USA 'Fascist'?

[Liar]

Homo Instrumenta (Tool Using Man, my term for us) will democracy work well.

Rob, did you come yop with that one yourself, of did you read it somewhere? Beause one of my professors uses the same term in his books.

Great minds think alike, I guess.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Besides, it's all we've got left to protect us from our government.

And doesn't that sound odd? I don't think any other country in the world regards their constitution as the last line of protection they have against their own government. The fact that a people needs protection against their own democratically elected government in the first place is odd, but the constitution doesn't even do that. As it is right now, it is hurting the American people much more than protecting it - it is a guarantee of the governmental status-quo much more than a defence against it, and so this sacratisation of the constitution is yet another form of what outsiders can see as a fascizoid cult of the state.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Why is it so powerful? It's just a damn piece of cloth.

I pledge aliegence to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands...

I disagree that burning should be outlawed. (I agree that it's contradictory to what it stands for)- but millions of people pledge there alliegence to *the flag* every day. Weather or not we want to rethink that is something else, but many people have very strong feelings about the flag being much more than a piece of cloth. If it were only a piece of cloth, there would be no value in burning it in protest.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I pledge aliegence to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands...

Hey, my parents say there used to be a pledge of alliegence to the flag over here as well. Oh, but that was during the fascist military dictatorship.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Still, I always thought that foreigners would somehow know that the poeple of the US--you, me, and the other guy--are not our government. That we ourselves are a decent, peace-loving people. Maybe that's not the case, though, and that fact kind of horrifies me.

Well yes, it horrifies me too. And it turns my stomach.

I see evidence of it all the time though. Observe the audience at a wrestling event, or a boxing match, or even at car races, (I've just been informed that people don't go to see the cars drive around in circles- they want to see them get smashed up) or at a violent movie. How about the great American past time of Monster Truck derbies?

When we saw "Lord of the Flies" in high school English, the class cheared when Piggy died. (Messege lost on audience, or perhaps simply proven right) I did not feel safe in school that day. (did I ever?) There chears where more heartbreaking than the characters death.

 

[LadyJeanne]

And doesn't that sound odd? I don't think any other country in the world regards their constitution as the last line of protection they have against their own government. The fact that a people needs protection against their own democratically elected government in the first place is odd, but the constitution doesn't even do that. As it is right now, it is hurting the American people much more than protecting it - it is a guarantee of the governmental status-quo much more than a defence against it, and so this sacratisation of the constitution is yet another form of what outsiders can see as a fascizoid cult of the state.

Well, I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is true to a large extent. It's that Bill of Rights that the framers added that is really our strongest protection against the abuses that any group in power might see fit to carry out. Considering that the colonies were formed by people who had been persecuted by their governments for their religious beliefs, it's not surprising that they could foresee their own new government doing the same at some point in the future and thought to include the Bill of Rights to protect against it.

That's also why they designed a system of checks and balances - theoretically, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch would not be able to push their agendas through willy-nilly. Without the Bill of Rights, though, we'd be fucked. Even with it, we're often fucked.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Well, I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is true to a large extent. It's that Bill of Rights that the framers added that is really our strongest protection against the abuses that any group in power might see fit to carry out. Considering that the colonies were formed by people who had been persecuted by their governments for their religious beliefs, it's not surprising that they could foresee their own new government doing the same at some point in the future and thought to include the Bill of Rights to protect against it.

That's also why they designed a system of checks and balances - theoretically, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch would not be able to push their agendas through willy-nilly. Without the Bill of Rights, though, we'd be fucked. Even with it, we're often fucked.

That's a bit of a myth as well, though. The system of checks and balances, I mean. You have a constitutional system that guarantees without a doubt that the same two parties will control every branch of the government of the country till the end of times, and you have a Supreme Court that is nominated by the same politicians from which the Bill of Rights is supposed to be protecting you. And this blind absolute confidence in a document only serves the purposes of the status quo. The ideal prision is one where the prisioners believe the bars on the windows are for their own protection.

 

[Somme]

No checks...just read the fucking article - it's sickening.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/08/int05036.html

 

[rgraham666]

Rob, did you come yop with that one yourself, of did you read it somewhere? Beause one of my professors uses the same term in his books.

Great minds think alike, I guess.

I came up with that one myself, Liar.

It was the title of an essay I wrote several years ago. Mostly I talked about how our tool use limits our perspective (when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail) and how we blame our tools for our mistakes (It's a poor workman who blames his tools).

The best defence in support of democracy and against despotism is the citizen. If the citizen believes in democracy and is willing to participate in it, the system works. This requires wisdom, a wide sense of the forces and currents of the nation. A high level of literacy helps with this.

I find it no surprise that the level of literacy and the level of participation are so closely matched. Half of the U.S. population is functionally illiterate and that's about how many participate. In federal elections anyway. It's lower for state and municipal elections.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And doesn't that sound odd? I don't think any other country in the world regards their constitution as the last line of protection they have against their own government. The fact that a people needs protection against their own democratically elected government in the first place is odd, but the constitution doesn't even do that. As it is right now, it is hurting the American people much more than protecting it - it is a guarantee of the governmental status-quo much more than a defence against it, and so this sacratisation of the constitution is yet another form of what outsiders can see as a fascizoid cult of the state.

The Constitituion of the US is a limiting Document Lauren, not an empowering one. It is unique in that particular way. It begins with an assumption about rights, that is that everyone has them, had them before hand and still has them after wards.

The preamble clearly states this: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

So the document was not seem by the framers as GRANTING any rights. It was designed to specifically enumerate how and to what extent the government could curtail those rights. In basic European constitutions tell what the government must do, ours tells us what the government can not do.

It seeks a balance, with very few powers enumerated to the Federal government, the rest reserved for the states. With a bi cameral legislature to protect the balance between small states and large. And with federal powers divided into three speheres, each a check upon the power of the others.

Do we venerate the document and the men who wrote it? You're damned right we do. It has stood for over two hundred years and in that time this country has risen to preeminince under its auspices.

It isn't easy to change and that is intentional. And for the good. The document dosen't bow to public pressure, nor does it shift this way and that with the prevailing political climate. To make a change, there has to be a need that the vast majority agree needs to be made and after the prohibition disaster, that has become even more evident.

You don't have to like America. You don't have to like americans. But if you cannot see all that has been accomplished under the guidance of this document, you are a poorer person for it. As an instrument of government it stands among the greatest. And a lot of people who live in the west and enjoy freedom today, owe their freedom in no small measure to the fact the country governed by this document was there when freedom was threatened on a global scale some sixty odd years ago. Threatened by fascist and totalitarian powers I might add.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That may very well be true, Colly, and I didn't mean to say anything for or against the US and its people.

I'm simply listing a number of vary basic elements you all obviously take as natural and which can be perceived from the outside as fascizoid. That's what this thread was about, wasn't it?

 

[AngeloMichael]

From The Point by Mark Hyman, a Fox comentator from the FAR right so take this with a grain of salt if you want:

Happiest Place on Earth
Disney calls itself "the happiest place on Earth." The same can be said of America.
According to a recent Harris poll, Americans are happier with their lives than their European counterparts. Harris found that nine out of 10 Americans are satisfied with their lives. Fifty-eight percent of Americans are very satisfied. This compares with a 15-nation European average of just 31 percent. Only Danish citizens were more satisfied than Americans.
The smallest percentage of "very satisfied" citizens were found in Germany at 21%, France at 18%, Italy at 16%, Greece at 14% and Portugal with three percent.
Fifty-six percent of Americans believe their lives have improved since the year 2000 and nearly two of three believe their personal situations will continue to improve in the next five years. Such happiness and optimism contrasts sharply with the negative portrayal of America reported by the major news outlets since early 2001.

And does the name Mark Hyman make anyone else giggle?

 

[Alfie Higgins]

I guess there are polls and then there are polls. I read another poll that said that the happiest county on Earth is Iceland. Which one do you believe, and how do you interpret them?

Polls mostly depend on which questions are asked and how they are asked. One can get whatever result one wants from a poll as long as one asks the right questions, phrased the proper way.

And like, we should actually trust anything that is said on Fox News.

 

[rgraham666]

I guess there are polls and then there are polls. I read another poll that said that the happiest county on Earth is Iceland. Which one do you believe, and how do you interpret them?

Polls mostly depend on which questions are asked and how they are asked. One can get whatever result one wants from a poll as long as one asks the right questions, phrased the proper way.

And like, we should actually trust anything that is said on Fox News.

Remembering a line from an old Mad Magazine article.

"If you want, I can prove to you that Rhode Island is bigger than Texas."

 

[Liar]

I pledge aliegence to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands...

I disagree that burning should be outlawed. (I agree that it's contradictory to what it stands for)- but millions of people pledge there alliegence to *the flag* every day. Weather or not we want to rethink that is something else, but many people have very strong feelings about the flag being much more than a piece of cloth. If it were only a piece of cloth, there would be no value in burning it in protest.

A bit of a circle argument there, innit? I asked why it is precieved as something powerful. And you answer "because". In a way, that can be the whole answer though, a tradition once practical (for instance recognizing the right troops on a battlefield) and over time grown into symbol, over to myth and finally sliding into cult-land.

The human cultures and their ability to charge and animate trinkets is an amazing thing.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

From Red vs. Blue:

Caboose: They didn't tell us anything about a flag.* Why is it so important?

Church: Because it's the flag, man, you know, it's the f... it's the flag, it's... Tucker, you tell him why the flag is so important.

Tucker: Well, it's... it's complicated.* Wuh... It's blue, we're blue

Church: It's just important, okay, trust us.* So when the General comes by, the first thing he's gonna want to do is inspect the flag.

Tucker: Right.


Sorry, the flag debate just kept making me think of that scene.

It is really silly and it is insane that our flag has been pimped so painfully that it doesn't even represent what it's supposed to represent anymore. These suburbanite fucktards around here use the flag as an instead-of patriotism that's disgusting. Hey, see my flag, you see my flag, I have a big flag. It's oh wait MADE IN CHINA! Fuckers. It's nearly at the point where I want a bumper sticker that says: "I'm too patriotic to wave flags" for all of the flag decal cars around me.

Perhaps it's like Carlin said: "It's a symbol and I leave symbols for the symbol-minded."

 

[Hooper_X]

I want to stress that the word 'fascist' was not used accusingly by these people, but rather with a note of sadness and dismay. I believe what they said was that they were surprised at the fascist attitude of most Americans, or something to that effect.

I'm surprised by the even-more-than-usual fascist turn the United States has taken and I've lived here most of my life. When I say fascist, I mean it in the sense of the dictionary denotation of the word.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

 

[Hooper_X]

Do we venerate the document and the men who wrote it? You're damned right we do.

Speak for yourself. I hold those vile hypocritical bastards in the kind of contempt you probably reserve for Osama Bin Laden and Hitler.

 

[Pure]

Objections re 'protections offered by Bill of Rights'

Lady Jeanne said,

Well, I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is true to a large extent. It's that Bill of Rights that the framers added that is really our strongest protection against the abuses that any group in power might see fit to carry out. Considering that the colonies were formed by people who had been persecuted by their governments for their religious beliefs, it's not surprising that they could foresee their own new government doing the same at some point in the future and thought to include the Bill of Rights to protect against it.

That's also why they designed a system of checks and balances - theoretically, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch would not be able to push their agendas through willy-nilly. Without the Bill of Rights, though, we'd be fucked. Even with it, we're often fucked.

I think Lauren answered this, partly, in that the checks and balances have come apart seriously, and one party's prolonged dominance causes it (the failure of separation of powers).

Lady Jeanne, however, I want to add this. England does not have a Bill of Rights or written constitution. While Americans venerate their BR, it is not a necessity of democratic government.

As a further, current example, Canada did not have a list of 'basic rights' until 1972, in its "Bill of Rights" (BR). But that was only a piece of legislation (i.e. could be readily modified). Canada acquired a US-style "Charter of Rights" in 1982, that being part of its then adopted constitution. Of course that facilitated litigation around basic issues, like religious freedom--though such freedom was a fact for more than a century.

Further, I would add that the GWB problem did not originate with him.
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and wanted to arbitrarily jail those opposing his war. The same happened later. IOW, the chief executive, as "commander in chief" simply claims 'war powers'.

Indeed this happened in Canada in 1969. Arguably neither the BR nor the later Charter would have prevented this. The Prime Minister, controlling parliament, secured a 'War Measures Act' allowing the arbitrary imprisonment--which happened-- of hundreds of 'separatists' and 'sympathizers.' National security and 'public order' trump all rights-based considerations.

As another poster said, the only dike against barbarity, or guarantee of civility, is *people.* Unfortunately, as this thread suggest, scared and manipulated people do--or support doing-- very nasty things, and are happy to push through measures overriding the constitutional 'protections.' Too, Americans come from intolerance, practiced it in most colonies, and have, in their politics, a 'paranoid' style noted by several writers.

NOTE: Many 'sidewalk polls' show Americans are NOT supportive of their Bill of Rights; e.g. if asked, "Should someone have a right to go on TV and say the president is a crook [or that churches are corrupt, etc.]?" Many will answer 'no.'

Indeed all the stir a few years back over 'atheists', because of Madalyn Murray O'Hair's litigation, showed a lack of support, in the US, for rights of atheists. (From colonial times, rights of atheists have been curtailed in many states, e.g., the right to hold state office.)

More recently, depending on the area, if people are asked "Should homosexuals be allowed to defend and promote their lifestyle publically?"
Many, even a majority, say, 'no.'