Fascism alive and well in America.
harry
Americas. It has it's own school to train people up in these arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas
http://www.globalissues.org/article/76/training-human-rights-violators
Cindy Hamilton
1. Off-topic
2. Not news. Have you been living under a rock?
3. Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of
the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a
dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and
forcible suppression of opposition
Nope. Doesn't sound like America to me.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"harry" <harol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91ffd471-2e87-4dfc...@fl7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Neill Massello
> Those guys sure can put up drywall, and other home repairs.
Fascist plumbers make the drains run on time.
HeyBub
You say that like you think it's a bad thing.
Stormin Mormon
Fascist shop guys, machining in goose step!
Fascist weather man, calls for freezing rain and Sieg Hail!
Misbehaving fascist dalmations will be spot on sight.
Get your Christmas specials, out of the Reischtag Flyer.
Frei yer eggs while travelling, on a Frying Panzer.
Have planes on both sides, with a Rightwaffe, and a Leftwaffe.
Russian Fascist TSA agent, Glover Stalingrab.
And, Hitler will reign on the parade.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Neill Massello" <mass...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1jsrj3y.6w0gtcrrjdtwN%mass...@newsguy.com...
Stormin Mormon
bad thing.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:zrSdnYHyerMuxGjR...@earthlink.com...
harry
don't even deny it.
HeyBub
Hint: It's not Fascism to help your friend kill our common enemies. It's
meritorious.
Do you recall a chap named T.E. Lawrence? As I recall, Great Britain used
him as a conduit to funnel supplies and money to the Arabs in their fight
against the Turks.
Cindy Hamilton
Let's take this point by point:
Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of
the Fascisti) that:
1. exalts nation and often race above the individual
The individual is paramount in the U.S. "My tax rate" is
much more important than "your wellbeing".
2. and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by
a
dictatorial leader,
Much of the real power of the U.S. government is held by the states.
Plain vanilla murder is not even a Federal crime.
Dictatorial leader? Bwah, hah, hah.
3. severe economic and social regimentation,
Yeah, right. Anybody can work anywhere they please, worship
(or not) as they please, and for the most part conduct their lives
in whatever way they please. Businesses buy Congress; they're
not run by it.
4. and forcible suppression of opposition
Would that it were. Then I wouldn't have to endure listening
to people whose idea of rhetorical sophistication is making
fun of Barack Obama's name.
harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are in cloud cuckoo land.
You are enslaved to your wealthy bankers and weapons manufacturers who
need perpetual war to enrich themselves. It matters not to them that
thousands of American boys die so they can fill their pockets. Most
of your recent wars have been to defend the fascist state of Israel as
well as enriching the minority
If you don't believe me, ask who is sitting pretty in the USA today?
Not the average American slave who works s the bankers can buy their
yachts and rest in the sun in the Bahamas and pay virtually no tax,
whilst there are tent towns in America.
The idea that their wealth will somehow "drain down" and benifit the
ordinary parson is laughable. Gov. propaganda lapped up by the
credulous. The system is set up so the slaves will be slaves forever
and the rich will be rich forever.
Even the American revolution was only so the rich wouldn't have to pay
taxes.
As for "freedom of information" Heh Heh. You only have to listen to
the fake outrage because the machinations of government are laid bare
by Wikileaks.
Who incidently have broke no laws anywhere.
Kyle
[insert the-stupid-it-burns.jpg]
What amazes me about folks like you (and I have a few of 'em in my
family) is the amazing cognitive disconnect it takes to end up where
you are philosophically and politically. "Ignorance is strength"
indeed.
You toss around terms recklessly and ignorant of their real meaning.
You try to apply terms to our nation that are in direct contradiction
with fact and when presented with evidence of your error resort to /ad
hominum/ arguments like "cloud cuckoo land".
You're p-o'ed at the government—we get it. So DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Volunteer with organizations that lobby the government for change
(myself, I'm a member of Sojourners); ask for a meeting with your
Congressperson and/or Senators either in D.C. or in their local office
near you to talk about what you expect from your elected officials;
get involved, do something that makes a difference.
But don't waste our time and yours by pissing and moaning in a USENET
forum that (1) has no bearing on politics and (2) has no effect on
anything. This is the problem with too many in our society anymore:
they whine and complain and /shatner/ all over everything but they
won't actually DO anything about it.
Not even vote. Example: 32% of voters in my district actually cast a
ballot in the state senate race where a respected Republican was being
challenged by a TEA partier. The TEA partier won by a significant
margin, and THEN you heard all the complaining about how terrible it
was this guy had been elected. Well, complaining people-who-didn't-
vote, learn the sayings of the wise H. L. Mencken: "Democracy is the
theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get
it GOOD AND HARD."
dgk
wrote:
I vote, but it means almost nothing when corporations can pour money
virtually without limit. If it costs $20 million (minimum) to run for
Senate, they're all bought before they even get to Washington.
Our news is filtered through corporate spin machines (not liberal, not
conservative) so we get the view that the corporations want us to get.
Mostly that turns out to be Conservative.
It's almost funny. Our founding fathers actually limited the rights of
corporations - on a state level. The corporate charter allowed them to
exist for one purpose and for a specific period of time. They had to
act in the public interest as well.
Delaware changed all that by issuing corporate charters without those
restrictions. That's why all the big banks and insurance companies are
chartered in Delaware. Now the "strictly constructionist" right-wing
Supreme Court rules that corporations can spend as much as they want
to buy Washington DC.
Fascism has several definitions, but the prime one is the merger of
government and corporate power. We're very close even though it was a
Republican, President Eisenhower, who warned us about the
military/industrial complex. Too bad no one listened.
Kurt Ullman
dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> I vote, but it means almost nothing when corporations can pour money
> virtually without limit. If it costs $20 million (minimum) to run for
> Senate, they're all bought before they even get to Washington.
Or Unions or trial lawyers...just to keep it real.
> Delaware changed all that by issuing corporate charters without those
> restrictions. That's why all the big banks and insurance companies are
> chartered in Delaware. Now the "strictly constructionist" right-wing
> Supreme Court rules that corporations can spend as much as they want
> to buy Washington DC.
Which, protestations to the contrary is not new. In fact the SCs
this time around went back to a precedent that was in place up to about
20 years ago.
In any case, campaign finance "reform" is a relatively new
phenomenon really arising around the time of Richard Nixon.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
harry
> > Delaware changed all that by issuing corporate charters without those
> > restrictions. That's why all the big banks and insurance companies are
> > chartered in Delaware. Now the "strictly constructionist" right-wing
> > Supreme Court rules that corporations can spend as much as they want
> > to buy Washington DC.
>
> Which, protestations to the contrary is not new. In fact the SCs
> this time around went back to a precedent that was in place up to about
> 20 years ago.
> In any case, campaign finance "reform" is a relatively new
> phenomenon really arising around the time of Richard Nixon.
>
> --
> "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
> ---PJ O'Rourke
What I find amazing is that in America, the turkeys vote for
Christmas. ie blue collar workers vote republican. When challenged
about this, they come up with madspeak that they believe that
republicanism will (someday) bring them to wealth. It must be Fox
News.
HeyBub
>
>
> I vote, but it means almost nothing when corporations can pour money
> virtually without limit. If it costs $20 million (minimum) to run for
> Senate, they're all bought before they even get to Washington.
How is that? Corporations can't vote.
Now if your complaint is that corporations spend money to pass information
to the voters that favor one candidate or position over an opponent, how is
more information bad?
>
> Our news is filtered through corporate spin machines (not liberal, not
> conservative) so we get the view that the corporations want us to get.
> Mostly that turns out to be Conservative.
Well, yeah. You can't expect a corporation to promote a policy or candidate
that is opposed to the corporation's interests. Attacks on the corporations
come mostly from the left (unions, offshoring, drilling in ANWAR,
affirmative action, etc.), so its no surprise that a corporation would take
an anti-left position.
>
> Delaware changed all that by issuing corporate charters without those
> restrictions. That's why all the big banks and insurance companies are
> chartered in Delaware.
Er, could be originally. Today, however, Delaware (and Nevada) have no tax
on "foreign" corporations.
> Now the "strictly constructionist" right-wing
> Supreme Court rules that corporations can spend as much as they want
> to buy Washington DC.
Not only corporations, but unions, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, and other
left-wing groups.
The court merely leveled the playing field.
dgk
wrote:
Nonsense. The corporations have far more money. That isn't level. The
reason this is some dangerous is because, if a corporation really has
personhood, that person is a sociopath. They have no morals, no
responsibility to the US or the world. All that matters to a
corporation is its bottom line. If a corporation does something to
help its bottom line but hurts the country/planet, then it will do so.
In fact, the shareholders can sue it if it acts in any other way.
Robert Green
news:eoppf6l5tqjpqj55t...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:51:46 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
<stuff snipped>
> >The court merely leveled the playing field.
The court demolished the playing field. They claimed that money = free
speech but when was the last time you saw dollars fly out of someone's mouth
when they spoke? The decision was based on an obvious faulty premise.
Businesses are granted rights that no citizen can hope to achieve - eternal
life being one of the most obvious. To equate a business corporation with
an individual's right of free speech will one day been seen as perverse as
the Dred Scott decision.
>
>
> Nonsense. The corporations have far more money. That isn't level. The
> reason this is some dangerous is because, if a corporation really has
> personhood, that person is a sociopath. They have no morals, no
> responsibility to the US or the world. All that matters to a
> corporation is its bottom line. If a corporation does something to
> help its bottom line but hurts the country/planet, then it will do so.
To equate businesses with social activism groups (liberal or conservative)
is specious. Most unions and social organizations can't hope to pile up the
money that Exxon has in its warchest. Corporations like Exxon can and will
campaign for politicians that will give them unfettered access to resources
and who will allow them to get off scot-free when they pollute an entire
eco-system because it's in their best interests to do everything as cheaply
as possible.
There's only one bright star in the dark sky of Citizen's United. Carly and
Meg were separated from at least a little of their immense fortunes by their
recent (losing) campaigns, thus creating jobs and revenue in their states.
Having oodles of money, for now, doesn't seem to be a guarantee of winning.
Of course, they were spending personal, not corporate, money. If the CU
decision transfers wealth from grossly overpaid CEO's back into the economy,
then it can't be all bad. But it's mostly all bad.
> In fact, the shareholders can sue it if it acts in any other way.
Someone should have reminded Chief Justice Roberts of that. Roberts never
met a business he didn't like more than a fellow human being. "Money = Free
Speech" is so ludicrous even a 5 year old can tell it's not true and it's
antithetical to the concept of "one man, one vote." When you write a check
to the ACLU or a conservative foundation, you are making a deliberate
choice. When you buy a gallon of gas from Exxon, you don't expect to be
funding a political action committee that might have plans for the country
that are very much NOT in your best interest. Someone asked "isn't having
more information better?" Well, not when that information is really just a
pack of self-serving lies as most corporate propaganda turns out to be. We
see how easily lies gain legs right here in AHR. I'd hate to
institutionalize lying on a massive corporate scale.
--
Bobby G.
Kurt Ullman
"Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
> "dgk" <d...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eoppf6l5tqjpqj55t...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:51:46 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> > >The court merely leveled the playing field.
>
> The court demolished the playing field. They claimed that money = free
> speech but when was the last time you saw dollars fly out of someone's mouth
> when they spoke? The decision was based on an obvious faulty premise.
When was the last time TV and Radio time were given away free?
Printing and mailing was done gratis? Checks (rather large ones) were
not needed to buy newspaper ads?
> Businesses are granted rights that no citizen can hope to achieve - eternal
> life being one of the most obvious. To equate a business corporation with
> an individual's right of free speech will one day been seen as perverse as
> the Dred Scott decision.
Yet at least the idea of corporation having constitutional rights goes
way back with this specifically being noted in 1978 (Lewis Powell
writing the opinion).
> To equate businesses with social activism groups (liberal or conservative)
> is specious. Most unions and social organizations can't hope to pile up the
> money that Exxon has in its warchest. Corporations like Exxon can and will
> campaign for politicians that will give them unfettered access to resources
> and who will allow them to get off scot-free when they pollute an entire
> eco-system because it's in their best interests to do everything as cheaply
> as possible.
>
And yet according to opensecrets.org, 6 of the top 10
contributors to political parties between 1980 and 2010 were unions with
the government employees union coming in third behind ATT and a Dem PAC.
Citigroup was 15 (with two more union ahead of it. UPS was 20 with two
more unions in between.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
> There's only one bright star in the dark sky of Citizen's United. Carly and
> Meg were separated from at least a little of their immense fortunes by their
> recent (losing) campaigns, thus creating jobs and revenue in their states.
Citzen's United had nothing to do with this. That was established
earlier that person could spend their own as wanted.
HeyBub
>
> The court demolished the playing field. They claimed that money =
> free speech but when was the last time you saw dollars fly out of
> someone's mouth when they spoke? The decision was based on an
> obvious faulty premise. Businesses are granted rights that no citizen
> can hope to achieve - eternal life being one of the most obvious. To
> equate a business corporation with an individual's right of free
> speech will one day been seen as perverse as the Dred Scott decision.
But corporations can't vote, which, to some, is totally unfair - after all,
corporations pay taxes and so forth.
Corporations can, however, be found guilty of criminal behavior. Just
yesterday Continental Airlines was found guilty - in a French court - of
criminal conduct. I suspect Continental will be placed in a French jail.
So, then, it seems to me that if corporations are "people" and are taxed,
but can't vote or even express themselves in an election, there's something
unfair going on.
>
>> In fact, the shareholders can sue it if it acts in any other way.
>
> Someone should have reminded Chief Justice Roberts of that. Roberts
> never met a business he didn't like more than a fellow human being.
> "Money = Free Speech" is so ludicrous even a 5 year old can tell it's
> not true and it's antithetical to the concept of "one man, one vote."
> When you write a check to the ACLU or a conservative foundation, you
> are making a deliberate choice. When you buy a gallon of gas from
> Exxon, you don't expect to be funding a political action committee
> that might have plans for the country that are very much NOT in your
> best interest. Someone asked "isn't having more information better?"
> Well, not when that information is really just a pack of self-serving
> lies as most corporate propaganda turns out to be. We see how easily
> lies gain legs right here in AHR. I'd hate to institutionalize lying
> on a massive corporate scale.
If a corporation does something people don't like, they quit buying the
corporation's stuff (i.e. BP). That possibility vs. campaigning for
socially-irresponsible programs seems to me to level the corporation's
decisions.