is better than yours. It's probably because I recognize it as subtext. When I see coded, dumbed-down and sanitized versions of what is obviously going through someone's mind, I don't feel the need to sit around with my thumb up my ass before I predict where they're going to go with it, because it's predictable.
The accusation that I "assume bankers are Jewish" is shitbrained. If you start telling me a story I've already heard a thousand times over, don't expect me to wait until you get around to telling the punchline before I tell you I've already heard that joke.
Not to mention the whole "race != religion" thing. Then again, I recall you not having much of a grasp on the technical definition of "fascism" not too long ago, too.
When I see coded, dumbed-down and sanitized versions of what is obviously going through someone's mind, I don't feel the need to sit around with my thumb up my ass before I predict where they're going to go with it, because it's predictable.
If you start telling me a story I've already heard a thousand times over, don't expect me to wait until you get around to telling the punchline before I tell you I've already heard that joke.
Not to mention the whole "race != religion" thing.
I recall you not having much of a grasp on the technical definition of "fascism" not too long ago, too.
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
You can't just ignore the fact that the President is not a dictator, now matter how many hippies' signs say he is, and that elections still occur at regular intervals, in order to slip by that first definition requirement. Since Bush has been President, nothing has fundamentally changed. You don't see it, because you're absorbed by your own emotions, but 100 years will prove me correct. Everything else you site is alarmism, and as such, I'm dismissing it all.
You can't just ignore the fact that the President is not a dictator, now matter how many hippies' signs say he is, and that elections still occur at regular intervals, in order to slip by that first definition requirement.
Since Bush has been President, nothing has fundamentally changed.
You don't see it, because you're absorbed by your own emotions, but 100 years will prove me correct.
Everything else you site is alarmism, and as such, I'm dismissing it all.
because I don't understand it. Look, you haven't been detained for speaking up, you won't be detained for speaking up, and in one year, there'll be a brand new president. Two years after that, there'll be a whole new crop of Senators and Congressmen. Two years after that, whatever party of the two parties offered will be whining about how corrupt and evil the other party is, and then they'll switch places and the cycle will begin anew. All of our lives remain relatively unchanged, and that is intentional; one does not maintain a hold on power by pushing the populace too far.
The fact of the matter is you've never really had "freedom"; you've had a controlled series of options determined by the economic situations and abilities of those who maintain that power. You may finally be aware of it now, but that doesn't make it new, and it still won't be new when it's your "party" doing it to the "other party". Cry if you want, I'm not naive enough to be shocked by any of this, and you're old enough to know better, too.
I suppose coming to the conclusion you have no power takes some time to get used to, though, eh?
OTOH, abundant freedoms such as the right to privacy, habeas corpus, freedom of the press, etc., indicate that the US doesn't seem to be generally moving in the direction of fascism. Generally speaking, I think it fair to say that US citizens enjoy more rights and freedoms now than they did during WWII. The same is true of WWII era US citizens, they enjoyed more rights and freedoms than most US citizens during Reconstruction. Rinse. Latter. Repeat.
But to be fair, that these freedoms exist doesn't mean that there aren't those who are trying to move the US to a different place vis a vis personal freedoms.
Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
If the people have a say in their government, then it is not "authoritarian" enough a system to be called "fascist". Further, and I feel this is even more important, the vast majority of people who decry our government as "fascist" or "moving towards fascism" are 1) unaware of the definition of fascism, and 2) have yet to do the necessary logical footwork to persuade me that the introduction of fascism wouldn't be an improvement to what we have now.
All this whining about the loss of "personal freedoms" is typical of those who are insulated from real problems; because they have no real problems, these hypothetical problems and minor air travel inconveniences become The Biggest Problem, and Evidence of the Slippery Slope of the Erosion of Freedom. No matter how many morons claim it, it never becomes reality.
I doubt you read the rest of my comment. Please go back and do so. You seem to have taken my point about rights and freedoms to mean the exact opposite of what I wrote. Freedom in the US is probably at or close to an all time high. This indicates that the US is no where close to being a fascist state.
Pol Pot, Nikolai Ceausescu, Li Si, António Salazar, Idi Amin, Jean-Claude Duvalier, and Enver Hoxha. Of them, Salazar was almost "elected" (if you count appointment by your friends who held a coup as "election"), and all of them were actually fascist, totalitarian state leaders.
That I addressed concerns that were not yours does not indicate that I am unaware of what you were saying. It indicates that what I am arguing against (eg: the claim that America is "moving towards fascism") is incorrect, and that I am not straying from that point.
It takes an authoritarian regime to be fascist, but not every authoritarian regime is fascist. Most of the dictators you mentioned don't have the corporatism that is one of the central tenets of fascism. Others lack the collectivism. Others like the populism. Some are simply petty thugs with no real ideology.
"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here [ Parent ]
Granted, a state can be fascist and a kleptocracy. But it seems fairly clear to me that by the time the Duvalier's voluntarily went into exile that virtually all the fascist elements of the government had decayed into chaos. If MNS has listed Francois Duvalier, I'd probably not have crossed him off the list.
Look, you haven't been detained for speaking up, you won't be detained for speaking up
...in one year, there'll be a brand new president. Two years after that, there'll be a whole new crop of Senators and Congressmen. Two years after that, whatever party of the two parties offered will be whining about how corrupt and evil the other party is, and then they'll switch places and the cycle will begin anew. All of our lives remain relatively unchanged, and that is intentional; one does not maintain a hold on power by pushing the populace too far.
However, I disagree about things staying the same. If you look at the events that eventually lead up to Krystalnacht, it was a slow, methodical change that occurred over time. Basically the events of the end of WWI led directly to it, but at a pace not too many people really saw coming or cared to do anything about. In fact, you can even say that the racism against the Jews and the jingoism of the Germans went back much longer. The power that be are tweaking our government to get to the point they want it -- our rights and freedoms are being eroded, not suddenly yanked away.
Also, I have no "party" that represents me. It would be cool if I did, but nobody would elect them.- - - - - That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n[ Parent ]
is that you seem to earnestly believe that the "powers that be" is an entity with actually-defined, secretive goals. This is patently absurd, and a six-month stint in any federal agency would show this to be the opposite of "physically possible".
Another prime difference is that only one of us believes in "hope". For some unknown reason, you seem to think people have some inherent right to this "freedom" nonsense, and I, on the other hand, think that everyone should be killed. That'd liberate them, for sure. They'd be liberated from sucking up resources, liberated from paying their bills, and best of all, I'd be liberated from listening to their self-indulgent nonsense.
you seem to earnestly believe that the "powers that be" is an entity with actually-defined, secretive goals.
Not here as in HuSi, but here as in the planet?--------------------------------- "You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin[ Parent ]
to load this P226 and end this endless stream of shit, but mainly because it'd break my Mom's heart, so I stay. For now.
(Plus, I'd hate to see you go, but purely for selfish reasons)--------------------------------- "You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin[ Parent ]
But it can't last forever.
At this rate, change seems to be sweeping to the opposite position, though. But yeah, time changes shit some times.
That's not my definition of "fundamental". Congress passes laws every goddamn year, so, yes, little tiny things change. Let me know when Der Bush Führer has assumed power for a third term, I'll take one of your tin foil hats then, thanks.
If the president ever takes a third term, then that wouldn't be a big deal in and of itself. It is the power that the President has that is a big deal. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on February 26, 1951. Before then, it was only a tradition to be in office for only two terms, but not a legal limitation. We've had Presidents for more than two terms, but none of them had the option of total power. "Stabbing someone in the head with a pitchfork is rarely beneficial to the relationship." - MereKat[ Parent ]
I conflate the two paranoid conspiracy theories to show that they are both identical in their silliness.
It's very simple, really; those with power do what they want, those without spend their time talking about what people with power do. This is how things have been, fundamentally, for thousands of years. Nothing has changed but the occupants of power. There is no grand plot to whittle away the liberties of you or anyone else, there are just countless bureaucrats plugging away at whatever tasks they've lined up for themselves, and people with capital at the top, renting offices for 2 to 4 year terms.
From the framework of what things were like in 1787, things may be slightly different now, but taken from the perspective of, say, a couple thousand years, people behave in largely the same manner, and those with the means and motivation use the alleged power of the collectivity of State to assert their power over the general population, same as always. That things have always been this way isn't evidence that everyone in power in history has worked in concert with everyone else in power (which I don't mean to say that you're saying they have), but rather evidence of human nature. Our behavior, as individuals, and as a species, is hugely predictable because it is always determined by the same factors.
doesn't need to be a justification for anything. To me, it's a logical reason to assume that they will continue to put up with bullshit, just like they always have, and always will. I don't see any particular need to take on the impossible task of changing any of it when I can spend my time how to best make it work to my advantage, and bide my time until I die.
That's just lazy, woman.
Here's an exercise for you: convince me fascism is a bad thing, when the world is populated by brain-damaged halfwits who think the CIA flew airplanes into the World Trade Center. If those are the douchebags allowed to determine their own fate, I'd prefer they all be mopped up.
I'll ignore your silly racism claims, since they're what is known in the psychological field as "projection".
The specific details of your paranoid theory. How you reorganize facts to support your delusions is your business, and unless you're offering me 500/hr to psychoanalyze you, payable up-front and in advance, rounded up to the first 8 hours, I don't feel any particular responsibility to help your wade through the muck that is your thinking process.
I've not got the time to sit here and watch youtube videos all day. That's not why my Corporate Masters pay me so well.
who seems to think popular culture is a valid place to get insight on dudes as awesome as me.
You need to take a shower.
WATSON: What? DOOLEY: Whoa! WATSON: What was that? ROUNTREE: Is that real-world? DOOLEY: Real-world hijack. WATSON: Cool!
That's all of 4 seconds of confusion.
Do you read these links before you post them? Or do you just assume we won't read them?
As for the London drill - it was a private PR firm called Visor Consultants that handles "crisis management" in the media - that was holding a drill. No government folks, no first responders, nobody who would serve some nefarious plan by being confused.
Finally, the document you linked never mentions aerial interceptions of civilian craft. It enacts a "must resist" policy in hijack situations where military and military contract craft are involved. It goes on to state that, when the military or military contract craft is unmanned, destruction of the craft is an option. I'd like to think you simply linked to the wrong document, though I suspect this is another case of your not reading the document or your assuming we wouldn't.[ Parent ]
