Hillary for President

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Ah, it looks like my persistence has paid off. The mystery of "Dr." Lawrence Britt has been revealed by Ryan Cragun, a blogster sympathetic to much of what you believe. Here he unveils the great "Dr.":

Ryan Cragun's Blog

The pertenent info:

"As it turns out, Dr. Lawrence Britt is actually just ‘Lawrence Britt,’ a contributor to Free Inquiry, a magazine published by The Council for Secular Humanism. The article is freely available online. But as far as Mr. Britt being a political scientist, there is no reference to this in Free Inquiry. In fact, it says he is writing a novel to be released in 2004. While Lawrence Britt may have come up with these points, I’m hesitant to accept his analysis without the confirmation of actual political scientists. If his 14 points were published in a peer reviewed journal, I’d believe them. As they stand - propaganda!"

Another writer sympathetic to your cause, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, wrote this of Britt's 14 points:

"The Britt article started with what is happening in the U.S. and then crafted a description of fascism that only highlights those points that will support the thesis. This is a logical fallacy (the false notion that things that are similar in some aspects are identical in all aspects)."

His full review can be found here:

Reviewing Britt's 14 Points

So he's neither a political scientist nor a doctor, and is prone to logical fallacies.

Even if this guys credentials are suspect or non-existent, he has done a decent job of outlining what the consensus within the establishment of political scientists say constitutes a fascist regime. I got my masters degree in comparative politics and international relations and those points are right on about fascism.

However, since political science is a social science one must always talk in qualitative terms rather than quantitative terms. Which is where your criticisms of patriotism vs. nationalism/xenophobia and others come in. Basically it is a question of degree and IMO the US is not close.

Blue Hair does have a point that some actions of the Bush Administration fall closer to the line of an authoritarian regime, particularly the habeas corpus issues, wiretapping. A few policy actions does not a fascist make, but it is a worrying trend.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

They held Jose Padilla without a lawyer (the length of time is disputed), calling him an enemy combatant. He was held for three years without charges. Here is a link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/pa...ase/index.html

It is true that Padilla, on his way back from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan was arrested and held without counsel. I'm not aware of any other citizen this is true of who was not captured on a foreign battlefield. Fortunately, and rightly, the courts sorted this out and told the adminstration it was wrong. So the system works. Also, not saying you, but plenty of people have gone around saying that the government can now just arrest anyone and hold them forever without charges! This is sort of like saying that during the Clinton years that your daughter might be nabbed from her home and made to perform fellatio in the oval office. In other words, it was an extremely isolated event that forturnately got put right in the end.

Originally Posted by BlueHair

The protesting rights- I'm most concerned about being told when and where we can protest. Also, permits are required in some areas.

I'm not sure if there was a particular event you had in mind, but this is nothing new. The right to assemble is not absolute or unqualified.

Originally Posted by BlueHair

The wiretapping I am talking about is where one of the parties in not a known terrorist. The ones done without a judge's order. I don't think you can trust government agencies and law enforcement to decide when a wire tap is necessary.

I listened last fall to an excellent panel put on by Cali's alma matre on this very issue that featured several law professors, an activist and Arlen Specter who was the most conservative guy in the room. The conversation began with the understanding that every single call that was being tapped had a know terrorist on one end of it. No one seemed to disagree with that. The discussion was all about whether the president can just order that or whether new legislation was needed to strike better at the issue. Maybe there is something I don't know here, but it seems very legitimate to me to tap the calls of terrorists to and from this country.

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I think the government needs to be on an extremely short leash on all privacy issues. In my opinion, the government rarely works in our best interest. It's sole purpose seems to be to grab more power and control.

I agree in theory, but the other function of government is to protect us. It is always a tricky balance. I always find it ironic that privacy seems to be more or a pet issue of the right. This is because the Supreme Court has never said there is a "privacy" right except to the extent you want to have an abortion or homosexual sex. Seriously.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When Republicans try to cut domestic spending the Dems portray them as insensitive, throwing out the widows, scaring the old and poor. Every time Social Security is brought up you can hear the clarion call from the Dems. Be candid in this.

What is ironic is the only party that can cut defensive spending without criticism is the Republican Party and the only party which could cut domestic spending is the Democratic Party but neither party is willing to do that. And the Reps aren't even willing to cut domestic for fear of losing votes. They are both pathetic.

And fraud happens amongst "widows" and the like. That's good spin, but not an accurate review of accounting issues.

And Bush is no Reagan Republican.

Of course they do! It is politics. They have different opinions as to what should be cut and what shouldn't. They need to negotiate the details. Do you expect Democrats to say nothing when Republicans target programs that benefit many of the Democrats' constituency? Should Republicans be silent when Democrats attempt to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy? I would assume your answer is no.

Of course, this isn't the same as saying Republicans "forgot" to cut domestic spending. Now it sounds like you are saying they either tried and failed (because of the wily Democrats), or they didn't try out of fear.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course they do! It is politics. They have different opinions as to what should be cut and what shouldn't. They need to negotiate the details. Do you expect Democrats to say nothing when Republicans target programs that benefit many of the Democrats' constituency? Should Republicans be silent when Democrats attempt to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy? I would assume your answer is no.

Of course, this isn't the same as saying Republicans "forgot" to cut domestic spending. Now it sounds like you are saying they either tried and failed (because of the wily Democrats), or they didn't try out of fear.

Both.

Dems are worse because they tax. Reps are bad than they could be because they also spend. Boiled down to nuts and bolts. Of course I understand political theory, but that doesn't mean I agree with the details.

The best policies wuuld be for a libertarian civil rights group with an aversion to domestic spending whose core doctrine found it repulsive to levy taxes upon the populace and who sought not to regulate industry except as is necessary to foster competition to avoid monopoly power. You find me that group and I'll vote for their candidate. And don't even try to argue the Dems are even close to that paradyme. The doctrines are an anathema to almost everything the Democrats stand for.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Both.

Dems are worse because they tax. Reps are bad than they could be because they also spend. Boiled down to nuts and bolts. Of course I understand political theory, but that doesn't mean I agree with the details.

The best policies wuuld be for a libertarian civil rights group with an aversion to domestic spending whose core doctrine found it repulsive to levy taxes upon the populace and who sought not to regulate industry except as is necessary to foster competition to avoid monopoly power. You find me that group and I'll vote for their candidate. And don't even try to argue the Dems are even close to that paradyme. The doctrines are an anathema to almost everything the Democrats stand for.

It sounds like you are searching for a combination of the Democrats and Republicans. Emphasis on civil liberties (Democrats) and an emphasis on no domestic programs (Republicans).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It sounds like you are searching for a combination of the Democrats and Republicans. Emphasis on civil liberties (Democrats) and an emphasis on no domestic programs (Republicans).

Dems don't really believe in civil liberties, just pay lip service. Libertarians believe in the civil liberties. However, a combination of those two philosophies would be best.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It sounds like you are searching for a combination of the Democrats and Republicans. Emphasis on civil liberties (Democrats) and an emphasis on no domestic programs (Republicans).

For those of you Republican axe-entitlement-programs-to-cut-taxes folks, how do you propose we replace these programs? Programs at the local level? Nonprofit programs? No programs? How do you justify funding big business, funding the world's most overfunded military and yet not taking care of our own?

How do you see an ideal model working?

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

For those of you Republican axe-entitlement-programs-to-cut-taxes folks, how do you propose we replace these programs? Programs at the local level? Nonprofit programs? No programs? How do you justify funding big business, funding the world's most overfunded military and yet not taking care of our own?

How do you see an ideal model working?

excellent post

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Dems don't really believe in civil liberties, just pay lip service. Libertarians believe in the. However, a combination of those two philosophies would be best.

"Libertarians believe in the." may be the most apt description I have read yet!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

For those of you Republican axe-entitlement-programs-to-cut-taxes folks, how do you propose we replace these programs? Programs at the local level? Nonprofit programs? No programs? How do you justify funding big business, funding the world's most overfunded military and yet not taking care of our own?

How do you see an ideal model working?

You're asking for transitions which would require large studies, which frankly I've lost track of. In the 80s I studied the stuff all the time, and followed a bunch of Friedman type economic journals.

The biggest entitlements are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like. Massive restructuring is in order. The military could always use a lookover, but with an eye to keeping readiness. In theory, it can be done, while retaining necessary assistance. It's just that Social Security is a joke and the other assistance programs are badly mismanaged.

One of the largest mismanagments is the size of federal and state governments. Civil service is a joke.

However, it is politically impossible, we're becoming more and more like the French, as we expect government to give us everything and to solve all problems. The victim mentality of Democrats is sickening and damaging to the economic welfare of our country.