Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, at least Wolfman responded to the points made rather than attacking Naomi Wolf or the original poster.

Myself I agree that the USA under GWB is far more like a fascist state than it was previously, but it's still very much unlike full-blown fascism, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to think the trend will continue after the next Presidential election. Anything's possible but I currently see no strong reason to believe it.

Than you for your observation. I also don't think we are close to "full blown fascism". I also agree we'll know by Nov. of 2008 if the threat of this country changing is real or not.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes, I see Wolf is flakier than I had known when I heard her on the radio. But I wasn't going by her opinions. And, I said in the OP I wasn't sure where I thought we were on the slope.

I was going by Wolf's description of historical events which preceded other fascist states forming and the correlating events which have occurred in this country under Bush.

And given her somewhat odd beliefs, doesn't it concern you of her ability to be taking these events and circumstances out of context and comparing them?

I am not the only one disturbed about arrests without charges, torture, and the level of spying on citizens which we hadn't seen since the Nixon era. Those are very ominous events, they aren't simply politically unacceptable.

And rightly so, but please leave the obvious appeal to emotion out of it.

Comparisons with fascism and Hitler are a turn off for rational debates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think you can consider that Gitmo is a gulag, it is not a prison for internal "enemies of the state" i.e. USA citizens convicted of political crimes against the state.

(Also does no one else find it slightly ironic that something so associated with the form of communism of the defunct USSR is being used as a sign of fascism...)

I asked that the term, Gulag, be ignored. That is not the term I would use either and I hate to see us waste time over defining Gulag rather than discussing for example, whether or not suspending habeas corpus is an ominous sign.

As for Gitmo, there was one American citizen held there and, Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants.

Many Held at Guantanamo Not Likely Terrorists

And there was one US citizens in Gitmo, and another held without trial for a couple years in the US. People like to discount that fact by seeing these two guys as "not like me."

The cases relate to the rights of: (a) an American citizen designated as an "enemy combatant" and captured in the theater of War and held subsequently in the US (the Hamdi case); (b) an American citizen designated as an "enemy combatant" but captured in the US and held subsequently in the US (the Padilla case);

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Temporarily out of time, so I'll be back later.

 

[Pardalis]

Skeptigirl, here's an hypothetical scenario:

There's a war. US troops capture the people firing at them. What do you suggest we do with them, American or otherwise?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And Naomi Wolf thinks Jesus is following her around in the shape of a cat. So what's your point?

What was yours, other than an ad hominem attack on NW? I thought we'd already pointed out repeatedly in this thread that ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for intelligent arguments.

Please note that Skeptigirl's post about Christian nutters was not an ad hominem attack in place of an argument.

 

[The Painter]

What was yours, other than an ad hominem attack on NW? I thought we'd already pointed out repeatedly in this thread that ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for intelligent arguments.

Please note that Skeptigirl's post about Christian nutters was not an ad hominem attack in place of an argument.

I don't think this an ad hominem attack. It links an article. I think you missed the link. Look at the word "cat".
It addresses her character and sanitey.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

 

[Pardalis]

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

The problem here, as I have said many times, is that Skeptigirl states these arguments as facts. I'm still waiting to see her definition of the word "evidence" she uses to describe Miss Wolf's opinion piece.

We can argue her opinion, but her opinion is not evidence.

And as far as attacking the argument and not the source, just look at what happened when Pomeroo posted and article from FrontPage Magasine in the other thread. It didn't take long before she attacked that source and vilified it, whithout adressing the arguments. It works both ways.

 

[corplinx]

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

That is simply sigworth.

 

[Pardalis]

Please note that Skeptigirl's post about Christian nutters was not an ad hominem attack in place of an argument.

I fail to see what John Hagee or Glenn Beck have anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[Gurdur]

It shouldn't matter whether she thinks she's Cleopatra. What matters is the actual argument she presents.

And the argument she presents is pure crap. Pure woo. Why don't you try all over again? I love the unintentional ironies in your statements. I'ld really love it if you tried making anything serious out of her crap.

Go on, make my day.

 

[geggy]

there are several types of dictatorship and there's no question that corporate dictatorship is making its presence felt in america. i could provide links and evidence to back up my asserttation. but as for military dictatorship...it is entirely possible it could happen.

 

[latent aaaack]

Stupid, fashion-conscious conservative republican Major Generals, vainly wrecking their careers.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/about/ut/index.html
Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition

excerpts:
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

Military historians say that before the Iraq conflict, only a handful of active or retired U.S. military officers had publicly criticized civilian leaders' conduct of a war. Some examples:
[In 1864, former Union Army Gen. George McClellan declared the Civil War a failure, called for a peace convention that would leave slavery intact, and ran for president against President Lincoln.

When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.
It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.

“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”

Eaton said he wrote the piece because he believed that three pillars of our democratic system had failed:

The Bush administration ignored alarms raised by him and other commanders on the ground; the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to exercise oversight; and the media had abdicated its watchdog role.

“As we look back, it appears that without realizing it, we were reacting to a constitutional crisis,” Eaton said in a recent interview."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The problem here, as I have said many times, is that Skeptigirl states these arguments as facts. I'm still waiting to see her definition of the word "evidence" she uses to describe Miss Wolf's opinion piece.

We can argue her opinion, but her opinion is not evidence.

It seems to me that other people have made a credible attempt to discuss NW's claims on their own merits. If all that is holding you back from doing so is concern over the precise evidentiary value Skeptigirl assign's to NW's claims, why not just flag that as a matter of concern then move on to a more substantial discussion?

And as far as attacking the argument and not the source, just look at what happened when Pomeroo posted and article from FrontPage Magasine in the other thread. It didn't take long before she attacked that source and vilified it, whithout adressing the arguments. It works both ways.

If you don't like people doing that then isn't it a good idea to set a better example, rather than sinking to their level?

(Mind you, I'm not sure it counts as villifying in the perjorative sense if it's true, and I would never trust any factual claim that came from FrontPage without corroborating sources).

 

[gumboot]

The article seems deeply flawed.

-Gumboot

 

[Elind]

Quote:

• 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (ignore any real ones)
• 2. Create a gulag (treat all terrorists like common criminals)
• 3. Develop a thug caste (don't train the military or police adequately)
• 4. Set up an internal surveillance system (don't spy on our self declared enemies)
• 5. Harass citizens' groups (let the looey tunes crowd dominate any assembly)
• 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release (tell the world everything you know)
• 7. Target key individuals (don't target any key suspects)
• 8. Control the press (encourage the press to print any and all damaging secrets)
• 9. Dissent equals treason (don't allow the concept of treason, as difficult as it is to prove anyway)
• 10. Suspend the rule of law (treat all enemies as common domestic hoodlums)

 

[latent aaaack]

You know, I don't think I like Tommy Franks anymore, I bet he's wrong about this because he has such bad character. What would someone with such bad character and who probably smells bad be doing acting like they know how war and politics works?

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

 

[gumboot]

You know, I don't think I like Tommy Franks anymore, I bet he's wrong about this because he has such bad character. What would someone with such bad character and who probably smells bad be doing acting like they know how war and politics works?


...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

I'll refrain from comment on Tommy Franks' character, as you clearly have a much better grasp on that than me However I think he's probably wrong about what he's saying.

In the time that I've come to be more familiar with Americans, I've grown to admire their dedication to the ideological values upon which their society is built. I can't see the American people discarding the Constitution, no matter the seriousness of the threat. Japan inflicted much more damage on the USA than any terrorist network ever could, yet the constitution was not threatened.

-Gumboot

 

[Darth Rotor]

You know, I don't think I like Tommy Franks anymore, I bet he's wrong about this because he has such bad character. What would someone with such bad character and who probably smells bad be doing acting like they know how war and politics works?


...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Franks and ex House Speaker Gingrich both are worried/predict, that a significantly more serious attack than 9-11 would, based on the data points of

1. the US polity permitting the DHS formation,
2. Patriot Act
3. the sheep like acceptance of the illusion of security at airports to turn into the farce that it is
4. and other stuff

that a greater appeal to Uncle Sugar to protect them would open the door for higher authoritarianism being tolerated.

See Civil War and WW II for examples of how such things were put into place with a graver threat, and they are not totally out to lunch in their assessment. They are presenting a possible slippery slope.

What isn't clear is how far down that slippery slope the people are willing to ski. If enough are sheep, Franks is right. If enough aren't, then he is wrong.

DR