Look. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: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 Do I need to explain and compare each point to Bush goals and policy? How close are we? Are you scared?- You should be. Now try to scare me with Socialism. No dictator, no forced suppression, no domination of government by big business, etc. We're closer to the above definition under Bush than we have ever been to the socialist society that the Right continuously links to Liberal America.
Yes, you do need to compare each point because I am perfectly able to read a dictionary myself and definitions themselves are not an argument. But, since you only provided a base definition and little to go from then I can only do so much
Exalting nation - Well, I do that. I love America. Anyone who loves their country will exalt it. Funny how antonym of exalt are condemn, criticize, debase, degrade, humiliate, put down, and ridicule. As far as race above the individual, that is a laughable attempt. Name one time where Bush claims the white race is superior. Give me a single link to a transcript where he says something about a master or superior race. You won't be able to (and here starts the unraveling of your premise).
Centralized, autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader - I seem to remember last November we voted. We used a democratic process to choose our president. Antonym to autocratic? Democratic. So we don't have a dictator nor do we have an autocratic government. So, two strikes to your argument.
severe economic and social regimentation - If you're wanting to base the whole fascist idiocy on this, you better start laying down hundreds of links to where Bush has imposed severe economic regimentation. I mean, he's all about an Ownership Society which means you decide on what to do with your money, not Uncle Sam. Social regimentation has not been laid down by the president. We can argue until the cows come home about social issues, but the POTUS and his administration have very little to do with any laws that affect us in that manner. You can complain about the Defense of Marriage debacle, but unless you're willing to take government out of defining marriage (which means when company X refuses to recognize same sex marriage, there is nothing the government can do) then you support the government determining social mores. Another word for that would be regimentation.
And finally, my favorite forcible suppression of opposition - Name the number of Democrat supporters thrown in jail / murdered / exiled for voicing their views. Michael Moore was a vocal critic of Bush and ended up making $50,000,000.00 off of a movie based solely on opposition. Please give me credible links to instances of this.
So there you have it. Instead of trying to persuade me of your view, you simply cut and paste a definition from Webster. This is not how you argue. Show me facts. Show me actual happenings, not some hare-brained conspiracy theory. Make me understand what it is you think I'm not seeing.
And you need to let go of your hate. I didn't like Clinton at all, and towards the end I found myself believing every little rumor that popped up. I let the dislike of some of his policies break out into disdain for everything about him, and caught myself when I realized how unhealthy, and unreal everything was that I was believing in. You need to open your eyes as well and see that believing we're being overrun with fascists is unhealthy too.
rolled out on
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:07 PM