|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
Out of curiosity I clicked on the link in your link, but I didn't find any more information than what you copy-and-pasted in the linked post. Sounds intriguing and potentially lurid the way you present it, but without further information I can't make an educated guess as to what significance it has, if any.
The definition of fascism that I provide, while imperfect and incomplete, is historically sound. I think it is telling that instead of attempting to demonstrate how the US is developing into a nation with all or most of those characteristics, your only response is... that. |
Because I ask a question, that means it is my only response? And how did I become the designated answerer of your question? I'd say it is downright fascistic of you to dictate if and how I must answer anything.
And you really find no significance in opening of internment camps run by military on US soil?
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| A one-minute google search found that "internment/resettlement specialists" is a long word for people who work in military prisons, i.e. the places that hold enemy combatants overseas. Your link doesn't have any mention of "camps" being operated on U.S. soil. |
What part of Florida in the ad did you not understand? Maybe no on ever told you, but Florida is in the US.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
Out of curiosity I clicked on the link in your link, but I didn't find any more information than what you copy-and-pasted in the linked post. Sounds intriguing and potentially lurid the way you present it, but without further information I can't make an educated guess as to what significance it has, if any.
The definition of fascism that I provide, while imperfect and incomplete, is historically sound. I think it is telling that instead of attempting to demonstrate how the US is developing into a nation with all or most of those characteristics, your only response is... that. |
Because I ask a question, that means it is my only response? And how did I become the designated answerer of your question? I'd say it is downright fascistic of you to dictate if and how I must answer anything.
|
No, you're absolutely free to answer any or none of my well-reasoned points; that fact that you haven't done so is proof enough that you do, in fact, enjoy that freedom. Thank goodness for democracy, eh? It's just that in a debate, even a little amateur one like we're having, ignoring the other side's points is usually a sign of the weakness of one's position, when one's position is being refuted.
| bacasper wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| A one-minute google search found that "internment/resettlement specialists" is a long word for people who work in military prisons, i.e. the places that hold enemy combatants overseas. Your link doesn't have any mention of "camps" being operated on U.S. soil. |
What part of Florida in the ad did you not understand? Maybe no on ever told you, but Florida is in the US. |
Settle down there little fellah. No, I knew that Florida is in U.S. soil. It's fairly clear that you apply for the job in Florida, with the Florida National Guard (which like all other states' national guards, is employed overseas in wartime). Even if this "camp" was in U.S. soil it would obviously not be a place for civilian populations (and would have have made front-page news a long time ago ).
Kind of embarrassing for me to have to spell that out for you
See how quickly a conversation like this becomes irrelevant to the discussion of fascism?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Even if this "camp" was in U.S. soil it would obviously not be a place for civilian populations (and would have have made front-page news a long time ago ) |
Are you sure about that? There's a lot of talk going on about the true purpose of FEMA camps (in a nutshell, the argument is that they will be used to intern American people who revolt when the economy collapses).
Oh, and I'm pretty certain the National Guard stays on American soil, and is called on for "emergencies" (such as pissed off, armed civilians and veteran militias losing their jobs/homes and rioting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Even if this "camp" was in U.S. soil it would obviously not be a place for civilian populations (and would have have made front-page news a long time ago ) |
Are you sure about that? There's a lot of talk going on about the true purpose of FEMA camps (in a nutshell, the argument is that they will be used to intern American people who revolt when the economy collapses). |
As it's bacaspar who is making the positive claim, the burden is upon him to prove it, not upon me to disprove it.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Oh, and I'm pretty certain the National Guard stays on American soil, and is called on for "emergencies" (such as pissed off, armed civilians and veteran militias losing their jobs/homes and rioting) |
At no time since 9/11 did you ever hear that the Natl Guard have been deployed to Iraq and Afganistan? http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22451.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
Out of curiosity I clicked on the link in your link, but I didn't find any more information than what you copy-and-pasted in the linked post. Sounds intriguing and potentially lurid the way you present it, but without further information I can't make an educated guess as to what significance it has, if any.
The definition of fascism that I provide, while imperfect and incomplete, is historically sound. I think it is telling that instead of attempting to demonstrate how the US is developing into a nation with all or most of those characteristics, your only response is... that. |
Because I ask a question, that means it is my only response? And how did I become the designated answerer of your question? I'd say it is downright fascistic of you to dictate if and how I must answer anything.
|
No, you're absolutely free to answer any or none of my well-reasoned points; that fact that you haven't done so is proof enough that you do, in fact, enjoy that freedom. Thank goodness for democracy, eh? It's just that in a debate, even a little amateur one like we're having, ignoring the other side's points is usually a sign of the weakness of one's position, when one's position is being refuted.
| bacasper wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| A one-minute google search found that "internment/resettlement specialists" is a long word for people who work in military prisons, i.e. the places that hold enemy combatants overseas. Your link doesn't have any mention of "camps" being operated on U.S. soil. |
What part of Florida in the ad did you not understand? Maybe no on ever told you, but Florida is in the US. |
Settle down there little fellah. No, I knew that Florida is in U.S. soil. It's fairly clear that you apply for the job in Florida, with the Florida National Guard (which like all other states' national guards, is employed overseas in wartime). Even if this "camp" was in U.S. soil it would obviously not be a place for civilian populations (and would have have made front-page news a long time ago ).
Kind of embarrassing for me to have to spell that out for you
See how quickly a conversation like this becomes irrelevant to the discussion of fascism? |
It was YOUR point that the US does not constitute fascism right now. I countered saying I believe at least one of your requirements was being met, that of civil liberties, with which you agreed albeit lukewarmly:
| You wrote: |
| I think civil liberties will always be on the defensive and I don't propose that anyone should take them for granted |
I then attempted, in my Socratic way, to further the discussion by posing an admittedly provocative question.
You then attempted to hedge by claiming, without any evidence, that the camps are overseas, while the only evidence there is, is "Florida."
And no, it is not embarrassing that you have to spell out your own conjectures for me.
Now if you want to wait until the camp is actively functioning in Florida, thankfully you are still free to do that. Even if far-fetched, I 'd rather be armed with the information now rather than wait until it is too late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It was YOUR point that the US does not constitute fascism right now. I countered saying I believe at least one of your requirements was being met, that of civil liberties, with which you agreed albeit lukewarmly:
[quote="You"]I think civil liberties will always be on the defensive and I don't propose that anyone should take them for granted |
No, actually you alleged that 4 requirements out my nine or so were being met. You've fallen completely silent on three of those, and so far haven't said a word about the other five.
Moreover, if civil liberties are abused in the United States, and I'm certain that they are (though I think a broad survey of this planet as it is now would indicate the US is as safe a place for civil liberties as anywhere else, and infinitely better than most), one would have to demonstrate an absolute breakdown of all protections for these liberties before announcing the onset of just this one symptom of fascism.
| bacasper wrote: |
I then attempted, in my Socratic way, to further the discussion by posing an admittedly provocative question.
You then attempted to hedge by claiming, without any evidence, that the camps are overseas, while the only evidence there is, is "Florida."
Now if you want to wait until the camp is actively functioning in Florida, thankfully you are still free to do that. Even if far-fetched, I 'd rather be armed with the information now rather than wait until it is too late. |
We all know about Socratic logic but it's a lesser known fact that Socrates was a skilled ironist. He often used his dialectical method for mischievous purposes - you can sense this in some of the Dialogues. Some have even unfairly dubbed him "the original troll". Your effort could either be judged an unusually weak attempt at Socratic logic or an unusually weak bit of Socratic irony. Which is it, honestly?
this job title you're talking about: http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292 Very first google result.
With the available information, and using Occam's Razor, and until the surfacing of new information: is it more reasonable to surmise that the United States is operating civilian concentration camps on its soil, or that it's operating prisons for hostile combatants overseas? I think the burden of proof will be on the one who assumes the former rather than the latter.
However, if you think you have reasonable cause for alarm, on account of an ambiguous military job title you found online, then you should do an investigative report, or contact a journalist from the Nation and urge them to do so. If you think there's something illegitimate going on, then that would be your duty, no?
Until that point is established, as well as the other eight of them, the U.S. still doesn't have even the weakest resemblance to fascism.
Best of luck.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Extreme corporatism:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/federal-reserve-capital-llc-ben-bernanke-earning-your-2-and-20-daily-short-covering-diligenc
David Rosenberg:
| Quote: |
| "When people kid around that the Fed has become another hedge fund now that it is the lender of first, second and last resort � to mention the market-maker for everyone including RVs and mobile homes � it really is no joke at all. See NY Fed in Hiring Spree as Assets Soar. The New York Fed is seeking to bolster its staffing of traders � not research staff, but traders � by nearly 70%!! When will the Fed start hiring investment bankers? That is what we would like to know." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:47 pm Post subject: demofascism? |
|
|
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce
I always liked this quote. I think it backs up mises comment well. I'm not anti-corporate, though I think they need watching at times.
Was not corporatism meant to be a temporary affair in its infancy?
I wonder if in considering whether fascism exists in the West in any form, we should not consider if our definitions really stand up to present day scrutiny and use. They are useful of course, but we are really talking about fascistic tendencies within Western style democracies - particularly the US - no? These are relatively new systems of governing, from local to federal, and with changing times, they must adapt. The perception that power tends to be corrupted and abused, if not totally usurped, within any system, includes that possibility in democracy as well. People simply find ways to influence power within the system available.
Shouldn't we then be talking about how democracy has evolved, and the challenges it faces in surviving as a system, when there are threats - or perceived threats - from abroad or within? Or even surviving simple indifference.
We should also ask ourselves what it is we want from a democracy, and include a more experienced discussion of how much technology we really want in our lives - as it affects the public that is. Not paranoia, just a limiting of the filters we use on a daily basis.
Technologies and their uses would play a large part in defining what constitutes fascism within democracies of today. That we use them, means the government must as well, and has some responsibility in monitoring their use.
Democracy should be a human system of governing - wouldn't that be the most basic definition of the antithesis that is fascism?
cwflaneur wrote:
| Quote: |
| I think civil liberties will always be on the defensive and I don't propose that anyone should take them for granted |
+1 - This comment reflects well I am referring to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any usage of the term fascism in reference to anything other than fascism is a corruption of language and an insult to history. Human culture is nothing without language, and language is nothing if it is unable to express the distinctions that matter the most. That is why some words cannot be allowed to "evolve" in meaning unless they are replaced by new ones. Fascism in its original and only legimate sense is not an obsolete word I'm afraid, it's alive and well as a movement in the Western and Islamic worlds including Europe where those two worlds meet. If there were just three things, absent which the word should never be used, even with "pseudo" prefixed to it, they are: the phenomenon of ethnic and religious nationalism/imperialism conjoined with mass militarism and mobilized by a megalomaniac leader. It's what the word has always meant and it's that to which the fascists of Europe and Islam aspire no matter how obscurely (the British National Party, for example, or the radical mullahs). That's what fascism means, period, that and nothing else; it is not the only "inhuman" form of government, and the others can be denoted by their own separate phraseologies, whether you're thinking of oligarchy, monarchy, plutocracy, necrocracy, or whatever. I have nothing but contempt for people who use fascism, without tongue in cheek, as a word for exhorbitant parking tickets, control by computers, extreme corporatism, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Any usage of the term fascism in reference to anything other than fascism is a corruption of language and an insult to history. Human culture is nothing without language, and language is nothing if it is unable to express the distinctions that matter the most. That is why some words cannot be allowed to "evolve" in meaning unless they are replaced by new ones. Fascism in its original and only legimate sense is not an obsolete word I'm afraid, it's alive and well as a movement in the Western and Islamic worlds including Europe where those two worlds meet. If there were just three things, absent which the word should never be used, even with "pseudo" prefixed to it, they are: the phenomenon of ethnic and religious nationalism/imperialism conjoined with mass militarism and mobilized by a megalomaniac leader. It's what the word has always meant and it's that to which the fascists of Europe and Islam aspire no matter how obscurely (the British National Party, for example, or the radical mullahs). That's what fascism means, period, that and nothing else; it is not the only "inhuman" form of government, and the others can be denoted by their own separate phraseologies, whether you're thinking of oligarchy, monarchy, plutocracy, necrocracy, or whatever. I have nothing but contempt for people who use fascism, without tongue in cheek, as a word for exhorbitant parking tickets, control by computers, extreme corporatism, etc. |
I think it is an obsolete word in it's "original" sense... Fascism is basically a proper name, like "Stalinism", "Nazism", or "Maoist". As you're probably aware, the entymology is the Italian word 'fascio', which is a bundle of sticks around and axe (old Roman symbol). It really just applies to the movement in Italy, eventually consolidated by Mussolini, but the term became ambiguous as it was used to describe other similiar movements around Europe and the world.
And I think the generic (uncapitalized) usage of the word fascism is not as limited as you want to portray. It is possible to describe fascist 'tendencies', such as the merger between corporate and state power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
I think it is an obsolete word in it's "original" sense... Fascism is basically a proper name, like "Stalinism", "Nazism", or "Maoist". As you're probably aware, the entymology is the Italian word 'fascio', which is a bundle of sticks around and axe (old Roman symbol). It really just applies to the movement in Italy, eventually consolidated by Mussolini, but the term became ambiguous as it was used to describe other similiar movements around Europe and the world. |
The term may have devolved from a proper to an improper noun, but it was never ambiguous in anything but an academic sense. In the sense it's had since the Thirties, all of these political movements shared a host of common qualities that are not found in any of the things that the op, bacaspar or you have been fixated upon.
| Quote: |
| And I think the generic (uncapitalized) usage of the word fascism is not as limited as you want to portray. It is possible to describe fascist 'tendencies', such as the merger between corporate and state power. |
If the phenomenon under consideraton has an ideological backing with a tendency toward the realization of the other charactistics of fascism, yes; as a quick and easy grab for attention, no. The latter is all I've been seeing.
Obfuscation sucks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I think it is an obsolete word in it's "original" sense... Fascism is basically a proper name, like "Stalinism", "Nazism", or "Maoist". As you're probably aware, the entymology is the Italian word 'fascio', which is a bundle of sticks around and axe (old Roman symbol). It really just applies to the movement in Italy, eventually consolidated by Mussolini, but the term became ambiguous as it was used to describe other similiar movements around Europe and the world. |
The term may have devolved from a proper to an improper noun, but it was never ambiguous in anything but an academic sense. In the sense it's had since the Thirties, all of these political movements shared a host of common qualities that are not found in any of the things that the op, bacaspar or you have been fixated upon. |
Actually there has been much debate even since then... many scholars disagree on the proper definition, as there are also many differences between the movements in various nations. Ex. was Nazism a fascist movement? (many would say they were different). How about Japanese imperialism/militarism?
Beyond that, how about communist China? We call it "communist", but it's got nearly every single one of the ingredients you listed earlier for a fascist state.
| Quote: |
| And I think the generic (uncapitalized) usage of the word fascism is not as limited as you want to portray. It is possible to describe fascist 'tendencies', such as the merger between corporate and state power. |
If the phenomenon under consideraton has an ideological backing with a tendency toward the realization of the other charactistics of fascism, yes; as a quick and easy grab for attention, no. The latter is all I've been seeing.
Obfuscation sucks.[/quote]
I never used it as an attention grabber (the OP probably did though). All I did was point out similarities between the US at present and a fascist state, and there are plenty of very real similarities. At any rate, all nation states are different; I doubt any two has ever had exactly the same ideology, but most real power sources in the West have a common evolution. Fascism and communism are quite similar (I would analogize it to two sects of the same religions, with some real differences, but mostly superficial ones). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Beyond that, how about communist China? We call it "communist", but it's got nearly every single one of the ingredients you listed earlier for a fascist state.
|
China would be a much more appropriate object for the label. Compared to any current Western government anywhere in world, China would be an almost perfect latter-day example. However, there are some missing ingredients. The most salient one is that there isn't the kind of fever-pitch of ethnic frenzy that you find in a fascist state. China is a multi-ethnic society with over 60 different spoken languages. Now, there is no doubt that all of those ethnicities are at a terrible disadvantage against the Han Chinese (Tibet being the most publicised example). Beijing is a bully to these minorities but its cultural imperialism is mostly the result of the economic overpriveleging of the Han Chinese. It doesn't involve suppressing local languages at the end of a bayonet; being Uighur or Mongol or Kazakh or Tibetan is not a crime against the state. That said, Han ethnocentrism is one of the many things that I most despise about the Chinese system. The other major difference is that China is no longer led by an lifelong dictator with a lunatic personality cult behind him. Huge point.
China is at least a case where it wouldn't be idiotic to talk about fascist tendencies, as you say. If one were to talk about fascist tendencies I would expect the nation in question would be at least roughly equivalent to China.
Compare that to North Korea, another nominally Communist state. I'd have no objection at all if anyone applied the fascist label to NK directly, because there you actually do see the spirit of fascism in its fullest possible force. I don't think I need to elaborate on that one.
So actually, I'm glad you brought out China as an example. It really elucidates my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Quote: |
It was YOUR point that the US does not constitute fascism right now. I countered saying I believe at least one of your requirements was being met, that of civil liberties, with which you agreed albeit lukewarmly:
| You wrote: |
| I think civil liberties will always be on the defensive and I don't propose that anyone should take them for granted |
No, actually you alleged that 4 requirements out my nine or so were being met. You've fallen completely silent on three of those, and so far haven't said a word about the other five.
Moreover, if civil liberties are abused in the United States, and I'm certain that they are (though I think a broad survey of this planet as it is now would indicate the US is as safe a place for civil liberties as anywhere else, and infinitely better than most), one would have to demonstrate an absolute breakdown of all protections for these liberties before announcing the onset of just this one symptom of fascism.
| bacasper wrote: |
I then attempted, in my Socratic way, to further the discussion by posing an admittedly provocative question.
You then attempted to hedge by claiming, without any evidence, that the camps are overseas, while the only evidence there is, is "Florida."
Now if you want to wait until the camp is actively functioning in Florida, thankfully you are still free to do that. Even if far-fetched, I 'd rather be armed with the information now rather than wait until it is too late. |
We all know about Socratic logic but it's a lesser known fact that Socrates was a skilled ironist. He often used his dialectical method for mischievous purposes - you can sense this in some of the Dialogues. Some have even unfairly dubbed him "the original troll". Your effort could either be judged an unusually weak attempt at Socratic logic or an unusually weak bit of Socratic irony. Which is it, honestly?
this job title you're talking about: http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292 Very first google result.
With the available information, and using Occam's Razor, and until the surfacing of new information: is it more reasonable to surmise that the United States is operating civilian concentration camps on its soil, or that it's operating prisons for hostile combatants overseas? I think the burden of proof will be on the one who assumes the former rather than the latter.
However, if you think you have reasonable cause for alarm, on account of an ambiguous military job title you found online, then you should do an investigative report, or contact a journalist from the Nation and urge them to do so. If you think there's something illegitimate going on, then that would be your duty, no?
Until that point is established, as well as the other eight of them, the U.S. still doesn't have even the weakest resemblance to fascism.
Best of luck. |
|
Camps are being staffed in your backyard, and you are all embroiled in the exact definition of a word.
I actually agree that it is important to use words as precisely as possible, but here you are just missing my point while your attempt to remain on topic is weak.
Sorry to see you are a creationist. Like species, languages evolve also. There are alternative definitions of "fascist," e.g.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
Who cares what it is called? They are at your door with guns.
| Quote: |
| Until that point is established, as well as the other eight of them, the U.S. still doesn't have even the weakest resemblance to fascism. |
You claimed that the US needed all nine points were needed to need to constitute "fascism" so refuting one refutes your whole argument. While I believe at least four can be argued, the clearest for the sake of this discussion is that of civil liberties.
I am not about to get into an entire treatise on each point. Suffice it to say that between the PATRIOT Act, warrantless, accountability-less wiretapping, the elimination of habeas corpus, preventive (or "prolonged") detention, deployment of C-Smurf on US soil, etc., the case for curtailment of civil rights is straightforward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Camps are being staffed in your backyard, and you are all embroiled in the exact definition of a word. |
How's that investigative report going bacasper? Are you going to be doing it yourself, or have you contacted a news agency or independent journal and done your best to convince them to do it? Keep us updated please.
| bacasper wrote: |
| I actually agree that it is important to use words as precisely as possible, but here you are just missing my point while your attempt to remain on topic is weak. |
...and the topic is what? Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, or whether the US equates to any legitimate notion of fascist state? I've addressed both of those directly and at length.
| Quote: |
Sorry to see you are a creationist. Like species, languages evolve also. There are alternative definitions of "fascist," e.g.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
Who cares what it is called? They are at your door with guns. |
No, I've addressed the matter of lexical evolution. Read again. The fact that words evolve does not mean a word has evolved simply because some random clown says it has.
| Quote: |
| You claimed that the US needed all nine points were needed to need to constitute "fascism" so refuting one refutes your whole argument. |
?
| Quote: |
I am not about to get into an entire treatise on each point. Suffice it to say that between the PATRIOT Act, warrantless, accountability-less wiretapping, the elimination of habeas corpus, preventive (or "prolonged") detention, deployment of C-Smurf on US soil, etc., the case for curtailment of civil rights is straightforward. |
Be that as it may, and I'm no apologist for any of it, the fact that any political cartoonist or columnist anywhere in the land can mock or criticise the gov't without fear of being pulled away to a cell is enough to disprove your contention that the US has entered a fascist state in regard to civil liberties alone. You still haven't proven that point, and would still have to establish all the others even after you had.
It's no surprise that you still won't respond critically to anything I say. I'm sorry, this conversation left you behind a while ago bacasper... there's no coming back unless you're actually ready to start countering my points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
