! Now im assuming that you weren't there for the Carter years oh god terrible times. Now i have mixed emotions about the democrats and their 60 vote super majority because im hoping it'll lead to a conservative revolution where Ronald Reagan squashed Carter and Mondale and of course there was the Republican Revolution of 92.

A point to make is that Socialism is Facism because both are government control say what was the other name of the Nazi party? the Democrat Socialist party of Germanyquote>

[Removed] Please, discuss the issues, not each other.. Thanks! Cheese91

[Boggy1 45]

To quote SkiGeek, and the rules.

11.  Religion and Politics.  Discussion concerning religion or politics is only permitted in designated threads in the General Off Topic and Current Events forums.   Discussion must be about the issues, not each other.quote>

https://www.simtropolis.com/?p=forumrules

 

Anyway, as most of you know I am a socialist. I like Big-Government, and I trust the Government to do its job; because it is a servent and representation of the public. Unfortunately our current Government has lossed sight of that ideal..which is ironic as the Labour party was originally a Socialist party. It reflects a right-wing shift in politics within our political spectrum.

 

 

...of course ideally I would want to live in this sort of system: Altruistic pure-communist post-scarcity based economy; decentralized, devolved, nationalized service-structure; egalitarian internally-democratic consensus-based meritocratic benevolent dictatorship.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I think people are going about this Palin thing all wrong. She is doing this for both her family, and her future in politics!

The first point is that her family was a constant target by the media, and talk show host. Just because there is free speech does not make that right though, talking about a 14 year old daughter in such a way, then saying she has a "sluty flight attendant look", is wrong, and he should apologize. It's even more telling that family groups, and women groups did not say "Dave, that was not a nice comment", it took a couple days for even one to say that. Then you have someone to go as far as to Photoshop Trig and just make the situation even worse.quote>

Im going to have to defend letterman here, the "slutty flight attendant" joke is no worse then any other joke hes told about a politician (or any one else) in the last 30 years he been on telling jokes.  Any one heard  a tirade from A-Rod about that same joke  she got so upset about? no?

He's a comedian he tells jokes, you cant tell a joke that dont upset someone, in the nature of jokes to to poke fun at people, you almost can not have a joke unless its at someone elses expense.

Any one  hear any of the stuff  Jon Stewart says about her on his show?

 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: mayor_brando

Let me start off by saying the people of California voted to put a cap on taxes, not liberals, and that's a big reason why your state is in debt.quote>

The bigger problem was the irresponsible spending of the state government and attempts to exert too much control on the industries, thus sending them fleeing to states with less government control.  It is the continued deficit spend spending and extremely company-unfriendly environment that has done the most to degrade California's situation.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Palin's agenda isnt facist as a matter of fact its quite the opposite. yes she does love her country but a key point of facism is authortarianism and government control which is more of a left wing idea. quote>

Government control and authoritarianism of people's lives is very much a fascist idea, as you said, and, from all that I have seen of her (which is quite a lot) Sarah Palin advocates just that. Authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism cannot really be described through a conventional right-left lens.

Facists believe that the economy should be government controlled. palin believes the opposite. one thing that quite intrested me in reading up on facism was indoctrination in the education system. quote>

Indoctrination in the education system? Palin supports teaching creationism in a science class as an equal theory to evolution. For the record I do not object to teaching creationism in a voluntary religion or philosophy class, but I have vast objections to masquerading it as a scientific theory, where it is not. This sounds like religious indoctrination to me.

i cant tell you how many times a teacher would spat off about a rightwing person or have thier own personal shrine to a democrat president how is that not indoctrination, as it wasnt even in history class. quote>

What are you talking about? Could you please make that more clear?

our infastructure? well heres something the bill the brought the creation of our highways was only 21 pages long but where was clinton in the 90's was he going to fix the infastructure? No he was too busy with Monica. quote>

All presidents since Reagan have part of the blame, but it was under him that it started.

But on the subject of Reagan at the end of carters term we had rampant inflation double digit unemployment and a gas crisis. Reagan brought us economic prosperity and reversed destructive carter policies.

quote>

I am not arguing with the facts of growth after Reagan was elected, which coincided with the 1982 recession, which was an initial shock to the economy, but at the benefit of lower future inflation (which wasn't Reagan's idea, it was Volcker's Fed). Reagan gets credit because he was at the right place at the right time.

I was merely saying that the Reagan administration has adverse long-term consequences for their country, so you should be careful when attempting to find another one.

thank you i stand corrected on national socialism. quote>

Your thanks is appreciated.

"Fascist". Yeah, there's one of those loaded words we should avoid using because it's meant more as an insult than an objective label. quote>

As I said before, I prefer to avoid euphemisms where they are not appropiate (e.g. using disabled rather than crippled in certain contexts). If it is consistent with fascism, then I call it fascism. I do not use it as a simple pejorative term.

Though, that aside, I agree with what you;re saying. She's too far right. She can't swing enough left and middle votes to pull a nationwide victory. quote>

I agree with that. She may motivate the base, but in the process she alienates everyone else, which comprise over 70 percent of the population.

I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word fascism.quote>

Look at the Nazi 21-point program, and compare many of those points to Barney Frank's ideology. A lot of them match. Tendencies towards this ideology can be found in many other democrats, including Obama. More extreme versions of his service program and Michelle Obama's rhetoric sound like the Hitler Youth, and some of Hitler's speeches, respectively.

In my view, the similarities are too large to discount.

If America was a bit more like Europe we'd be better off.quote>

I agree with that, to an extent. I do not believe America should imitate Europe. Rather, they should take what works there, and see if it can be applied to their own country to make a better system.

Oh, and:

If Europe was a bit more like America, they'd be better off.quote>

Fixed.quote>

I agree with that, too, to an extent. To reverse my previous statement:

I do not believe Europe should imitate America. Rather, they should take what works there, and see if it can be applied to their own country to make a better system.quote>

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word fascism.quote>

Look at the Nazi 21-point program, and compare many of those points to Barney Frank's ideology. A lot of them match. Tendencies towards this ideology can be found in many other democrats, including Obama. More extreme versions of his service program and Michelle Obama's rhetoric sound like the Hitler Youth, and some of Hitler's speeches, respectively.

In my view, the similarities are too large to discount.

quote>

The burden of proof is on you here, and so far you have shown nothing to back up these questionable claims about the many similarities. Until you come up with an actual convincing comparison of the programs (I'll go ahead and assume you meant the NSDAP's 25 point program) and rhetoric,  you're not going to look very credible at all.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The burden of proof is on you here, and so far you have shown nothing to back up these questionable claims about the many similarities. Until you come up with an actual convincing comparison of the programs (I'll go ahead and assume you meant the NSDAP's 25 point program) and rhetoric,  you're not going to look very credible at all.quote>

Firstly, I did mean the 25-point program of the NSDAP. Secondly, I shall present my evidence, and let everyone decide for themelves if they agree with my interpretation. For reference for anyone who does not know of the program, it can be found here.

To back up this point:

Look at the Nazi 21-point program, and compare many of those points to Barney Frank's ideology. A lot of them match. Tendencies towards this ideology can be found in many other democrats, including Obama.quote>

And here is my justification:

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.quote>

>>

Although Barney Frank does not advocate capital punishment for the last point, I believe that the above 4 points correlate pretty well with his ideology and rhetoric (I won't provide examples of his rhetoric as I am sure you can find it for yourselves).

In the first point I mention, replace the second mention of "War" with "banking" and the third mention with "financial", and "each war" with "debt", and remove "blood". Then you get:

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property that debt demands of the people, personal enrichment through banking, must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all financial profits.quote>

While it does not match exactly (the case with any platform), the similarity is eerie in my view.

On the second point I mentioned, I feel that this is consistent since Barney Frank has supported every state takeover of companies that have been proposed.

On the third mentioned point, does that not sound like the nationalization of GM, and the UAW takeover of Chrysler, and the force-it-down-your-throat bankruptcy?

On the fourth point, the punishing of people injurious to the general interest, what about attitudes to executive pay (now moving on to the Obama administration some)?

It issued new regulations Wednesday that set pay limits on companies that receive TARP assistance, with the toughest restrictions aimed at seven recipients of "exceptional assistance." Those firms are Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, American International Group Inc., GMAC LLC and Chrysler Financial.

The regulations limit top executives of companies that receive TARP funds to bonuses of no more than one-third of their annual salaries.

In a significant expansion of authority, the regulations call for a special compensation overseer who will burrow into the pay practices of some of the country's biggest enterprises. (Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Rep-Barney-Frank-seeks-further-limits-on-executive-paychecks-47764242.html)quote>

And below is an excerpt from a page on the 25-point program from a website that calls themselves the "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party", and claims to be the successor to the German Nazi party. While they aren't a very reputable site when it comes to news, it should be interesting to see what self-proclaimed successors make of the points:

Points 12, 18: In these points, Hitler defined and specified the removal of those who engaged in parasitic business practices. While war profiteers loomed large in his own experience, he used those and other examples (criminals, usurers, profiteers) to set the pace of National Socialist values: hard honest work was expected and rewarded, but those who acted destructively even if legally were to be killed -- equally ("whatever their creed or race"). The NSDAP recognized that not all Germans had German souls, and that bad apples exist even in the best orchards, and their intent was to remove these people who had no moral qualm about making a living by deceiving others. This was one of many reforms designed to protect the average worker from the slick predation of others. quote>

Now moving on to the Obama service plan. I believe that it is (or at least should) be common knowledge that the purpose of the Hitler Youth was to enlist young people at an early age, nurture/train/instill traits that would enable them to be good citizens (for the Nazis that would be serving in the SS, SA, Wehrmacht, Gestapo, party leaders, et. al.). Put in other words, it was a program that enlisted people at a young age, and indoctrinated them in order to serve their government. Think about it: isn't the national service plan pretty much the same thing?

Section 125 of the GIVE Act states:

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

     (1) Attempting to influence legislation.

     (2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

     (3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

     (4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

     (5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

     (6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

     (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.quote>

What this means that anyone that is serving under the GIVE Act by law have no rights under Amendment I to the US Constiution, which enables the government to furthur put the volunteers in an iron grip. Also, I would like to draw attention to a provision of the GIVE Act, which fortunately did not pass in the final bill, but the very fact that it almost did is disturbing, and demonstrates intentions to that effect somewhere in the House (and it probably was not the Republicans...). It says that a commission would have been developed to probe:

Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.quote>

See next post for furthur information.

EDIT: This also happens to be my 2000th post!

[saltandsauce 0]

an interesting note about conscription

in the UK there were calls for national service to be compulsory to teach those darn kids some respect in the 1970s.

instead the money was spent on trident (nukes)

the plan was that the money on trident could have been spent in Emergent Technology (smart missiles and the like) and conventional forces (with national service) the national service would solve the country's unemployment problem and give them a comprehensive education to make up for their comprehensive education.

but trident went ahead so that people beleived Britain was defended. the russians knew it wasn't it was to trick the British to think that Britain was defended

all sourced from Yes Minister

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Continued from last post

And take this excerpt from Michelle Obama's commencement address at UC Merced (full text here). I have found that speeches, when examined, can give valuable insight into a person's views.

And you will definitely have your share of setbacks. Count on it. Your best laid plans will be consumed by obstacles. Your excellent ideas will be peppered with flaws. You will be confronted with financial strains as your loans become due and salaries fall short of both expectations and expenses. You will make mistakes that will shatter your confidence. You will make compromises that will test your convictions. You will find that there is rarely a clear and direct path to any of your visions. And you will find that you'll have to readjust again and again and again. And there may be times when you wonder whether it's all worth it. And there may be moments when you just want to quit.

But in those moments, those inevitable moments, I urge you to think about this day. Look around you. Look around you. There are thousands and thousands of hardworking people who have helped you get to this point, people who are celebrating with you today, who are praying for you every single day, and others who couldn't be here, for whatever reason. I want you to think of the people who sacrificed for you -- you know that -- family members who worked a third job to get you through, who took on the extra shifts to get you through, who put off doing something important for themselves to get you to this day.

And think about the friends who never got the chance to go to college but were still invested in your success -- friends who talked you out of dropping out, friends who kept you out of trouble so that you could graduate on time, friends who forced you to study when you wanted to procrastinate. (Laughter.)

Most importantly, though, think of the millions of kids living all over this world who will never come close to having the chance to stand in your shoes -- kids in New Orleans whose schools are still recovering from the ravages of Katrina; kids who will never go to school at all because they're forced to work in a sweat shop somewhere; kids in your very own communities who just can't get a break, who don't have anyone in their lives telling them that they're good enough and smart enough to do whatever they can imagine; kids who have lost the ability to dream. These kids are desperate to find someone or something to cling to. They are looking to you for some sign of hope.

So, whenever you get ready to give up, think about all of these people and remember that you are blessed. Remember that you are blessed. Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back. (Applause.) You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future.

As advocate and activist Marian Wright Edelman says, "Service is the rent we pay for living…it is the true measure, the only measure of our success." So, graduates, when times get tough and fear sets in, think of those people who paved the way for you and those who are counting on you to pave the way for them.quote>

Note that Michelle never mentions individuals as individuals: she only mentions collectives, and only mentions individuals as parts of collectives. With few exceptions, this applies to the entire speech as well. Also, take a look at the Issues page of the White House website (yes, they are there, beneath the big blue box). Note that all the issues are viewed from a collective focus.

Collectivism is an important prerequisite for fascism, and the Obamas certainly exhibit this.

Lastly, there is economic fascism on the part of the government. According to my research over the years, these points characterize the relationship between corporations and a fascist regime:

- Private, government-influenced control over means of production (only 2 out of 3 autos and banks to-date)

- Companies serve the society (aka nation, national interest, community)

- Government supports the companies

This does sound like a growing number of relationships between corporations and the federal government.

The collectivism, economic fascism, service plans, and also a rather conservative leaning on social issues (despite the rhetoric), is all consistent with fascism.

In conclusion, I am not saying that Obama and the Democrats are fascists. I am saying that the similarities between fascist policy and current policy is too great to ignore, and that it is probable that Obama and many Democrats exhibit a tendency towards fascist policy.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

...

quote>

Although Barney Frank does not advocate capital punishment for the last point, I believe that the above 4 points correlate pretty well with his ideology and rhetoric (I won't provide examples of his rhetoric as I am sure you can find it for yourselves).

In the first point I mention, replace the second mention of "War" with "banking" and the third mention with "financial", and "each war" with "debt", and remove "blood". Then you get:

 

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property that debt demands of the people, personal enrichment through banking, must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all financial profits.quote>

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in blood that the drugs trade demands of the people, personal enrichment through drug-dealing, must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all drug profits.quote>

[hamsterTK 93]

okay so someone made a nazi comparison....

According the laws of the internet (law as in murphy's law) this means this discussion has official crashed and burned, taking out the control tower along with it

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Continued from last post

Note that Michelle never mentions individuals as individuals: she only mentions collectives, and only mentions individuals as parts of collectives. With few exceptions, this applies to the entire speech as well. Also, take a look at the Issues page of the White House website (yes, they are there, beneath the big blue box). Note that all the issues are viewed from a collective focus.

Collectivism is an important prerequisite for fascism, and the Obamas certainly exhibit this.

Lastly, there is economic fascism on the part of the government. According to my research over the years, these points characterize the relationship between corporations and a fascist regime:

- Private, government-influenced control over means of production (only 2 out of 3 autos and banks to-date)

- Companies serve the society (aka nation, national interest, community)

- Government supports the companies

This does sound like a growing number of relationships between corporations and the federal government.

The collectivism, economic fascism, service plans, and also a rather conservative leaning on social issues (despite the rhetoric), is all consistent with fascism.

In conclusion, I am not saying that Obama and the Democrats are fascists. I am saying that the similarities between fascist policy and current policy is too great to ignore, and that it is probable that Obama and many Democrats exhibit a tendency towards fascist policy.

quote>

A) Statistics... learn it... one speech doesn't create a trend...

B ) Collectivism has been an important part of ANY campaign and government ("We the people" ring a bell?) Its the nature of power. Even monarchs had to engage in some form of collectivism to maintain enough of a stranglehold over their military strength. In order to be in power, you have to encourage enough people to support you lest your head roll. 

C). Your grasping at straws with the means of production argument. 2 out of 3 Auto companies and SOME banks doesn't get anywhere NEAR even a feeble attempt to control the means of production. Its not like the US is ONLY car manufacturers and banks. I know... you're gonna say "its a step", but that would have mean that ANY action taken by Obama to stave of an economic collapse would be considered "facist" unless it was just a tax cut which after several of Bush's stimulus packages, we've noted their ineffeciency.

The idea of social responsibility for corporations far precedes the Obamas. Its been around for centuries (see Saltaire, UK and Titus Salt). The idea of social responsibility is what lead to labor laws and workers rights. This isn't a new phenomenon AT ALL.

D) Personally, as president (or speaking for the president in the case of Michelle), it seems you HAVE to talk in a collectivist tone. Its the nature of your job. Overly speaking of individuality comes off as kinda apethetic to the nations problems which NEVER comes out right. Additionally, if you read any of Bush's speeches, especially when he asked everyone to volunteer after 9/11, they are all collectivist too. So if the Obama's "share common qualities" than certainly Bush did as well. 

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.quote>

Although Barney Frank does not advocate capital punishment for the last point, I believe that the above 4 points correlate pretty well with his ideology and rhetoric (I won't provide examples of his rhetoric as I am sure you can find it for yourselves).

In the first point I mention, replace the second mention of "War" with "banking" and the third mention with "financial", and "each war" with "debt", and remove "blood". Then you get:

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property that debt demands of the people, personal enrichment through banking, must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all financial profits.quote>

While it does not match exactly (the case with any platform), the similarity is eerie in my view.quote>

...This is some sort of joke right? That sentence is a fiction that fits neither platform nor rhetoric. Not only does it not match exactly, it does not match at all. The fantasy sentence you came out with bears no relation to the initial platform point (control over the military-industrial complex) or the sentiment that has been expressed in recent times about fraudulent behaviour in the banking sector.

On the second point I mentioned, I feel that this is consistent since Barney Frank has supported every state takeover of companies that have been proposed.quote>

His support is irrelevant, as the US state takeovers concerned a limited amount of failing companies, the collapse of which would cause a serious drop in employment and ripple through related industries. The program point on the other hand relates to the takeover of trusts and much of the industrial base, so on a far larger scale, for economic and military buildup purposes.

On the third mentioned point, does that not sound like the nationalization of GM, and the UAW takeover of Chrysler, and the force-it-down-your-throat bankruptcy?quote>

No, saying they sound alike is a vast exaggeration. It is absurd to equate the greater role for involved parties in the running and ownership of these companies with the program's suggested division all of industrial profits, along socialist inspired lines.

On the fourth point, the punishing of people injurious to the general interest, what about attitudes to executive pay (now moving on to the Obama administration some)?

It issued new regulations Wednesday that set pay limits on companies that receive TARP assistance, with the toughest restrictions aimed at seven recipients of "exceptional assistance." Those firms are Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, American International Group Inc., GMAC LLC and Chrysler Financial.

The regulations limit top executives of companies that receive TARP funds to bonuses of no more than one-third of their annual salaries.

In a significant expansion of authority, the regulations call for a special compensation overseer who will burrow into the pay practices of some of the country's biggest enterprises. (Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Rep-Barney-Frank-seeks-further-limits-on-executive-paychecks-47764242.html)quote>

quote>

Even with the greatest amount of fantasy this cannot be compared to the vague assertions in the pr against "national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth". These regulations specify that TARP funds cannot be spent lining the pockets of the people at the top of these companies, who in many cases share the accountability for the failure of their companies. It would be an obvious and gross misuse of the funds dedicated to this "exceptional assistance".

And below is an excerpt from a page on the 25-point program from a website that calls themselves the "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party", and claims to be the successor to the German Nazi party. While they aren't a very reputable site when it comes to news, it should be interesting to see what self-proclaimed successors make of the points:

Points 12, 18: In these points, Hitler defined and specified the removal of those who engaged in parasitic business practices. While war profiteers loomed large in his own experience, he used those and other examples (criminals, usurers, profiteers) to set the pace of National Socialist values: hard honest work was expected and rewarded, but those who acted destructively even if legally were to be killed -- equally ("whatever their creed or race"). The NSDAP recognized that not all Germans had German souls, and that bad apples exist even in the best orchards, and their intent was to remove these people who had no moral qualm about making a living by deceiving others. This was one of many reforms designed to protect the average worker from the slick predation of others. quote>

quote>

This is a pretty uncontroversial political position (guarding citizens from criminal/fraudulent behaviour) clothed in a layer of idiot Nazi interpretation. You have yet to show any relation to executive pay or the Obama administration.

Now moving on to the Obama service plan. I believe that it is (or at least should) be common knowledge that the purpose of the Hitler Youth was to enlist young people at an early age, nurture/train/instill traits that would enable them to be good citizens (for the Nazis that would be serving in the SS, SA, Wehrmacht, Gestapo, party leaders, et. al.). Put in other words, it was a program that enlisted people at a young age, and indoctrinated them in order to serve their government. Think about it: isn't the national service plan pretty much the same thing?quote>

It is not the same thing on a staggering level. The Hitler Jugend fits into the mould you describe, and fits the fascist mould of the mobilisation of society. But it must also be seen in the context of the time: organised social activity for youths and families on the basis of ideological (as in political or religious preference) was common in the first half of the twentieth century. The Scout Movement is a surviving example of organisations like this. The existence of large youth and social movements and organisations does not imply the presence of the same ideological purpose or indoctrination that is attached to the Hitler Jugend.

Section 125 of the GIVE Act states:

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

     (1) Attempting to influence legislation.

     (2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

     (3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

     (4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

     (5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

     (6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

     (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.quote>

What this means that anyone that is serving under the GIVE Act by law have no rights under Amendment I to the US Constiution, which enables the government to furthur put the volunteers in an iron grip.quote>

 These prohibitions are quite obviously in place so that an organisation aligned with the national government remains national and impartial, and does not become politicised. It is a mystery to me how you could compare the service plan to the Hitler Jugend while completely ignoring the meaning of this section.

Also, I would like to draw attention to a provision of the GIVE Act, which fortunately did not pass in the final bill, but the very fact that it almost did is disturbing, and demonstrates intentions to that effect somewhere in the House (and it probably was not the Republicans...). It says that a commission would have been developed to probe:

Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.quote>

quote>

A proposal to investigate if societal cooperation and understanding can be improved is not automatically "disturbing". The effectiveness of a mandatory service requirement , as opposed to an incentivised program, is debatable, but exploring the use and workability of ideas like this seems like precisely what a probe would be for.

And take this excerpt from Michelle Obama's commencement address at UC Merced (full text here). I have found that speeches, when examined, can give valuable insight into a person's views.

Note that Michelle never mentions individuals as individuals: she only mentions collectives, and only mentions individuals as parts of collectives. With few exceptions, this applies to the entire speech as well. Also, take a look at the Issues page of the White House website (yes, they are there, beneath the big blue box). Note that all the issues are viewed from a collective focus.

Collectivism is an important prerequisite for fascism, and the Obamas certainly exhibit this.quote>

This is a thoroughly ordinary speech. Of course she speaks in general terms, did you expect something littered with anecdotes and specifics? It is a short piece of inspirational advice and inspirational platitudes along the broad theme of "remember you're not alone in the world".

'Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?' this is not.

There is nothing in this speech that is uniquely exhibited by the Obamas, and there is nothing in this that is related to the collectivism displayed by fascist movements.

Lastly, there is economic fascism on the part of the government. According to my research over the years, these points characterize the relationship between corporations and a fascist regime:

- Private, government-influenced control over means of production (only 2 out of 3 autos and banks to-date)

- Companies serve the society (aka nation, national interest, community)

- Government supports the companies

This does sound like a growing number of relationships between corporations and the federal government.

The collectivism, economic fascism, service plans, and also a rather conservative leaning on social issues (despite the rhetoric), is all consistent with fascism

In conclusion, I am not saying that Obama and the Democrats are fascists. I am saying that the similarities between fascist policy and current policy is too great to ignore, and that it is probable that Obama and many Democrats exhibit a tendency towards fascist policy.

quote>

Only if you apply a vague picture of fascism to extremely generalised observations of the current situation does this sound consistent with fascism. To claim they have a tendency towards fascist policy is just  inaccurate and implies a lack of perspective. Please do some more research, because it is quite clearly not appropriate to speak of fascist tendencies in this case.

[hamsterTK 93]

Obama is a populist figure, by and large. That is how you might be able to draw these ridiculous parallels here. Doesn't make them correct.

But would you rather have the opposite, an out-of-touch member from what is the "reactionary" side of the truly human political spectrum.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

To deny the socialistic/fascist drift in our current administration and Congress is fantasy. Once one takes off the hopium-smeared glasses, the trend is pretty clear. Not just one speech, or one person, or one proposed bill, but many. One speech does not a movement make, but trillions in taxpayer dollars and government control of our largest companies in manufacturing and banking might just qualify.

If it doesn't exactly match European socialism or Mein Kampf exactly, that would be expected. We're not just an entirely different culture, we're also new to this part of the spectrum in policy. On top of it, they have to lie and pretend that they're not doing it, whereas in Europe you're fully supportive of the concept of socialism. Quibbling over small differences in approach draws attention away from the big picture. Which is, we now know there is such an animal as American socialism.

Another part of the puzzle overlooked in this discussion is the police state, and it being a necessary part of fascism and communism both. The US is well on this road, from the Patriot Act and FBI searches of library records to the proposed camera-at-every-corner frenzy in big cities. While Europeans don't seem to mind very much (London), Americans at least used to get really angry at the idea. Chicago has gone so far as to put up microphones, too, obstensibly as part of a system to pinpoint gunfire. These microphones are in residential neighborhoods, on sidestreets.

[belfastuniguy 18]

While Europeans don't seem to mind very much (London)quote>

Police State: A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

The United Kingdom, nor any country in Europe is any such thing. To suggest otherwise is utter hyperbole re-enforced by an inept understanding of our society. The United Kingdom does use a lot of CCTV, however, the VAST majority are actually operated by private individuals and companies and not the government or local authorities. People seem to also forget that a majority of people in the UK feel safer in areas were CCTV operates, also take into account the impact on criminal convictions that may have otherwise never occurred due to CCTV catching them in the act or when later analysed by police.

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I think people are going about this Palin thing all wrong. She is doing this for both her family, and her future in politics!

The first point is that her family was a constant target by the media, and talk show host. Just because there is free speech does not make that right though, talking about a 14 year old daughter in such a way, then saying she has a "sluty flight attendant look", is wrong, and he should apologize. It's even more telling that family groups, and women groups did not say "Dave, that was not a nice comment", it took a couple days for even one to say that. Then you have someone to go as far as to Photoshop Trig and just make the situation even worse.quote>

I'm going to have to defend letterman here, the "slutty flight attendant" joke is no worse then any other joke hes told about a politician (or any one else) in the last 30 years he been on telling jokes.  Any one heard  a tirade from A-Rod about that same joke  she got so upset about? no?

He's a comedian he tells jokes, you cant tell a joke that dont upset someone, in the nature of jokes to to poke fun at people, you almost can not have a joke unless its at someone elses expense.

Any one  hear any of the stuff  Jon Stewart says about her on his show?

quote>

I really do have that the same stance, there have been more than a few times that I would just say "it's a joke" . Though I still do believe that the jokes should have been thrown out before hand, seeing the nature of them. But there just jokes. But at the same time it's pointed at her family :\ as well off election, at this point she is nothing more than a governor of a state out of the main United States, so it begs the question, why is she such a huge target, and why at such a high level.

But I would say one of the bigger points is that a wemons group did not pounce on it. Since there have been more than a few times they have when comments were made by someone more right-wing, or if it was against a more liberal politian. I understand his right to say the joke, but that does not mean there in any better taste, and the difference in reaction from some groups is non-surprising.

 

[mayor_brando 8]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Chicago has gone so far as to put up microphones, too, obstensibly as part of a system to pinpoint gunfire. These microphones are in residential neighborhoods, on sidestreets.

quote>

Sounds like a good idea to me. Hey, if it reduces crime, i'm all for it. I'm not advocating making the U.S. a police state, but I don't know how some extra surveilence can do any harm.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Chicago has gone so far as to put up microphones, too, obstensibly as part of a system to pinpoint gunfire. These microphones are in residential neighborhoods, on sidestreets.

quote>

Your knowledge of the system is quite limited. It doesn't record everyday noises... all it does is notify police of particularly loud sounds in a certain frequency range that equates to POSSIBLE gun fire. It doesn't record conversations or anything. Minneapolis has this program and it went from 99 murders in 1996 to just 6 this year (along with other programs). Quite honestly, I don't mind microphones that catch GUN FIRE! How gun fire, in the act of commiting a crime or in self defense, is NOT the business of the police and strictly in the realm of civil liberties... now THAT is beyond crazy. I can see the Shot Spotter system being kinda intrusive if it was on hunting land, but when you are in the city, there's no real legal reason for gun fire other than in the case of self defense which... STILL requires police attention. Is it just me or am I not the only one against anarchy?

And you're entire reponse is what I mean about the sad state of political discourse. People are more concerned with slandering the opposition with terms like "socialist", "facist", "hopium" and such that it is completely distracting. I find it sad that people listened to Palins retarded catch phrases and considered Obama "too intellectual and elitist". Seriously, I want my president to be someone who can actually process information. When I hear "party" bashing in other countries, they actually attack on REAL merits. They dont' just say "you liberal freak! You're taking our guns away!" The nature of American political discourse has degraded to JUST rhetoric. I find it rather dispicable that people like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, Keith Olbermann and Arianna (sp?) Huffington are premier "voices" of politics. They have no substance and all flaire (although Huffingtons written work is often better and well sourced). What does petty name calling do for this nation? Nothing, but it seems to me that the Far Right have no problems with it... with the Coulters, the Limbaughs, Helms, Zell Miller, Thurmond, etc etc etc.. How the line "how do you like them apples?" in referring to gay rights is an appropriate political statement is beyond me.

[fukuda 351]

While Europeans don't seem to mind very much (London), Americans at least used to get really angry at the idea. quote>

Europeans probably mind it way more than americans, having actually suffered real (not delusional) police states until recently (1981)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: mayor_brando

Sounds like a good idea to me. Hey, if it reduces crime, i'm all for it. I'm not advocating making the U.S. a police state, but I don't know how some extra surveilence can do any harm.

quote>

The harm is in the matter of privacy and the enabling of oppression by having everything on tape. Cameras creep people out. They don't want Big Brother watching them like that.  And rightfully so.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The harm is in the matter of privacy and the enabling of oppression by having everything on tape. Cameras creep people out. They don't want Big Brother watching them like that.  And rightfully so.

quote>

You have to look at the other side of this. I, for one, feel safer if I see a camera on a street corner, because I know for a fact that if a guy comes up to me and tried to mug me or something, he will be on tape. Furthermore,  if you elect those behind the cameras, its your responsibility to keep an eye on what they do. The fact that the police departments are as bad as they are is due to the fact that there is not a lot of public electing going on. 

[_Atticus 10]

Originally posted by: confused04

People are more concerned with slandering the opposition with terms like "socialist", "facist", "hopium" quote>

Palins retarded catch phrases.quote>

Contradicting yourself?

--------------------

I believe there is a line when it comes to security. Cameras in public areas are acceptable, but some of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act and the Chicago security microphones cross the line in my opinion.

-Pingangster

[Boggy1 45]

I have to agree. I find that CCTV cameras make me feel far far safer. Knowing that if anyone were to happen to me in pretty much any public place; it would be recorded straight onto camera is exceedingly comforting.

This isn't me letting the Government pry into my life. Not at all. As said; the majority of CCTV cameras arn't even Government-operated. It's just a backup-failsafe measure, which is very useful in capturing anti-social behaviour, crime, kidnapping..and all that Jazz.