So, Everyone Is Finally Getting It, Bush lied and thousands died

Hi maisky, as in you watch my back, and I’ll watch yours. I couldn’t agree more, and the pleasure is all mine. I’m sure.

Wow, you come back from a six month absence and find that absolutely nothing has changed!!!

Man, I LOVE this forum!!!!


So, lets get to the rehashing then, shall we?!

All I'm going to say is you have the right to say what you want about GWB. There's a lot of things that Bush has done that I strongly disagree with but he's a friend of the NRA and supports the 2nd ammendment.

I was gone longer than that and it hasn't changed. Unfortunately, I won't be able to hang around and bash the bashers as much as I used to. Still, ya gotta love their tenacity. "Bush lied, Bush lied, BushliedBushliedBushlied." If you repeat it often enough and loud enough, somebody will believe it. Of course, some people believe the earth is flat, too.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that ALL politicians lie, some more than others.

Indeed. Personally, I don't own a gun. My wife has enough for both of us. But to quote Bruce Cockburn:
"If I had a rocket launcher, some sonofabitch would die." It's probably a good thing I don't have access to a pony nuke.

Maisky, I'm glad to see you're still alive and kicking. Even if you're still kicking GWB.

So supporting the second ammendment forgives his abrogating all the rest? My oh my, the blinders are on firmly.

You can still find Germans who will remind you that Hitler made the trains run on time. What he was using them for is another matter, but by God they were really on time.

Absolutely WONDERFUL analogy!!

Like I said before, I don't agree with a lot of what Bush has done but you can't compare him to Hitler. If Bush was a Fascious, no one would have guns except for the military and police. Wire tapping? I'm suspicious of. I don't want to give up any of my freedom for the sake of security. Like I said again. He's a friend of the NRA so for that I stand by him.

Let me ask you this, would you except a President who would try to disarm the citizens by banning hand guns and other type guns but would remove the troops from Iraq and push to make even more conservation laws? You'd give up a freedom as long as "YOUR MAN OR WOMAN " is in office? If so, thats just what the Germans and Italians did in WW2. They gave up personal freedoms with hope that things would "get better". The Government should fear the people not the people fear the Government. I say the one who wishes to disarm the public of ANY type gun, is afraid of something. I'm thankful I live in a state where I have the right to carry a conceiled weapon. God forbid I'll ever have to use it. But God forbid I'm ever in a situation were I needed it but wasn't allowed one. I praise Alaska and Vermont. There you don't even need a permit to carry a gun. In Alaska all you have to worry about is the Polar Bear, in Vermont you have to worry about child molesters that judges won't punish properly.

First off, one can compare Bush to Hitler. Just because he doesn't match on one point, doesn't mean the two don't share similarities.

Second, just because one right, in this case the right to bear arms, isn't being taken away doesn't mean other freedoms and rights aren't. Turning a blind eye to all the things someone is doing that are wrong or you dont' agree with simply because you agree with one thing they are doing seems rather shortsighted. Especially with politicains, all their policies need to be scrutinized.

Now wait a minute. I realize that this internet medium doesn't always reflect irony or tongue-in-cheek very well, but the comment was not a comparison between Bush and Hitler in any case. It's an analogy that points to admirers who will find one good thing that an inadequate or objectionable leader does, among many that he may do badly, and say "There, see! That is why I like him/stand by him -- that's enough for me." The ribbing is on the loyalist, not the leader.

Just a clarification.

Very Good! I agree with you.

All I was saying is he's not a facious. A facious would NEVER allow guns in the hands of private citizens for fear of uprise. Now lets look at some other far left politicians. They're calling for the end of private ownership of guns. Now if that's not facious, I don't know what a facious is.

"Fascist", yes? I don't think you can define it by the witholding or control of one particular liberty, any more than you can judge the worth of a leader by his upholding of one particular liberty.
This article is not bad:

What is
Fascism?
By Laura Dawn Lewis

This may surprise most educated people. One of the more common government strategies today, especially in developing regions is fascism. Fascism is commonly confused with Nazism. Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure. Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.

More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes and aims to destroy those it deems undesirable.

Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws.

Or it can be implied and held up by consensual conspiracy, (people know it is wrong but do nothing to stop it or change it. Through lack of action, they give consent), as it was in the deep South for African Americans and others of color.
. . .
Rest of the article is here:
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Pol.../Structure3.htm

That is basically the defination on wikipedia. There are several forms of fascism. It all depends on where it occured.

Wikipedia's discussion is a good introduction too, and doesn't disagree with any facets of the one in the link I posted. They don't overlap completely, though. This one by Lewis has a good bit more to say about times when the US has come closer to incorporting fascist elements of governance, and it's cautionary in a way I think it's good to keep in mind, for that reason.

In any case, both discussions are general enough to serve as a springboard. Nothing can never be purely definitive unless it considers every case and all its variations pretty much exhaustively, and that's the material of a large and heavily referenced book. If you have come across something specific that substantially runs against the general construct in this article and the wikipedia entry, I'd be very interested in looking at it.