http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2063979,00.html


i think this article is interesting and would like to know what other people think of it.

i have 3 requests for this thread

1.if you are going to disagree with this article please use a specific quote and give evidence to back up your opinion/claims.

2.please do not descend into semantics

3.please do not turn this into an islam bashing thread

please please please.i really want this thread to be productive and not just another thread which digresses so far from the topic at hand it becomes pointless bickering.

So then you want no discussion. The Guardian article is some ones opinion, with a bunch of thing thrown together as editorial, no real scholarship, no real news value, just the writers opinion.

So then you want no discussion. The Guardian article is some ones opinion, with a bunch of thing thrown together as editorial, no real scholarship, no real news value, just the writers opinion.


already.........


jesus.


what do you think of the writers opinion?

kenworth,

what do you think of the writers opinion?

Personel, agenda driven, self serving, political hack job.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2063979,00.html


i think this article is interesting and would like to know what other people think of it.

i have 3 requests for this thread

1.if you are going to disagree with this article please use a specific quote and give evidence to back up your opinion/claims.

2.please do not descend into semantics

3.please do not turn this into an islam bashing thread

please please please.i really want this thread to be productive and not just another thread which digresses so far from the topic at hand it becomes pointless bickering.


I think most people outside the US can see how far they have sacrificed their liberties. Unfortunately, the US is a materialistic society and as long as it does not impact their standard of living they are not concerned with protecting their rights. Plus most of them are unaware of what their government does anyway.

kenworth,



Personel, agenda driven, self serving, political hack job.

do you disagree with him?

Kenworth,

I went through the article and first of all every time i read about 'brown skin' being used (is the author white, pft) aid an ******...oooh man...do you know what that feels like?

Maybe you do have brown skin, so do i.

And wehat about the fact o putting in bold print 'FASCIST America' or whatever? boy that will sure sell alot of new papers.

To add to that 12 easy steps? come on did he write it while on the train? Nothing is ever that simple. To say peopoe at universities got fired because of (insert bs here)...peple get fired all the time, millions of them usually for the same reasons.

Pick out specigifcs in the article and we can go over them.

Kenworth,

And wehat about the fact o putting in bold print 'FASCIST America' or whatever? boy that will sure sell alot of new papers.

To add to that 12 easy steps? come on did he write it while on the train? Nothing is ever that simple. To say peopoe at universities got fired because of (insert bs here)...peple get fired all the time, millions of them usually for the same reasons.




this was the only part of your post that i could understand.
yes,he wants people to be interested in his article so he uses a bold headline.
i believe it was 10 steps actually.
i dont know where he wrote it and dont see how it makes a difference.

are you saying that those people did not get fired because of their stance on the bush administration? if that is the case could you post up the real reason they got fired.

ahhhh, look i explained i have trouble gettig my letters straight.

the first part addressed sensationalism, using the term 'brown skin' offends me as i have 'brown skin' myself. Well just as dark as most of the people being described.

Secondly it is not my job to verify loose allegations. When people gert fired they provide their reason and it does not mean it's true, most of the time it is not.

i wasnt trying to insult you,i just didnt understand what you were trying to say.

i cant speak for the guy but i think he was using "brown" to attack the distrust of anyone who is not white.
but as an aside,why does brown offend you?

its not your job to verify loose allegations but for the purposes of this thread it would be nice.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

Some months ago I was reading a book on the history of the Soviet Gulag system. I came to the conclusion that the initiation of the soviet Gulag resembled the current system of detention outside the normal law in the USA. Needless to say the typical rightwing American answer was to write that I was a complete nutter.

The parallels are there. And the scary thing is that the gulag system in the soviet union was very limited in the beginning. And it was also a political tool. A political tool of control that escalated.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it.

most of the PATRIOT act was being kicked around in congress for at least 20 years before 9/11

2. Create a gulag
Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.
a prison system outside the rule of law has been in effect since at least 1973, it's called the UCMJ. Gitmo wasn't created expressly to torture people.

3. Develop a thug caste
have no idea what the hell this has to do with america.
if this has to do with covert ops then this has been going on officially since 1947. unofficially since the 1600s.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system
echelon was put into service in 1972. it was capable of intercepting and recording every phone call in america. the NSA was created for transparency. Carnivore, another type of surveillance that was not used, is capable of selectively intercepting phone calls. plus america is not a closed society.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.
this has been going on since the 1960s. also churches that got the democrats out to vote was equally left alone and equally against the law.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.
this applies to terrorists and not to the common man.
Kennedy was indeed on the list shortly after it was implemented in 2001.
one can only speculate as to why.

7. Target key individuals
Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration
telling your class to murder the president qualifies as being critical of the administration.

8. Control the press
Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration;
without the particulars i cannot comment on this.
edit
a 'blogger' is not a journalist.
besides, if i had a video where violence was committed and refused to surrender it to authorities i can expect to go to jail for witholding evidence and obstruction of justice to name 2.
end edit.

9. Dissent equals treason
And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death", according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.
it's also important to remind americans that what is being discussed as 'leftist' in the above quote is actually communism.

10. Suspend the rule of law
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.
the president has always been able to declare marshal law.

If you have not already read "Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice," you must.

Virtually every night, Muslim fanatics burn 30 to 60 cars in France.
The French try to keep their domestic terrorism quiet so as not to harm their tourist business. Nevertheless, even a German has posited that Europeans should abandon Europe, since they have essentially given it over to Muslims.

The Guardian is a socialist rag, bent on the destruction of mankind.

Those who despise America are invited to emigrate to the country of their choice. The sooner the better.

8. Control the press
Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration;
”


In fact Josh Wolf recently turned over his tapes of left-wing terrorists beating others and overturning cars. He did so only because he was in jail for over a year. Bravo. Not very bright of little Joshie. Since when did interference with legitimate law enforcement attempts to identify and apprehend people commiting felonies equate to "controlling the press"? Why since liberals started spinning lies and hatred, that's when.

“
9. Dissent equals treason
And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death", according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade."

Here's a clue. Dissent is back, big time.

It's pretty pathetic to bring up events from 1919 to attack the Bush administration in 2007.

But then again, liberals are a pretty pathetic lot. They support and promote partial birth abortion.

Please see graphic photos of liberal torture at abortionno dot org

I think most people outside the US can see how far they have sacrificed their liberties. Unfortunately, the US is a materialistic society and as long as it does not impact their standard of living they are not concerned with protecting their rights. Plus most of them are unaware of what their government does anyway.

I agree with this.

8. Control the press
Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration;
”


In fact Josh Wolf recently turned over his tapes of left-wing terrorists beating others and overturning cars. He did so only because he was in jail for over a year. Bravo. Not very bright of little Joshie. Since when did interference with legitimate law enforcement attempts to identify and apprehend people commiting felonies equate to "controlling the press"? Why since liberals started spinning lies and hatred, that's when.



Indeed, you can't have dissent in a fascist state.

Indeed, you can't have dissent in a fascist state.

America is the "dissenting-est" nation on Earth, so therefore, it can't be a "fascist state".

Hell, we even have people "dissenting" that other people are permitted to "dissent". No, "fascism" definitely does NOT describe America by any stretch of the imagination.

Baron Max

If you look at it today, America is defintely NOT what it was in the early years. Although of course stronger, the foundational beliefs of freedom and justice have been turned into a war of bickering old men who just care about themselves (when have you ever met a senator or legislator who actually cares about others?).
I would not be surprised if my rights (yes I live in america) were stripped because America has turned power-hungry, and no longer are they known as 'liberators', but, especially in the Middle East, they are known as 'conquerers', and supporters of Israeli terrorism.
Now I do have points, but I do not mean to harm anyone, all I say is that the American government is defintely somewhat corrupt, and no one can disagree with that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2063979,00.html


i think this article is interesting and would like to know what other people think of it.

i have 3 requests for this thread

1.if you are going to disagree with this article please use a specific quote and give evidence to back up your opinion/claims.

2.please do not descend into semantics

3.please do not turn this into an islam bashing thread

please please please.i really want this thread to be productive and not just another thread which digresses so far from the topic at hand it becomes pointless bickering.

First off, I must apologize for not being able to adhere to all of your above requests.

And the reason is quite simple - rule #1 on something like this is "know your sources."

And in this particular case, the first source is the infamous Guardian , a publication well-known world-wide for depending on sensationalism and "cloudy" facts in order to promote sales. It equates to the National Inquirer that is produced in the US and depends on the same tactics to make sales.

The second is the writer - Naomi Wolf, also well-known and an overt, extremist feminist writer who is also acknowledged to be loose with her facts when it suits her purpose. She does the same thing as those publication I just mentioned in that she draws attention to herself for the purpose of selling the books she's written.

She has also been called to task for bringing to light in 2004 an event that supposedly happened in 1983! And even if here charges are true, why did she wait a full 21 years to make it public???? She certainly hasn't hesitated to make other charges and allegations. (One thought was that, as a writer, she had hit a "dry spell" and needed something to write.)

You are quite welcome to check out that particular event here: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:B74D_1hqAN8J:www.slate.com/id/2096152/+Naomi+Wolf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

In a nutshell, I'm basically just suggesting that if you want a serious discussion on ANY topic, please be much more selective in your choice of sources.

Thankfully, the neoconservatives have not inflicted a regime upon the United States that is as repressive as that of Nazi Germany. Frightfully, we Americans (that is Americans as a political whole) have miserably failed a defining test of our resistance to fascism, and of our understanding of democracy.

The W Bush Administration was successful in manipulating American emotions into an unwinnable, elective colonial war in Iraq at the behest of corporate interests. They continue to be successful in playing on childish nationalistic denial. The reason why the present administration is still in power is the same reason why Democratic leadership is unwilling to offer meaningful change: Denial.

In denial, today's desperate American assumption is that we must be right. We can't be wrong. We must never admit otherwise to others or even to ourselves. We must not show weakness, even if we sense it ourselves. We must not admit ignorance, even if we are presented with a recent history that proves it.

I believe that this is where German sentiments in the early 20th Century are completely comparable with the political emotions of the present citizenry of the USA. I don't expect the foolish pride of my fellow Americans to result in an overtly fascist state, largely thanks to the institutions that make protofascistic government extremely inefficient. As a result, the failure of democracy in the United States causes more of a resemblance with the end-of-life stage of the Soviet Union than it does a likeness to Hitler's Germany.

Our foolish pride does bear a resemblance to the nationalism that fueled Hitler's evil career. But events are taking us in another direction, where I suspect the downfall may come not with a bang but a whimper. Whether or not the relative affluence of Americans is to be maintained in the world over the next generation seems to me entirely dependent upon how soon we conquer our pride and arrogance, and whether we can reverse a political trend of public resignation, apathy, and denial. If we Americans persist in the ignorant and superficial fantasy that we can't be wrong as a nation, then reality is certain to harshly intrude.

In a nutshell, I'm basically just suggesting that if you want a serious discussion on ANY topic, please be much more selective in your choice of sources.
Yeah sod the Guardian, choose The Sun!

Thankfully, the neoconservatives have not inflicted a regime upon the United States that is as repressive as that of Nazi Germany. Frightfully, we Americans (that is Americans as a political whole) have miserably failed a defining test of our resistance to fascism, and of our understanding of democracy.

The W Bush Administration was successful in manipulating American emotions into an unwinnable, elective colonial war in Iraq at the behest of corporate interests. They continue to be successful in playing on childish nationalistic denial. The reason why the present administration is still in power is the same reason why Democratic leadership is unwilling to offer meaningful change: Denial.

In denial, today's desperate American assumption is that we must be right. We can't be wrong. We must never admit otherwise to others or even to ourselves. We must not show weakness, even if we sense it ourselves. We must not admit ignorance, even if we are presented with a recent history that proves it.

I believe that this is where German sentiments in the early 20th Century are completely comparable with the political emotions of the present citizenry of the USA. I don't expect the foolish pride of my fellow Americans to result in an overtly fascist state, largely thanks to the institutions that make protofascistic government extremely inefficient. As a result, the failure of democracy in the United States causes more of a resemblance with the end-of-life stage of the Soviet Union than it does a likeness to Hitler's Germany.

Our foolish pride does bear a resemblance to the nationalism that fueled Hitler's evil career. But events are taking us in another direction, where I suspect the downfall may come not with a bang but a whimper. Whether or not the relative affluence of Americans is to be maintained in the world over the next generation seems to me entirely dependent upon how soon we conquer our pride and arrogance, and whether we can reverse a political trend of public resignation, apathy, denial, and ignorance. If we Americans persist in the ignorant and superficial fantasy that we can't be wrong as a nation, then reality is certain to harshly intrude.

Very interesting essay. But it contains one fatal flaw - one of omission. Unlike the other two systems of government you roughly compared it to, we have methods that were unavailable to them - those of self-correction. Indeed, the process can be very labrous and slow but it does work. In your other two, they had absolutely NO means of changing policy short of armed revolution. The next few series of national elections will slowly change our national directions.

America is the "dissenting-est" nation on Earth, so therefore, it can't be a "fascist state".


You dissent with democracy hence you can be fascist.

Read-Only: "Unlike the other two systems of government you roughly compared [the United States] to, we have methods that were unavailable to them - those of self-correction."

I was not so much attempting a comparison of governments, as of public democratic engagement, awareness, and humility. As Americans we have categorically failed to self-correct. We do have institutions of government that were designed for initial deadlock at the early onset of an authoritarian concentration of power. However, as the Founders understood, it will forever be the consent of the governed that decides our fate. Presently, we Americans as a whole have been looking to authority to sort out problems that we fail to take the time to learn about. As the democratic crew, we can't lay back in our quarters, expecting our ship of state to forever sail majesticly along on an 18th-century autopilot. This attitude is the abdication of our responsibility as sincere citizens of a democratic republic.

Read-Only: "Unlike the other two systems of government you roughly compared [the United States] to, we have methods that were unavailable to them - those of self-correction."

I was not so much attempting a comparison of governments, as of public democratic engagement, awareness, and humility. As Americans we have categorically failed to self-correct. We do have institutions of government that were designed for initial deadlock at the early onset of an authoritarian concentration of power. However, as the Founders understood, it will forever be the consent of the governed that decides our fate. Presently, we Americans as a whole have been looking to authority to sort out problems that we fail to take the time to learn about. As the democratic crew, we can't lay back in our quarters, expecting our ship of state to forever sail majesticly along on an 18th-century autopilot. This attitude is the abdication of our responsibility as sincere citizens of a democratic republic.

Agreed! :) But just as we have corrected ourselves (or government's policies) in the past when the US was strongly isolationistic, the McCarthy era of "a communist traitor under every rug", a no-win policy in Viet Nam - so shall we correct the current situation. The general American public can and should be compared to a sleeping giant - which eventually awakes and starts putting things back on track.

Presently, we Americans as a whole have been looking to authority to sort out problems that we fail to take the time to learn about.
can this be due to lawsuits that punish tenants for protecting their property?
for example a person that shoots a burglar can easily find himself in a lawsuit because his life wasn't in danger. this in itself can have the above mentioned effect of "looking towards authority".

Read-Only: "just as we have corrected ourselves (or government's policies) in the past when the US was strongly isolationistic, the McCarthy era of "a communist traitor under every rug", a no-win policy in Viet Nam - so shall we correct the current situation."

Back then, we were still riding high on the world economy. We were a new stealth empire, dominating and directing the world's free-market industrialization. Our controlling share of the world economy is shrinking fast. That means the situation has changed, and our national choices are not going to be easy ones. Iraq was a desperate grab to keep control through the end of the Petroleum Age, and we fell flat.

In the face of competitive geopolitics, American arrogance is becoming a telling handicap and liability. National reputations, or more importantly the vectors of national reputations are extremely meaningful. We Americans have recently acceded to an incompetent leadership that has deeply sullied our national reputation and compounded threats to our national interests while squandering countless lives and resources. The implications are far-reaching, yet we haven't publicly come to grips with how we allowed ourselves to be deceived. Meanwhile, there is an insidious acceleration of events concerning global resources.

"The general American public can and should be compared to a sleeping giant - which eventually awakes and starts putting things back on track."

I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong. When I speak of such things with most of my fellow Americans, they just don't get it: We're running out of time as the world's economic and military dominator. If in a sudden realization of our situation we take on a darker national demeanor, or behave as sore losers it will not bring it back.

leopold99 (in post 12 above): "the president has always been able to declare marshal law."

I missed this statement on first reading. Thank you for a perfect example of the dangerous ignorance that is too common among citizens of the United States. It's been nearly 130 years since the Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) expressly prohibited the Executive branch from declaring martial law. The Insurrection Act of 1807 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act) limited the President's powers to the suppression of a rebellion underway- that is, to save the Union from armed rebellion. That was still a far cry from outright martial law by Presidential Decree, such as may be imposed under dictatorships.

In October, 2006 both Posse Comitatus and the IA were unconstitutionally compromised without any semblance of due debate, through provisions buried within the Defense Authorization Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_%282006%29). No visible majority of the American public bothered to notice. Nor has the American public majority given a hoot about the advent of "signing statements" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement) whereby this Presidency has deigned to arbitrarily select what portions of law apply to the Executive. This practice is utterly antithetical to the core founding principles of our republic. Yet most Americans knowingly or unknowingly have acceded to it.

This demonstrates the danger that American democracy is under: It's not that our system of government is particulary prone to degenerating into authoritarianism. It isn't even that we live under a particularly cunning Presidential regime (it's readily apparent that we do not). The real danger is that most Americans just don't give a shit.

If most of my fellow Americans continue in ignorance and apathy over these issues until present economic and strategic provocations bring future crises that impact all Americans personally, it may be much too late. We could wake up to discover America has effectively lost her soul. We could come to our collective senses only to find that our marvelous heritage, our hallowed 1776 progressivist experiment, has been wrecked by our own self-absorbed, politically irresponsible generation.

America is barely a democracy today

Norsefire,

America is barely a democracy today

America never was a Democracy, it is and always has been a Representative Republic, a democracy hell no.

Ah but some say loves a river but u dnt hear me complaning and lng live england!

no actually it is a representative democracy

though what I meant by that is that there is no real 'freedom' in america unless you bow and kiss George bush's ass

at least 20 years before 9/11


since at least 1973


this has been going on officially since 1947


echelon was put into service in 1972.


since the 1960s.


the president has always been able to declare marshal law.

I agree with much of what leopold99 said.
The fascist side of the US has been making frog soup of American rights for decades now.
Pretty much since Goldwater (the man who sold the Republican Party to the neocon fascists).
This is the only reason that Bush has been able to pull off all the overt bullshit he has been able to pull - they don't need to be covert anymore.
Bush isn't bright enough to pull all this off - in fact, if he were brighter, most people STILL wouldn't have noticed the slow erosion.
Bus is not creating the fascist movement, he is fucking it up for the rest of them.

no actually it is a representative democracy

though what I meant by that is that there is no real 'freedom' in america unless you bow and kiss George bush's ass

No, actually, it's not.
It is a Republic made up of a collective of Representative Democracies.

Why do you think you don't vote for President?
You don't, you know - you vote for an elector, who will cast a vote for President.

The Federal Government is a Republic.
The individual states are representative democracies.

The big dividing line betwene the two major parties is simply (in theory, anyway) that the Democrats want the Federal Government to be a Representative Democracy and the Republicans want it to remain a Republic.

Do you know what a Republic is?

I missed this statement on first reading. Thank you for a perfect example of the dangerous ignorance that is too common among citizens of the United States.

i reiterate "the president has always been able to declare martial law".

from "answers.com":
Martial Law is most easily defined as the application of military force to control all or part of an area where civilian authority is ineffective or in defiance of higher authority. Martial law often applies to battle theaters where army commanders require control of civilian resources close to front lines. In this vein, Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans in 1814. More recently, martial law has been used to support civilian authorities in times of natural disaster. Americans traditionally view martial law with great suspicion because of the power it grants to the army and its commanders. The Declaration of Independence condemned George III's use of the British army to "render the military independent of, and superior to, civil power." The Constitution's guarantee of the right of habeas corpus protects U.S. citizens from potential arbitrary excesses of martial law. Only the president can declare martial law on the federal level and only governors may do so on the state level.

Despite American ideals opposing martial law, presidents have used it to deal with crises since the founding of the nation.
http://www.answers.com/topic/martial-law

Norsefire

no actually it is a representative democracy

though what I meant by that is that there is no real 'freedom' in america unless you bow and kiss George bush's ass

And who taught you your civics? a amoeba? we have to much freedom, the freedom to live with the scum and criminals of the earth running free in society, and in less than 2 years we will get rid of Gorge and have the choice between 2 new players, that is the beauty we are stuck with a president for a maxium of 8 years, as little as 4 years, than we get ride of them, how many other countries can make the same claim? In the Middle east? The world?

we have too much freedom
Don't worry, you wont have it for long.

i was just wondering why people hate America I'm from England and all i ever see is hay lets hate America posts

I don't hate America, I hate what has haoppened to American politics and the government - over the past 30 years especially.

I love America, in that we have the power to change that.

I get frustrated with Americans, because we don't change it.

I would object to only one thing, the Republican staffers sent to "protest" in Florida weren't really hired thugs.

Delay mobilized two hundred or so Republican staffers and dispatched his khaki-clad footsoldiers to Miami. They swarmed the county office where a recount was under way, screamed and yell, and created a disruptive and tense atmosphere in which the local election canvassing board then decided to cease the recount. In a wonderful piece of investigative journalism, Washington Post columnist Al Kamen -- who pens a gossipy who's-doing-what-in-official-Washington feature -- printed a photo of the GOP mob in Miami and asked his readers to identify the angry demonstrators. Of the twelve protesters pictured, ten were present or recent House Republican aides. The guy leading the pack: Tom Pyle, a policy analyst for Delay.

http://albionmonitor.net/0012a/rightwingelection.html

you are the only American i have ever talked to with a brain well that might be down to the fact i only talk to them on game but nether the less you have changed my views on Americans well done lol

one_raven

I don't hate America, I hate what has haoppened to American politics and the government - over the past 30 years especially.

I love America, in that we have the power to change that.

I get frustrated with Americans, because we don't change it.

The funny thing is that I agree totally with you.

one_raven



The funny thing is that I agree totally with you.

I know you do, and I agree that it is funny as hell.

As much as I disagree with nearly everything you stand for, and as much as I sometimes want to hate you, I think we would have a great time getting drunk and fighting about politics together.

who do America view as there greatest allies?

you are the only American i have ever talked to with a brain well that might be down to the fact i only talk to them on game but nether the less you have changed my views on Americans well done lol

If that was directed at me, thank you.

yup it was

who do America view as there greatest allies?

Oil.
The Dollar.
Military power.

hmm... what else...

I would object to only one thing, the Republican staffers sent to "protest" in Florida weren't really hired thugs.

“
Delay mobilized two hundred or so Republican staffers and dispatched his khaki-clad footsoldiers to Miami. They swarmed the county office where a recount was under way, screamed and yell, and created a disruptive and tense atmosphere in which the local election canvassing board then decided to cease the recount. In a wonderful piece of investigative journalism, Washington Post columnist Al Kamen -- who pens a gossipy who's-doing-what-in-official-Washington feature -- printed a photo of the GOP mob in Miami and asked his readers to identify the angry demonstrators. Of the twelve protesters pictured, ten were present or recent House Republican aides. The guy leading the pack: Tom Pyle, a policy analyst for Delay.

http://albionmonitor.net/0012a/rightwingelection.html
i'm sure democrats pull the same crap.

i am not starting up a big flame here but i think that America is going to cease to be the only superpower and the e.u is going to become one soon

i'm sure democrats pull the same crap.

Is that your pad answer for every indictment of the Republican party?
You didn't even offer an example this time, you just said you're sure of it.

Kind of like every dig at Bush gets "Clinton did it too".
As if somehow that makes it OK (even if it is true).
Do you even realize that you are saying the equivalent of "Yeah, I know my party sucks, is corrupt and slimy as hell, and I'm not going to defend that if the other guys do shiotty things too."

Do you know how sad that is?

i am not starting up a big flame here but i think that America is going to cease to be the only superpower and the e.u is going to become one soon

I wouldn't be surprised.

wasen't the main reason America became a superpower becuase of world war two?

Is that your pad answer for every indictment of the Republican party?
no.
You didn't even offer an example this time, you just said you're sure of it.
and?

Kind of like every dig at Bush gets "Clinton did it too".
who said anything about bush? the issue raised in the quote was the republican party.
As if somehow that makes it OK (even if it is true).
"even if it's true? :confused: . doesn't that make you guilty of the very thing you accuse me of?
Do you even realize that you are saying the equivalent of "Yeah, I know my party sucks, is corrupt and slimy as hell, and I'm not going to defend that if the other guys do shiotty things too."

Do you know how sad that is?
uh. no. how sad is it?

spidergoat

Delay mobilized two hundred or so Republican staffers and dispatched his khaki-clad footsoldiers to Miami.

Khaki-clad foot soldiers? I didn't see any kaki clad foot solders? Looked at the picture again, still no kaki clad foot soldiers, maybe I need my eye glass prescription checked?

Online NewsHour: Florida Recount- November 10, 2000
Now three days later, the vote in Florida has been recounted. Over two-thirds of the state election supervisors overseeing that recount are Democrats. ...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/florida_11-10.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stop the Democratic Party's attack on third-party campaigns! Place ...
On July 3, the Illinois Democratic Party filed an objection challenging the ... to stop the Florida recount in 2000 and suppress the vote in Ohio in 2004? ...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/illi-j06.shtml

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

Stop the Democratic Party’s attack on third-party campaigns! Place SEP candidate Joe Parnarauskis on the ballot in Illinois!
Statement of the Socialist Equality Party
6 July 2006
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

This article is available as a PDF leaflet to download and distribute

The Socialist Equality Party calls on all our supporters and all those who defend democratic rights, in the United States and throughout the world, to flood the Illinois Board of Elections with protests against the attempt by the Democratic Party to keep SEP state Senate candidate Joe Parnarauskis off the November ballot.

the major problem with BOTH parties is the amount of money needed to run a campaign, millions of dollars. who has that kind of money?

one_raven

I know you do, and I agree that it is funny as hell.

As much as I disagree with nearly everything you stand for, and as much as I sometimes want to hate you, I think we would have a great time getting drunk and fighting about politics together.

Hell I think it would be a blast, there are time when you make sense to me there are other time I just can't agree, but I think that you are like me and can separate the politics form the friendship, and still have a great time in debate, and still come out friends.

one_raven

Is that your pad answer for every indictment of the Republican party?
You didn't even offer an example this time, you just said you're sure of it.

That was the pad answer from every democrat that I debated with during the Clinton years, and it is the pad answer from the liberals today, and that is one of the problems, instead of condemning the wrong be it democrat or republican, the hard core accuse the other side of doing the same, and that is the situation we have now, I point out the many things that happened in the Clinton administration, because they were wrong, and we have a little historical perspective to judge from, there are many things that I don't agree on with the Bush administration, but I will also wait for some time to put thing into a historical perspective, Like Vietnam, the pull out their didn't stop the killing, it didn't end the war, millions died after we left and damaged our creditability across the world stage, and I see the democrats doing the same today, I fought in and lived through the Vietnam era, and I do believe that I have some insight to what is going on today, and I will have to wait for the history to show who is correct, and I hope the correct actions are taken, I don't want to fight a war on our soil, I don't want my children and grand children fighting and possible dieing to defend this country in America, I don't want to see the beauty of this land turned into the landscape of war, and that is what I am afraid that this is what democrats will lead us to.

One easy step toward getting politicians out of the pockets of the corporations is campaign finance reform.

The whole point of the Democratic ideal is that all citizens have an equal voice in government and equal opportunity, allowing presidential campaigns (and now even Sentatorial campaigns) to cost millions of dollars works squarely against those ideals.

What I propose to to only allow politicians to take campaign contributions from individuals (no corporate PAC's, no political parties, no funds, no groups at all).
An individual can only contribute to a politician who the individual can legally vote for (in other words, not contributions to Senators from other states).
An individual's contributions to a politician are limited to no more than the equivalent of one-month's salary at minimum wage per race.
(Federal minimum wage for a presidential candidate, state minumum wage for a state level representative and local minimum wage (where applicable r.e. San Francisco) where it is a local race)
"Lobbying" is nothing more than legalized bribery and should be stopped.

This would have to be begun on a state level via referendum, of course, since national referendums are not allowed.
Once enough state representatives have been forced to change that opens the door to multiple parties to get into the Senate and the House - people who will force the same restraints upon the Presidential race.

one_raven, what the hell, you have been listening to my debates with the democrats were I live, are you sure that we are that far apart in beliefs?
Hell the congressman from my district get more money from California, than he gets from the state, and the millions given to our senators are almost half of their campaign chests, and they all are Democrats.

I am most certainly not a Democrat.
I agree much more with the Republican Party ideal than I do the Democratic Party ideal.
the problem, however, is that there hasn't been a Republican president in this country since Eisenhower.
Goldwater sold the Party to "conservatives", Nixon was an embarassment, Ford was a tool and Reagan sealed the deal.
It's gone downhill since.

Trying to redirect the campaign finance discussion here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1367747#post1367747).

one_raven, well I wouldn't consider my self a Republican, I am conservative, and if you lived with all three of your reprehensive as democrats wouldn't you be a little hostile about them two, the problem is that there are do Democrats in the mold of JFK, Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and a bunch of others that I remember from the late fifties, and early sixties, the democratic party after JFK really went out of control, I can list all the thing that they have done to screw up the country, but I really think we would agree on most, but I just can't support any democrat that is in the active party to day.

Have a beer, and enjoy, friend.

the problem, however, is that there hasn't been a Republican president in this country since Eisenhower.
Clinton.

Compared with Clinton, Eisenhower was kind of a lefty - Clinton would be in the more moderate wing of the Republican Party of Eisenhower's time.

But I think you fall to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Republican is as Republican does. And fascist is not that far off, as a label, for what the Republicans have been doing. Try to find some serious structural differences bewteen actual Republican political actions and Mussillini's governmental principles, for example.

No, actually, it's not.
It is a Republic made up of a collective of Representative Democracies.

Why do you think you don't vote for President?
You don't, you know - you vote for an elector, who will cast a vote for President.

The Federal Government is a Republic.
The individual states are representative democracies.

The big dividing line betwene the two major parties is simply (in theory, anyway) that the Democrats want the Federal Government to be a Representative Democracy and the Republicans want it to remain a Republic.

Do you know what a Republic is?

Well thank you for the lesson and yes I know what a republic is, Syria, my country is a republic.

Ignoring the debate on what america is (some americans even say its a dictatorship in the making) nonetheless we have barely any freedom or if we do it gives criminals the same freedom and creates a bad place to live. Why do you think there's alot of crime in america? cuz this 'freedom' makes people messed up and all the wealth and eveyrthing creates this crime america needs more tight control on SOME things.

Norsefire: "Syria, my country is a republic."

Bullshit. Your government is not based on popular consent. Your present government was established in a 1966 military coup, and has remained a family dynasty ever since. I may know Syria better than you know America, having escaped there twice during the Lebanon civil war. To call Syria a Republic is to fall for the political window-dressing: Constitutionally, the Ba'ath Party is the keeper the power along with the dictatorial Presidency. Even with further weakening of the Syrian Presidency, you don't get a free upgrade to republic. For so long as the Ba'ath Party maintains constitutional supremacy, the default is an oligarchy, not a republic.

"Why do you think there's alot of crime in america? cuz this 'freedom' makes people messed up and all the wealth and eveyrthing creates this crime america needs more tight control on SOME things."

Syria has equivalent crime rates, despite having a far less representative government. You've made no case that freedom and prosperity create crime. I wouldn't be picking on your country right now if you hadn't inferred that it enjoys a better or more secure society than the USA. Syrian secular government is a positive, and I hope that its evolution and reform will be encouraged.

Please don't suggest that the United States would benefit from a dynastic dictatorship such as yours, if you wish to avoid a heated response from Americans who still believe in our system of government, hobbled as it is by present American political apathy. We've been dabbling as a nation with just such a perversion of "republic" recently, electing a disastrous leader on the basis of family name alone (notice the distinction- elected) and allowing unprecedented consolidation of powers in the Executive Branch of our government.

You're touching on an American internal political struggle, between those who would have power distributed and those who would consolidate it. Your country is too far controlled by centralized, anti-democratic power to seriously have that debate today.

"we have barely any freedom or if we do it gives criminals the same freedom and creates a bad place to live."

I'm not sure who you mean by "we" in the above statement. The oligarchs and dictatorship have prevailed in Syrian society, but their victory is far from complete in the USA. The Bush Administration is on track to leave office in shame, and 1-party dynastic rule does not look remotely likely in America- for which I am extremely grateful.

What bearing does all this have on crime rates? Very little. I'm not knocking Syria, but Syria is not a crime-free paradise, and is no example for Americans to imitate. Sorry.

Norsefire: "Syria, my country is a republic."

Bullshit. Your government is not based on popular consent. Your present government was established in a 1966 military coup, and has remained a family dynasty ever since. I may know Syria better than you know America, having escaped there twice during the Lebanon civil war. To call Syria a Republic is to fall for the political window-dressing: Constitutionally, the Ba'ath Party is the keeper the power along with the dictatorial Presidency. Even with further weakening of the Syrian Presidency, you don't get a free upgrade to republic. For so long as the Ba'ath Party maintains constitutional supremacy, the default is an oligarchy, not a republic.

"Why do you think there's alot of crime in america? cuz this 'freedom' makes people messed up and all the wealth and eveyrthing creates this crime america needs more tight control on SOME things."

Syria has equivalent crime rates, despite having a far less representative government. You've made no case that freedom and prosperity create crime. I wouldn't be picking on your country right now if you hadn't inferred that it enjoys a better or more secure society than the USA. Syrian secular government is a positive, and I hope that its evolution and reform will be encouraged.

Please don't suggest that the United States would benefit from a dynastic dictatorship such as yours, if you wish to avoid a heated response from Americans who still believe in our system of government, hobbled as it is by present American political apathy. We've been dabbling as a nation with just such a perversion of "republic" recently, electing a disastrous leader on the basis of family name alone (notice the distinction- elected) and allowing unprecedented consolidation of powers in the Executive Branch of our government.

You're touching on an American internal political struggle, between those who would have power distributed and those who would consolidate it. Your country is too far controlled by centralized, anti-democratic power to seriously have that debate today.

"we have barely any freedom or if we do it gives criminals the same freedom and creates a bad place to live."

I'm not sure who you mean by "we" in the above statement. The oligarchs and dictatorship have prevailed in Syrian society, but their victory is far from complete in the USA. The Bush Administration is on track to leave office in shame, and 1-party dynastic rule does not look remotely likely in America- for which I am extremely grateful.

What bearing does all this have on crime rates? Very little. I'm not knocking Syria, but Syria is not a crime-free paradise, and is no example for Americans to imitate. Sorry.

Let me ask: where are you from?

Syria is a republic, just not as you would say America is a republic. It is a republic because the citizens can elect leaders except for the president. Also, it is classified as an republic under an authoritarian regime, nonetheless a republic.

And what do you mean of my country? We enjoy the freedom we have, knowing the country's government is taking care of the criminals, not something the American system can boast. For instance, punishment in america is ridiculous. YOu kill like two people, and you get like 20 years? wow, that's ridiculously low punishment.

Also, because of the enterprise it is a magnet for drug trafficing, etc mafia etc gangs

America is defintely not free. And from what I have read, you are lebanese and therefore you should be allied with us.

"Let me ask: where are you from?"

I'm not sure myself, because I had a somewhat nomadic upbringing. I'm Scottish by ancestry, an American citizen since birth, but was mostly raised in the Middle East (Yemen, Lubnan, Saudia). Once in Syria (while evacuating from fighting in Lebanon) my family and I experienced the most extraordinary hospitality that I have ever experienced from anyone anywhere in my entire life. I have great respect for your people, but less-than-perfect respect for your government. Having said that, I sure hope you don't have relatives in the Syrian visa dept.

"Syria is a republic, just not as you would say America is a republic."

Because Bashir inherited his job, and was not elected (nor was is father) Syria is to me a far cry from a republic such as the USA. It's debatable, considering an institution of hereditary rule-for-life, that Syria is a republic by definition. Of course, a country can call itself anything it likes. If Bashir stays in power and chooses a relative as his successory, the case for the label of monarchy will be much stronger than the argument for calling Syria a republic. But that's really all just semantics, yahneh, maleish.

"It is a republic because the citizens can elect leaders except for the president."

If it makes you feel better, we can call Syria a republic here. Ahlan wa sahlan.

"it is classified as an republic under an authoritarian regime, nonetheless a republic."

Tayyibi, good for you, just don't export it to Lebanon or America s'il vous plait.

"And what do you mean of my country?"

It's better than many, but no example for the USA.

"We enjoy the freedom we have, knowing the country's government is taking care of the criminals"

Do torture, execution, and summary trials really make you feel safer? Are you sure that you can never be confused for a criminal, or enemy of the state in Syria? Wulla, really really sure? Without the right wasta, it can happen to you, and you know it.

"not something the American system can boast."

Shukr'ullah.

"punishment in america is ridiculous."

It's imperfect, but Americans normally enjoy much better legal protections, including the right to face our accusers.

"YOu kill like two people, and you get like 20 years?"

Like I said, an imperfect system, as are all.

because of the enterprise it is a magnet for drug trafficing, etc mafia etc gangs

Are you trying to suggest that there are no gangs, no illicit drugs, and no weapons trafficking in Syria?? Don't make me laugh. Remember, I've been there.

"America is defintely not free."

We're much freer than Syria.

from what I have read, you are lebanese and therefore you should be allied with us.

W’air shoo beik wlo!! Actually I was very grateful for the Syrian intervention at the end of the war. And I was just as happy when Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Don't get me going on Lebanese vs. Syrians, because my personal feelings will surely get in the way, and I'll say something really snobby, that I'll probably regret.

More on topic, don't suggest to me that the USA needs a government like Syria's. That's precisely what the neoconservatives (Cheney & co.) have been trying to insert into our system, like a fascist virus. But our political system is resisting, which makes me not a little bit hopeful and proud.

Ok let us believe what we believe and leave it at that. However, crime is much higher in America than in syria, and syria at least has not kissed america's feet and israels

let me ask: do you support Israel over Syria or what?


I believe that Syria and lebanon's fates must intertwine. I see a huge alliance between the two, even though I am alawite and do not like when Lebanon blames us for everything and stuff we never did (hariri for example, we didn't assasinate him), I like the Lebanese and admire them and if they dont bow to america and become a slave country like some others, I can easily see syria giving huge support to lebanon and perhaps the best option is to annex lebanon as a 'state'

"do you support Israel over Syria or what?"

Apartheid in Israel is a more serious problem than Syria's backward government. Quantitative support is a superficial comparison, though. We aren't comparing football teams here.

"I believe that Syria and lebanon's fates must intertwine."

Horse shit.

"I see a huge alliance between the two"

Stay out and we'll be fine.

"...I am alawite and do not like when Lebanon blames us for everything and stuff we never did (hariri for example, we didn't assasinate him)"

I don't believe that Hariri's murder was ordered in Damascus either. That allegation never made sense to me, except as a symptom of the fact that most Lebanese generally don't trust Syria. The "huge alliance" you fantasize about is not possible, precisely because of this deep mistrust.

"I like the Lebanese and admire them and if they dont bow to america and become a slave country like some others"

America's clout is fading all across the Mideast. You'll soon have to find a new pretext for putting down your neighbors and pretending you're better than them.

"I can easily see syria giving huge support to lebanon and perhaps the best option is to annex lebanon as a 'state'"

Keep your hooves out of my beautiful Lubnan, ya himar.

Maybe we can more productively return to Naomi Wolf's piece, and the subject of this thread. (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/)

She outlined a proven 10-step program for aspiring fascists impatient with democracy:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create a gulag.
3. Develop a thug caste.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Equate dissent with treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.

The neoconservatives have made attempts at all 10, but thankfully they have often been inept. Step #1 is key, and if no major domestic terrorism strikes the USA before November 2008, the USA may have narrowly dodged the fascist bullet. Even now, after all the policy bungling, the public stampede from a new attack seems unpredictable: Panicked Americans might conceivably turn on what's left of the neoconservatives, for the failure of their promises of security. I'd prefer a quieter and more definitive transition, whereby we throw the bums out on our own American democratic initiative.

The genesis of such a transition is for me evident in the words of Senator Mike Gravel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA) and Representative Dennis Kucinich (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc6o50JVjtE). When I hear these thinking Americans, I am encouraged that my country's flirtation with fascism is flopping, and encouraged that we may wind up a greater nation than ever as a result of the present bitter learning experience- Not a greater nation in terms of our threats to bully the world around us, but in terms of a more informed public, demanding a more reasonable leadership, achieving a sustainable, beneficial relationship with the world around us.

Here's Mike Gravel further informing this topic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCkgFr7CACY&mode=related&search=).

"do you support Israel over Syria or what?"

Apartheid in Israel is a more serious problem than Syria's backward government. Quantitative support is a superficial comparison, though. We aren't comparing football teams here.

"I believe that Syria and lebanon's fates must intertwine."

Horse shit.

"I see a huge alliance between the two"

Stay out and we'll be fine.

"...I am alawite and do not like when Lebanon blames us for everything and stuff we never did (hariri for example, we didn't assasinate him)"

I don't believe that Hariri's murder was ordered in Damascus either. That allegation never made sense to me, except as a symptom of the fact that most Lebanese generally don't trust Syria. The "huge alliance" you fantasize about is not possible, precisely because of this deep mistrust.

"I like the Lebanese and admire them and if they dont bow to america and become a slave country like some others"

America's clout is fading all across the Mideast. You'll soon have to find a new pretext for putting down your neighbors and pretending you're better than them.

"I can easily see syria giving huge support to lebanon and perhaps the best option is to annex lebanon as a 'state'"

Keep your hooves out of my beautiful Lubnan, ya himar.

Nonetheless, Israel or Syria, make your pick

And yes of course with that attitude it is impossible, but Lebanon should be ANNEXED to Syria. THe majority of the lebanese like Syria, it is not an impossibility plus the moslems are in power in lebanon , not the christians

Sharmoot. Erm, I mean suuure (moot).

me? for what?

For wanting to beguile Lebanon into a filthy Ba'ath.

This has nothing to do with politics any more than it has to do with: LEBANON SHOULD BE PART OF SYRIA!!!!! It was before the Europeans colonized the region.

Is that your pad answer for every indictment of the Republican party?
You didn't even offer an example this time, you just said you're sure of it.

Kind of like every dig at Bush gets "Clinton did it too".
As if somehow that makes it OK (even if it is true).
Do you even realize that you are saying the equivalent of "Yeah, I know my party sucks, is corrupt and slimy as hell, and I'm not going to defend that if the other guys do shitty things too."

Do you know how sad that is?

Yeah, well I prefer the guy who stabs me with the darts form the dart board and is honest about it to the guy shoving the scottish claymore up my ass while telling me that he is really trying to help me. So forgive me if I point out that no matter what you accuse the Republicans of doing the Democrats have and are doing the same thing.

So forgive me if I point out that no matter what you accuse the Republicans of doing the Democrats have and are doing the same thing. That is not so, and hasn't been for twenty years or more.

The Reps have been taken over by a particular pressure group and its corporate allies, and have been off on an spree of heedless greed and imbecile belligerence that is without precedent in American history that I know of, let alone matched by current Dems.

There is no Dem Abramoff. There is no Dem Delay. There is no Dem Cheney. There is no Dem Halliburton,or Gitmo. The Dem's Vietnam was forty years ago, when Texans were Dem, and half Rep even then. The Dems never did anything like privatize essential military operations, or hire mercenaries for preemptive war. The Dems did not fill hundreds of important government positions with the absurdly unqualified or the openly hostile.

As IIRC Maher pointed out: Monica Goodling was 33 years old, from a fourth rate school, and without any prosecution experience, when she became the #3 person in the entire Department of Justice, responsible for the oversight of almost a hundred prosecuting attorneys nationwide. Find me a Dem adminsitration that did anything like that. Hell, except for maybe Reagan's, find any administration that did anything like that.

Thes guys are in a class by themselves.

This has nothing to do with politics any more than it has to do with: LEBANON SHOULD BE PART OF SYRIA!!!!! It was before the Europeans colonized the region.
I've got an even better idea: a Shia superstate! Syria annexes Lebanon. Iran annexes Syria.

In fact, the entire middle east under a federal liberal democracy would be sweet. Saudi Arabia would be like Texas. Iran would be like Utah. Israel would be like New York. Like Evangelists, Mormons and Jews in the USA, they might not like one other, but at least they'd stop killing one another. :D

*sigh*


what exactly does this have to do with the original article?


i knew it would happen but i hoped to have at least 3 pages of topical opinions.

Dude, this is patently a middle east discussion forum. Don't even try slip in a different topic.

Regarding your article - it's possible. No political system lasts forever. But I don't see American democracy collapsing yet - at least Bush won't be voted in again.

[QUOTE=Zephyr;1373098]Dude, this is patently a middle east discussion forum. Don't even try slip in a different topic.

QUOTE]

true,its a beautiful thing watching a topic about toilet paper slowing make its way to an arab/jew discussion.

Are you really pretending that such factors were not present in past fascist outbreaks?

Me? Nope; I was merely expressing an opinion as to the overall outcome. Factors are countered by other factors. People need to be aware of the fragility of liberal democracy lest they lose it, but they need to be aware of its strengths lest they give it up for lost before it is.

Of course, I could be wrong.

i think this article is interesting and would like to know what other people think of it.

i have 3 requests for this thread

1.if you are going to disagree with this article please use a specific quote and give evidence to back up your opinion/claims.

2.please do not descend into semantics

3.please do not turn this into an islam bashing thread

please please please.i really want this thread to be productive and not just another thread which digresses so far from the topic at hand it becomes pointless bickering.

1. In your emotional haste to bash America, you misspelled "fascist."

2. One need not read any article in the Guardian to know what it says.
It's an attack machine for socialists.

3. The Guardian long ago descended into bashing, and semantics.

For leftists to deny others the very weapons wielded daily by leftists is the laughable height of hypocrisy.

Debate with leftists is impossible. Leftists do not debate nor discuss.
They call names and lie. Oh, and they demonstrate profound ignorance by their misuse of "fascist" and "Nazi" even to the point of misspelling such words.

1. In your emotional haste to bash America, you misspelled "fascist."

2. One need not read any article in the Guardian to know what it says.
It's an attack machine for socialists.

3. The Guardian long ago descended into bashing, and semantics.

For leftists to deny others the very weapons wielded daily by leftists is the laughable height of hypocrisy.

Debate with leftists is impossible. Leftists do not debate nor discuss.
They call names and lie. Oh, and they demonstrate profound ignorance by their misuse of "fascist" and "Nazi" even to the point of misspelling such words.

Arrrghhh! A tighty righty!:eek: :eek: :eek:

samcdkey

Arrrghhh! A pant bunch lefty!
:jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop:

1. In your emotional haste to bash America, you misspelled "fascist."

2. One need not read any article in the Guardian to know what it says.
It's an attack machine for socialists.

3. The Guardian long ago descended into bashing, and semantics.

For leftists to deny others the very weapons wielded daily by leftists is the laughable height of hypocrisy.

Debate with leftists is impossible. Leftists do not debate nor discuss.
They call names and lie. Oh, and they demonstrate profound ignorance by their misuse of "fascist" and "Nazi" even to the point of misspelling such words.


im teeeerrbly sori,if u can git pest my misplaaing end addrass tha point tha wuld be wunderful

that is so funny, i missed that misspelling too.

as per an earlier post the usage of 'brown people' or however it was used is just intellectual dishonesty. relegating the disseratation to the trash bin, if you dont know what the U.S is like the for f**** sake dont write an article about it bashing it.

and Israelis would give back their 'country'!