NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush’s boring and tired rhetoric, “We’ve worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short”, is a worked over lie and most people are not fooled by it. Bush tells us he has to spy on us in order to protect us. Then he demands Congress agree to give him the expansion of power he calls for. All his cronies in the administration say the same thing. It is getting monotonous. They reassure us time and time again spying programs would not target Americans. But then we find out the government has been spying on us. They are not held accountable, and Bush says he does not assent to any laws. But when he is informed that he and his criminal partners have been breaking the law he goes back to his ace in the hole Congress to pass a bill he can sign, which makes it legal to spy, torture, gut habeas corpus, etc.
Source: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol3/vol3_no4_john_Interoperability_fine%20tuning_the_police_state.htm

Comments, views?

That anyone who says that the US is a totalitarian state has no idea what a true totalitarian state is like.
I think the thread title said that it's turning into one, not that it is one already.

Comments, views?

That anyone who says that the US is a totalitarian state has no idea what a true totalitarian state is like.

thats what I've been saying for years. "big-brother" USA trying to bully anyone and everyone, including itself. fine that some realize that some of the practices of the US has ALWAYS been markings of a Police State, and in these times these tendencies are worsening.

Take another eight years of Bush or one of his neocons.

Source: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol3/vol3_no4_john_Interoperability_fine%20tuning_the_police_state.htm

Comments, views?


Good thing Bush is history in 2008

I think the thread title said that it's turning into one, not that it is one already.

either/or. The presumption that we're even bordering on a true totalitarian state is ludicrus.

America becoming a totalitarian state is totally unexceptable .... over my dead body

Good thing Bush is history in 2008

Not his legacy of "Scare the peons into giving up all their rights" though.

As to over your dead body, it probably won't be an overnight thing. Slow acting poisons with few visible symptoms, if any, are harder to find and counter than fast acting ones with clear symptoms.

either/or. The presumption that we're even bordering on a true totalitarian state is ludicrus.

Agreed 110%

Source: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol3/vol3_no4_john_Interoperability_fine%20tuning_the_police_state.htm

Comments, views?

That you really need to learn the definition of what totalitarianism really is.

Good thing Bush is history in 2008

He's done in 2009 actually.

America becoming a totalitarian state is totally unexceptable .... over my dead body

Good thing we are not becoming one.

Answer: No more then other first world nations.

And I just insulted myself reading what Inclusive democracy is all about.

I would encourage would-be posters to inform themselves of the article of which this thread is about before posting.

I would encourage would-be posters to inform themselves of the article of which this thread is about before posting.

Or we can look at what is really going on in the US Congress and see that this article is no where near true.

Inclusive democracy and it's sister sites are one of my favorite journals and it influences my political view greatly.

Inclusive democracy and it's sister sites are one of my favorite journals and it influences my political view greatly.

That's quite obvious.

Do you people think totalitarian states happen over night? I guess so. One day every one wakes up and "wtf, we're totalitarian!"

Just because my hair may one day be white doesn't mean I'm a polar bear.

While i dont think america will ever be a true totalitarian state i can see the goverment will try to limit rights or even take some away like privacy, limiting free speech so its more like controled speach and or outlawing elections i mean during the cold war if an american was part of the american communist party he was imprisoned whats that limiting the freedom of political choice i think so so totalitarian no oppressive well not so absurd.

Not his legacy of "Scare the peons into giving up all their rights" though.

As to over your dead body, it probably won't be an overnight thing. Slow acting poisons with few visible symptoms, if any, are harder to find and counter than fast acting ones with clear symptoms.

Yeah, certain high profile cases of Russians, for example, with highly-pocked complexion come to mind.

And I just insulted myself reading what Inclusive democracy is all about.

Don't be so selfish.
Do what you usually do and let everyone *else* insult you about democratic principles! :p

Yeah, certain high profile cases of Russians, for example, with highly-pocked complexion come to mind.

Not really. The symptoms started showing up well before he died. The kind I'm talking about don't display symptoms until it's far too late.

I mean, everyone knows you've just been poisoned if your face turns black and you face dive into your soup.

But if you just keel over one day for no particular reason, nobody's going to suspect that tuna sandwich you had five days back.

Not really. Yes, really. The contrast in your statement did, indeed, bring that scenario to mind, as i had specifically posted. Please refrain from attempting to correct my pov on that one, thanks? :p


than fast acting ones with clear symptoms

Ahh, given the wording, I had thought you meant to affirm the statement with example, as opposed to contrast with example.

Tis all good. Ya have a great point.
*nods*

Yes, really. The contrast in your statement did, indeed, bring that scenario to mind, as i had specifically posted. Please refrain from attempting to correct my pov on that one, thanks? :p

Ahh, given the wording, I had thought you meant to affirm the statement with example, as opposed to contrast with example.

The freedom fascists are at it again?

... obviously not. Jesus Christ, people...

Just because my hair may one day be white doesn't mean I'm a polar bear.
It does if you turn into a bear.

Yeah, certain high profile cases of Russians, for example, with highly-pocked complexion come to mind.
He's a Ukrainian and it happened very quickly.

Not his legacy of "Scare the peons into giving up all their rights" though.

As to over your dead body, it probably won't be an overnight thing. Slow acting poisons with few visible symptoms, if any, are harder to find and counter than fast acting ones with clear symptoms.


We will see about that ....

That anyone who says that the US is a totalitarian state has no idea what a true totalitarian state is like.
Indeed.

Some of the jokers on this board are starting to wear thin.

Whare have wou been for the last five years NA? Asleep? USA Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act the suspention of Heabas Corpus. Stik your head in the sand all you want but it wont change the fact the Bush and his cronies are turning USA into a police state. First USA then the world. Far fetched? They said the same thing about Hitler.

Whare have wou been for the last five years NA? Asleep? USA Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act the suspention of Heabas Corpus. Stik your head in the sand all you want but it wont change the fact the Bush and his cronies are turning USA into a police state. First USA then the world. Far fetched? They said the same thing about Hitler.

Godwin :rolleyes:

I'm more worried about the Democrats and other Leftists creating a Brave New World style totalitarian dictatorship than I am about the neo-cons creating a 1984 society. Sure, Bush's spying is wrong, but so many people agree that it's wrong, I don't think it will last much longer. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Godwin :rolleyes:


The comparison to Hitler is, in this case, justified.

No.

The comparison to Hitler is, in this case, justified.

The rule makes no differentiation between valid and invalid comparisons. Any comparison to Hitler or the Nazis is a Godwin.

Whare have wou been for the last five years NA? Asleep? USA Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act the suspention of Heabas Corpus.

All of which are fairly trivial compared to most countries which are legitimately referred to as "totalitarian".

The rule makes no differentiation between valid and invalid comparisons. Any comparison to Hitler or the Nazis is a Godwin.

So you agree that Bush has done things that are Adolph Hitleresque?

So you agree that Bush has done things that are Adolph Hitleresque?

He hasn't legalized the persecution of a specific religious group. He hasn't shipped them off to concentration camps. He hasn't taken steps to silence dissent.

So I'd say no.

He's certainly taken steps that abridge personal freedoms, but careening towards the precipice of a totalitarian state? I think not. Especially since that damage will hopefully be reversed after 2008.

He hasn't legalized the persecution of a specific religious group. He hasn't shipped them off to concentration camps.
Are you people kidding? Please refer back to my "omg wtf, we're in a totalitarian state" post.

So you agree that Bush has done things that are Adolph Hitleresque?

No, he really hasn't. Go read up on Hitler. Bush is NOTHING like Hitler.

No.


Yes.


Sorry to burst your little bubble Bushbaby but therte are many simalarities between Bush and Hitler:

1. Both have illegally invaded other countrys.

2. Both used minorities as scapegoats.

3. Both have drafted laws suspending human rights and both got the laws past using a tragic event as an excuse, Reichstag Fire / 9/11.

PS Bush's grandfather Prescott made dealing with the Nazi's during WW2.

Sorry to burst your little bubble Bushbaby but therte are many simalarities between Bush and Hitler:

1. Both have illegally invaded other countrys.


Nothing to do with totalitarianism.


2. Both used minorities as scapegoats.


Show me how Bush has actually done this.


3. Both have drafted laws suspending human rights and both got the laws past using a tragic event as an excuse, Reichstag Fire / 9/11.


Which 'human rights' are these?

Inclusive democracy and it's sister sites are one of my favorite journals and it influences my political view greatly.

That explains a lot.

Godwin :rolleyes:

To hell with Godwin and his stupid law.

He hasn't legalized the persecution of a specific religious group. He hasn't shipped them off to concentration camps.

Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty

LA Times 08/14/02: Jonathon Turley

Original Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-turley14aug14.story (removed)

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.

The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.

Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.

This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights.

Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.

Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps.

Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable.

We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty.

For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty.

Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.

Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks.

His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.

In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer, Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would cut down every law in England to get after the devil.

More's response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast ... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view our laws and traditions as mere obstructions rather than protections in times of peril. But before we allow Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we must take a stand and have the courage to say, "Enough."

Every generation has its test of principle in which people of good faith can no longer remain silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending.



He hasn't taken steps to silence dissent.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_wikipedia_and_the_intelligence_services.htm

So I'd say no.



http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?currentPage=all


He's certainly taken steps that abridge personal freedomsm, but careening towards the precipice of a totalitarian state? I think not. Especially since that damage will hopefully be reversed after 2008.



Thank you and good night.

Everyone made dealings with the Nazis!

Yep, especially Sweden. Is Sweden totalitarian now?

Yes.


Sorry to burst your little bubble Bushbaby but therte are many simalarities between Bush and Hitler:

1. Both have illegally invaded other countrys.

Irrelevant.

2. Both used minorities as scapegoats.

Bush never did that. He has never made any minority a scapegoat.

3. Both have drafted laws suspending human rights and both got the laws past using a tragic event as an excuse, Reichstag Fire / 9/11.

Bush's laws are nothing like Hitler's.

PS Bush's grandfather Prescott made dealing with the Nazi's during WW2.

Everyone made dealings with the Nazis!

Thank you and good night.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_wikipedia_and_the_intelligence_services.htm

I see nothing in this article that shows actual evidence that US intelligence forces edited Wikipedia articles. Just an anecdote and speculation.

Nothing to do with totalitarianism.

Right, I'm sure the people of Poland will be pleased if your toled them that.



Show me how Bush has actually done this.

Kenneth Foster. Black girl arrested for pushing hall moniter. Black teenager put on sex offender register for giving a white girl a blow job. Hrricane Katrina victims getting racial slurs hurled at them by police officers.



Which 'human rights' are these?


The right not to be seized and tortured for one.

Yes.

No.

1. Both have illegally invaded other countrys.

Blah, no. There is no such thing as an "illegal" war. Immoral? Yes, but illegal is determined by the UN or other organizations which shouldn't exist anyway. Bush followed the laws of the US in invading Iraq, so it's not illegal.

2. Both used minorities as scapegoats.

The only possible (and very farfetched) example of this is Muslims on airplanes. And that's prudence, not scapegoating. No one is blaming Muslims or persons of Middle Eastern descent for anything (at least not as a whole group). They are saying, however, that people of this description are more likely commit terrorist activity. We are more guilty of scapegoating in WW2 with the Japanese, than now.

3. Both have drafted laws suspending human rights and both got the laws past using a tragic event as an excuse, Reichstag Fire / 9/11.

Humans don't have rights. They have God-given privelages and civic rights, but there are no rights that you have simply for being human. That aside, I do think that Bush has come close to abridging some of our civic rights, but not anywhere near how Hitler did.

PS Bush's grandfather Prescott made dealing with the Nazi's during WW2.

My grandfather is an admitted racist. I hate racism. You lose.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_wikipedia_and_the_intelligence_services.htm

I see nothing in this article that shows actual evidence that US intelligence forces edited Wikipedia articles. Just an anecdote and speculation.


:rolleyes: and the others?

Kenneth Foster. Black girl arrested for pushing hall moniter. Black teenager put on sex offender register for giving a white girl a blow job. Hrricane Katrina victims getting racial slurs hurled at them by police officers.

Because that is oh-so Bush's fault.

The right not to be seized and tortured for one.

Because that's happening every minute of every day. No one is being pulled from their beds and drug off to concentration camps, as in Nazi Germany.

:rolleyes: and the others?

I'll give you Gitmo.

Now, about this one? :rolleyes:

No.

Yes.



Blah, no. There is no such thing as an "illegal" war. Immoral? Yes, but illegal is determined by the UN or other organizations which shouldn't exist anyway. Bush followed the laws of the US in invading Iraq, so it's not illegal.

The US is a member of the UN. It should, therefore abide by its rules instead of this whole arrogant 'America knows best' culture.

The only possible (and very farfetched) example of this is Muslims on airplanes. And that's prudence, not scapegoating. No one is blaming Muslims or persons of Middle Eastern descent for anything (at least not as a whole group). They are saying, however, that people of this description are more likely commit terrorist activity. We are more guilty of scapegoating in WW2 with the Japanese, than now.

Tell that to the innocent detainees at Gitmo.



Humans don't have rights. They have God-given privelages and civic rights, but there are no rights that you have simply for being human.

Argueing about semantics, now? Pathetic.


My grandfather is an admitted racist. I hate racism. You lose.

Your point?

[I'll give you Gitmo.

Now, about this one? :rolleyes:


OK chalk that one up for Deus Malum.;)

[


OK chalk that one up for Deus Malum.;)

1 - 1.

As to the wiretapping, as I said he has taken steps to abridge personal freedoms. Hopefully that will be reversed after 2008.

Right, I'm sure the people of Poland will be pleased if your toled them that.


I doubt they care if some poster on NSG has no idea what totalitarianism is.


Kenneth Foster. Black girl arrested for pushing hall moniter. Black teenager put on sex offender register for giving a white girl a blow job. Hrricane Katrina victims getting racial slurs hurled at them by police officers.


This has what to do with the Bush admin? Nothing. It wasn't their administration that arrested these people. It wasn't their administration that hurled racial slurs.


The right not to be seized and tortured for one.

Although Bush may have the power to use torture on captured militants, there is no evidence that he actually has used this. This also has nothing to do with any normal citizen actually living in the US, where the only 'right' not present is gay marriage and equality in the military. You still have democracy and freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, thought etc...

I agree that Gitmo should not exist, but it really isn't much worse then any other POW camp.

Your links are very tenuous, and are so trivial when compared to Hitler that you may as well rule them out completely.

The US is a member of the UN. It should, therefore abide by its rules instead of this whole arrogant 'America knows best' culture.

The US should not even be a member of the UN, not because she knows best, but because she is a sovereign state and should take care of her own affairs as she sees fit. And all the other states as well. Russia as she sees fit, China as she sees fit, etc, etc.

Tell that to the innocent detainees at Gitmo.

Because they are just so numerous. There is nothing wrong with detaining someone who is suspect of having done something wrong. There is something wrong with detaining someone because of what they might do. Therein lies the difference.

Argueing about semantics, now? Pathetic.

I like how you attacked the aside (an important aside, but still an aside) rather than the actual argument.

Your point?

The sins of the father (or the grandfather) are not the sins of the son.

1 - 1.

As to the wiretapping, as I said he has taken steps to abridge personal freedoms. Hopefully that will be reversed after 2008.

Dont hold your breath. :upyours: (not directed at you, directed at the US 'Democrats')

The US should not even be a member of the UN, not because she knows best, but because she is a sovereign state and should take care of her own affairs as she sees fit. And all the other states as well. Russia as she sees fit, China as she sees fit, etc, etc.

This is an international world. Countries doing as they see fit would have the US and Russia fighting a war over the north pole, as opposed to having the UN provide a diplomatic oppurtunity to avoid war.

That was the point, you know.

Because they are just so numerous. There is nothing wrong with detaining someone who is suspect of having done something wrong. There is something wrong with detaining someone because of what they might do. Therein lies the difference.

If they have evidence that puts them as suspects, why hasn't it come out yet? You know, I think that less than a dozen of the Gitmo prisoners are actually guilty of anything. I think this, based on the fact that:
1) There haven't been any trials for the vast majority of them.
2) A large number of them are released without any charges.

So... why does it exist again?

The US should not even be a member of the UN, not because she knows best, but because she is a sovereign state and should take care of her own affairs as she sees fit. And all the other states as well. Russia as she sees fit, China as she sees fit, etc, etc.

I like you mentioned America inthe same paragraph as two of the most corrupt dictatorships in the world.



Because they are just so numerous. There is nothing wrong with detaining someone who is suspect of having done something wrong. There is something wrong with detaining someone because of what they might do. Therein lies the difference.

And therein lies the reason most of these 'suspects' that are detained in Gitmo, most of them havent been charged.



I like how you attacked the aside (an important aside, but still an aside) rather than the actual argument.

You were the one argueing about 'human' rights instead of the issue at hand.



The sins of the father (or the grandfather) are not the sins of the son.


I never said it was. I was simply stating that 'the Devil' is also YOUR Devil.

This is an international world. Countries doing as they see fit would have the US and Russia fighting a war over the north pole, as opposed to having the UN provide a diplomatic oppurtunity to avoid war.

:rolleyes: The UN provides very little but headaches and corruption. Russia's the US's and third parties' diplomats do just as well, if not better.

That was the point, you know.

That was the point. The point now is to tie as many hands as possible.

If they have evidence that puts them as suspects, why hasn't it come out yet? You know, I think that less than a dozen of the Gitmo prisoners are actually guilty of anything. I think this, based on the fact that:
1) There haven't been any trials for the vast majority of them.
2) A large number of them are released without any charges.

You never give out evidence that may interfere with an investigation.
Very few POW's in any war or in any country are charged with anything. And most are relesed without charges.

So... why does it exist again?

Why do any prisons exist?

I like you mentioned America inthe same paragraph as two of the most corrupt dictatorships in the world.

The point was to show that both the better and the worse should have unhindered national sovereignty, IMHO.

And therein lies the reason most of these 'suspects' that are detained in Gitmo, most of them havent been charged.

I addressed this in my last post.

You were the one argueing about 'human' rights instead of the issue at hand.

Granted, but I continue to point out, it was an aside, not the focus of the argument.

I never said it was. I was simply stating that 'the Devil' is also YOUR Devil.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Whare have wou been for the last five years NA? Asleep? USA Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act the suspention of Heabas Corpus. Stik your head in the sand all you want but it wont change the fact the Bush and his cronies are turning USA into a police state. First USA then the world. Far fetched? They said the same thing about Hitler.

I see the troll is back.

BTW: Goodwins Law does nothing for you.

If you know anything about the US, you would know that we are not turning into a police state. Only a complete retard would be thinking that. Oh wait....

All of which are fairly trivial compared to most countries which are legitimately referred to as "totalitarian".

And the fact that we have separation of powers and the courts do a decent job in protecting most of our rights...

Yes.


Sorry to burst your little bubble Bushbaby but therte are many simalarities between Bush and Hitler:

This should be good.

1. Both have illegally invaded other countrys.

So Afghanistan was Illegal? And Iraq is up for open debate.

2. Both used minorities as scapegoats.

Bullshit.

3. Both have drafted laws suspending human rights and both got the laws past using a tragic event as an excuse, Reichstag Fire / 9/11.

:headbang: You really are a fool.

PS Bush's grandfather Prescott made dealing with the Nazi's during WW2.

And FDR was doing business with Nazi Germany as well. OOPS!!!!

Your point?

Try quoting directly so that people can respond to you better.

It does if you turn into a bear.

True, but a Kermode bear, not a polar bear!

Black teenager put on sex offender register for giving a white girl a blow job.

Now how'd he do that? :eek:

Now how'd he do that? :eek:

Take what New Tacoma says with a grain of salt. He talks out of his ass most of the time.

Now how'd he do that? :eek:

She was one of those she-males. Ya know a vagina and a penis lulz :D

Take what New Tacoma says with a grain of salt. He talks out of his ass most of the time.

Are you even READING it?

Are you even READING it?

I am reading the thread. BAH! Ok. I will change it. He talks out of his ass all the time :D

Now how'd he do that? :eek:

You know, the article did run by NSG a few months back.

Course, calling it a blowjob... :p

1. Both have illegally invaded other countrys.
Doesn't make it a totalitarian state.

It would only be a totalitarian state if it made its citizens unwillingly take a trip to the armoury and get shipped off, or they'd be put in prison or somesuch, to go and fight in their wars.
2. Both used minorities as scapegoats.
So does every country. In fact, show me a country that doesn't do so, at least on the quiet.
3. Both have drafted laws suspending human rights and both got the laws past using a tragic event as an excuse, Reichstag Fire / 9/11.
So has most of the world, especially in Europe. This isn't actually very surprising.

People like Schäuble in Germany and Sarkozy in France wouldn't have gotten into power were it not for anti-Islam and general anti-Arab paranoia after September 11th.
PS Bush's grandfather Prescott made dealing with the Nazi's during WW2.
So did loads of Americans and their companies, especially Ford. Lend-Lease was also given to Russia, which was a genuine totalitarian state, renowned for its utter abuse of human rights.

I'm not really sure how this is relevant, mind you.

This should be good.



So Afghanistan was Illegal? And Iraq is up for open debate.

Bush invaded Iraq without the permission of the UN. I never mentioned Afganistan.



Bullshit.

Prove it is.



:headbang: You really are a fool.

Way to refute my point. Dumbass.



And FDR was doing business with Nazi Germany as well. OOPS!!!!

That point was supposed to be that the Bush family has links to Nazi Germany.

That point was supposed to be that the Bush family has links to Nazi Germany.

Care to fix the quote box?

So does every country. In fact, show me a country that doesn't do so, at least on the quiet.

So that makes it OK?

So has most of the world, especially in Europe. This isn't actually very surprising.

So that makes it OK?

People like Schäuble in Germany and Sarkozy in France wouldn't have gotten into power were it not for anti-Islam and general anti-Arab paranoia after September 11th.

Presicely.

So did loads of Americans and their companies, especially Ford. Lend-Lease was also given to Russia, which was a genuine totalitarian state, renowned for its utter abuse of human rights.


So that makes it OK?

A totalitarian state is one that attempts to have total control of its citizens (hence the name). This means brainwashing children, a camera in every house, "Bush's Youth", etc. No one is national politics is this far gone.

Bush has instituted many authoritarian measures, but that is different from totalitarianism, and not even as bad as many real authoritarian states.
I think the fact that Bush was in fact elected (once) and will relinquish his power to the next person who is elected proves the country is neither authoritarian or totalitarian.

Care to fix the quote box?

Care to address my points?

Care to address my points?

I will when you fix your quote boxes.

A totalitarian state is one that attempts to have total control of its citizens (hence the name). This means brainwashing children, a camera in every house, "Bush's Youth", etc. No one is national politics is this far gone.

Bush has instituted many authoritarian measures, but that is different from totalitarianism, and not even as bad as many real authoritarian states.
I think the fact that Bush was in fact elected (once) and will relinquish his power to the next person who is elected proves the country is neither authoritarian or totalitarian.


:headbang: No, it proves that the powers that be are very good at smoke and mirrors. If you truley think that American 'democracy' is anything other than an illusion, I feel msorry for you.

I will when you fix your quote boxes.

Fuck the quote boxes, just answer the post.

:headbang: No, it proves that the powers that be are very good at smoke and mirrors. If you truley think that American 'democracy' is anything other than an illusion, I feel msorry for you.

I see you know jack about America for if you did, you would realize that we are NOT a democracy BUT a FEDERAL REPUBLIC

So that makes it OK?
No, but it either means that what the US does is normal, or most of the other countries are becoming totalitarian too.

I see you know jack about America for if you did, you would realize that we are NOT a democracy BUT a FEDERAL REPUBLIC


Fine, Federal Republic, what ever....:rolleyes:

I see. Well, do you have any evidence of this?


I have allready in this thread.

:headbang: No, it proves that the powers that be are very good at smoke and mirrors. If you truley think that American 'democracy' is anything other than an illusion, I feel msorry for you.
I see. Well, do you have any evidence of this?
I realize American democracy isn't ideal. All that proves is that I'm not in Paradise, but a flawed world. However, there is a difference between corruption and totalitarianism. Calling the US totalitarian takes away all meaning of the word, it just makes it a derogative the way Rush Limbaugh uses "liberal", or many people use "fascist".

1. Both have illegally invaded other countrys.

How does that make him or the US totalitarian? A democracy can invade another country for any reason and still be a democracy.

2. Both used minorities as scapegoats.

When? Whatever you say in response is nothing like what Hitler did.

3. Both have drafted laws suspending human rights and both got the laws past using a tragic event as an excuse, Reichstag Fire / 9/11.

I'll give you that. But it is nothing compared to what happened in Germany. Bush isn't going to become a dictator, and hopefully some of those laws will be repealed once he is gone.

PS Bush's grandfather Prescott made dealing with the Nazi's during WW2.
What does that have to do with anything. So have others that were not totalitarians.

Yes.
Why yes?

The US is a member of the UN. It should, therefore abide by its rules instead of this whole arrogant 'America knows best' culture.
You have a problem with this for we are abiding by its rules and enforcing its rules. Not our fault that you have a problem with that.

Tell that to the innocent detainees at Gitmo.

Some are and some are not innocent.

I like you mentioned America in the same paragraph as two of the most corrupt dictatorships in the world.

I see you failed comprehension 101. That is ok.

Bush invaded Iraq without the permission of the UN. I never mentioned Afganistan.

You mentioned countries (proper spelling btw). Countries is plural. By extension, you did mention Afghanistan.

Prove it is.

Sorry but anyone with a fucking brain knows that minorities are not being used as scapegoats. Care to show me the evidence that he is?

That point was supposed to be that the Bush family has links to Nazi Germany.

The point is made of fail. Reason being? EVERYONE HAD DEALINGS WITH THEM!!!! Even the IOC!!

I see you know jack about America for if you did, you would realize that we are NOT a democracy BUT a FEDERAL REPUBLIC

ummmm.

I see you know jack about the basics of political theory for if you did, you would realize that a republic is a form of democracy.

What's that expression, people who live in stupid houses shouldn't throw stones?

ummmm.

I see you know jack about the basics of political theory for if you did, you would realize that a republic is a form of democracy.

What's that expression, people who live in stupid houses shouldn't throw stones?

Neo, Shut the fuck up for once in your fucking life. I know full well that a Republic is a form of democracy. I was making a point to New Tacoma that obviously flew over your fucking head. Let the big boys play now.

you know something.....I don't think you do:

*snorts*

Believe what you will. At least I know I am speaking a truth. So piss off fucktard.

I see you know jack about America for if you did, you would realize that we are NOT a democracy BUT a FEDERAL REPUBLIC

so, we are NOT a democracy because we are a REPUBLIC, but:

I know full well that a Republic is a form of democracy.

you know something.....I don't think you do

little advice? If you get your feelings so hurt every time someone points out your mistakes, you're never get on in life.

Oh you did not hurt my feelings. You just fail in reading comprehension. I thought they taught ya that in law school. That is if you did go to law school.

*snorts*

Believe what you will. At least I know I am speaking a truth. So piss off fucktard.

little advice? If you get your feelings so hurt every time someone points out your mistakes, you're never get on in life.

You just fail in reading comprehension.

Oh, really? OK, then I suppose you can tell me what:

I see you know jack about America for if you did, you would realize that we are NOT a democracy BUT a FEDERAL REPUBLIC

Means.

Obviously since I fail reading comprehention, I need you to explain something to me. Is a federal republic a form of democracy or not? Just a yes or a no will be immensly helpful. Is it or not?

I mean, maybe it's just because I guess I have no reading comprehention, but if you say you know that a republic is a democracy and we are a republic, why you said we're not a democracy.

But I'm sure that's just my poor reading comprehention and not any fault of yours. So please, explain it to me.

Oh, really? OK, then I suppose you can tell me what:



Means.

Obviously since I fail reading comprehention, I need you to explain something to me. Is a federal republic a form of democracy or not? Just a yes or a no will be immensly helpful. Is it or not?

A republic is a form of democracy but if you bothered to read, which you didn't, you would see the context in which I was replying to.

A republic is a form of democracy

we are NOT a democracy

Well, there seems to be a problem here.

But I'm sure you, with far better reading comprehention than I could explain it to me. But of course you are right, context is everything, so let us examine context shall we. The original post was:

If you truley think that American 'democracy' is anything other than an illusion, I feel msorry (sic) for you.

To which you replied:

we are NOT a democracy

Now I know someone with my lack of reading comprehention has to be really careful, so I made sure to link them all up:

If you truley think that American 'democracy' is anything other than an illusion, I feel msorry (sic) for you....we are NOT a democracy

Gee, there seems to be pretty clear context there. But then again, that's only with someone with my lack of reading comprehention, after all.

:headbang: No, it proves that the powers that be are very good at smoke and mirrors. If you truley think that American 'democracy' is anything other than an illusion, I feel msorry for you.

I see you know jack about America for if you did, you would realize that we are NOT a democracy BUT a FEDERAL REPUBLIC

Fine, Federal Republic, what ever....:rolleyes:

All the posts in order.

Yes, I know. He questioned whether you believed in american democracy and you said we were not a democracy, but a republic.

Which is a very odd statement considering you then later claimed ot know that a republic is a form of democracy.

So then why did you say we are not a democracy? Please, explain that to me, with my limited reading comprehention.

I made a point that we are not a democracy but a republic. You are right that it is a form of democracy but the fact is, we are not a democracy but a republic. It does not get any simplier explained than this.

All the posts in order.

Yes, I know. He questioned whether you believed in american democracy and you said we were not a democracy, but a republic.

Which is a very odd statement considering you then later claimed ot know that a republic is a form of democracy.

So then why did you say we are not a democracy? Please, explain that to me, with my limited reading comprehention.

I made a point that we are not a democracy but a republic. You are right that it is a form of democracy but the fact is, we are not a democracy but a republic.

How mean would it be to sig this?

I made a point that we are not a democracy but a republic. You are right that it is a form of democracy but the fact is, we are not a democracy but a republic. It does not get any simplier explained than this.

okay, I would like to see you defend that statement.

republic is a form of democracy-yes

we are not a democracy-yes

we are a republic-yes

I see you know jack about America for if you did, you would realize that we are NOT a democracy BUT a FEDERAL REPUBLIC

Sorry, but we are a democracy. We were designed to be a republic, but that failed once people became more concerned with having their voice heard rather than electing the wise, learned and discerning to rule over them.

Ok fine. I'll drop the point.

How mean would it be to sig this?

it kind of reads like

all apples are fruits.

I am eatting an apple.

that apple is not a fruit.

at some point the logic makes you go "huh?"

Source: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol3/vol3_no4_john_Interoperability_fine%20tuning_the_police_state.htm

Comments, views?

So let me get this straight.

Someone who loves the USSR and defends it and wishes that it invaded your country thinks the US is a totalitarian state.

This shit is so funny. I can't make even make up sarcastic posts that are as retarded and funny as your own.

And FDR was doing business with Nazi Germany as well. OOPS!!!!

Let's not forget Joseph P. Kennedy. That means that JFK, RFK, and Teddy are all Nazis.

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

Grandpa Simpson: I served on PT 109 with JFK and that is where I learned his terrible secret.

JFK: Ich Bin Ein Berliner

Grandpa Simpson: He's a Nazi get him!

The whole Bush-Hitler thing falls apart when you look at their respective histories

1933 Htler siezes power
1935 DMZ re-occupied
1937 invades Austria
1938 invades Czechoslovakia
1939 invades poland
1940 invades norway, denmark, holland, belgium, france
1941 invades north africa, russia

So in 8 years Hitler has successfully invaded most of the world(the bits that matter heh)

On the domestic front
1933 first concentration camps where political enemies of the Nazis are worked to death
1935 nuremburg race laws
1938 crystal night
1940 T4 program
1941 start of the 'final solution'

Lets look at Bush's record

2001 gets sworn in
2001 invades Afganistan (along with several members of NATO)
2003 invades iraq and gets bogged down

Well on the invasion front bush is no where near as good as hitler

lets see
Domestically
gitmo camp established...oh but where are the men being worked/tortured to death?
Patroit act oh dear the US can spy on your communications (which is what they were doing before, only they were'nt telling anyone*)
Dept. homeland security. lets see if another government body can f**k up like the CIA/FBI did before sept 11th(hmm katrina... guess they could :headbang:)

In conclusion
We see Bush is nowhere when it comes to invading places, and nowhere on the totalitarian stakes when it comes to domestic policy

El-presidente Boris

* side note what they were doing was getting MI6 to spy on US citizens while giving them information obtained by the CIA on british subversives :fluffle:

SNIP
We see Bush is nowhere when it comes to invading places, and nowhere on the totalitarian stakes when it comes to domestic policy
SNIP

I'll have to take your word for it, cos I'm totally too fucking lazy to find out the true state of things by myself. So; Bush the lesser isn't as bad as Hitler --- is that what you are saying? Cos the otherday a guy told me just the opposite....

Comparing Bush to Hitler adds nothing to determine whether the US is totalitarian. To be totalitarian, the US would try to control every aspect of its citizens lives. It does not. There are plenty of things that have been done that are authoritarian, but there is a big difference. Totalitarian: 1960s China. Authoritarian: 2000s China.

For the last two administrations, the control freaks called the Bush Administration have been pushing the USA in the wrong direction. With "War on Terror", the government is slowly removing what people have had and it's looking too much like 1984.

Corneliu, I'm tired of watching you abuse other people as if it's your God-given right. Take a week's vacation.

The posts in question are: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13019178&postcount=65

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13019225&postcount=71

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13019244&postcount=74

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13019793&postcount=91

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13019796&postcount=93

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13019814&postcount=94

No we are not turning into a totalitarian state.

No we are not turning into a totalitarian state.

Correct. We've been one for quite some time.

The whole Bush-Hitler thing falls apart when you look at their respective histories

1933 Htler siezes power
1935 DMZ re-occupied
1937 invades Austria
1938 invades Czechoslovakia
1939 invades poland
1940 invades norway, denmark, holland, belgium, france
1941 invades north africa, russia

So in 8 years Hitler has successfully invaded most of the world(the bits that matter heh)

On the domestic front
1933 first concentration camps where political enemies of the Nazis are worked to death
1935 nuremburg race laws
1938 crystal night
1940 T4 program
1941 start of the 'final solution'

Lets look at Bush's record

2001 gets sworn in
2001 invades Afganistan (along with several members of NATO)
2003 invades iraq and gets bogged down

Well on the invasion front bush is no where near as good as hitler

lets see
Domestically
gitmo camp established...oh but where are the men being worked/tortured to death?
Patroit act oh dear the US can spy on your communications (which is what they were doing before, only they were'nt telling anyone*)
Dept. homeland security. lets see if another government body can f**k up like the CIA/FBI did before sept 11th(hmm katrina... guess they could :headbang:)

In conclusion
We see Bush is nowhere when it comes to invading places, and nowhere on the totalitarian stakes when it comes to domestic policy

El-presidente Boris

* side note what they were doing was getting MI6 to spy on US citizens while giving them information obtained by the CIA on british subversives :fluffle:

You make a good point. Comparing Bush to Hitler is really insulting...to Hitler. :p

Correct. We've been one for quite some time.

Actually no.

No we are not turning into a totalitarian state.

Hope evading forumban was worth it. Goodbye, Corneliu.

That anyone who says that the US is a totalitarian state has no idea what a true totalitarian state is like.

I agree with him. Totalitarians governments are definitely different from ours and this is just another conspiracy theory created by someone who has nothing better to do.

Or we can look at what is really going on in the US Congress and see that this article is no where near true.

We can, just look at the c-spans.

Hope evading forumban was worth it. Goodbye, Corneliu.

Sorry...what just happened? :confused:

Sorry...what just happened? :confused:

Allow me to illustrate:

The one on the left is Corneliu. The one on the right is Katganistan. :)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Kick---1.jpg

[QUOTE=Cypresaria;13020314]
Dept. homeland security. lets see if another government body can f**k up like the CIA/FBI did before sept 11th(hmm katrina... guess they could :headbang:)

dude , homeland security fights terrorists, FEMA takes care of natural disasters. Blame FEMA for a slow reaction, not homeland security.

Sorry...what just happened? :confused:

I'm kinda wondering that myself, did he make a puppet to get around a ban and get caught?

I'm kinda wondering that myself, did he make a puppet to get around a ban and get caught?

It looks that way...but...?

Oh, OP, you are so funny. You make me laugh. But, no. Just, no.

And I agree with you guys. It looks permenant too.

I'm kinda wondering that myself, did he make a puppet to get around a ban and get caught?

It looks that way...but...?

Yes.

Yes.

K, thanks for clearing that up.

Neo, Shut the fuck up for once in your fucking life. I know full well that a Republic is a form of democracy. I was making a point to New Tacoma that obviously flew over your fucking head. Let the big boys play now.
It seems like the big boy has learned how to cuss?:p

:rolleyes: I hate cuss words.

And I guess all that cussing invalidates your post?

the first rule of debate is that you don't drop a cuss word in the middle of your point. It really does invalidate it.
I guess in totalitarian states, the ones that want to rule tend to shout down the opposition or is it shoot down the opposition?

I guess in totalitarian states, the ones that want to rule tend to shout down the opposition or is it shoot down the opposition?

in soviet russia mouth shoots off at you!

in soviet russia mouth shoots off at you!

That's some disturbing imagery Neo.

I mean, here you are, some lowly paid factory worker, walking the streets of Moscow, and then suddenly, this politburo member shows up, and his mouth, lips, teeth and all, detach themselves from the face, and shoot straight towards you.