|
02 Jul 02 - 10:40 AM (#740713) Subject: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Art Thieme All through the Cinton years, the term "politically correct was used, as it has always been used by right-wing leaning politicians, to automatically, with just those two words, discredit and denigrate and make ridiculous anyone who had any serious heartfelt feelings for the many admirable leftist viewpoints.
Wth the above established, my question is this: It seems to me that might could for sure be the case ! I figure this will be dismissed here as "trolling"---well, so be it. For those of you out there who might see this as the serious question I am intending it to be, what do y'all think? Art Thieme |
|
02 Jul 02 - 10:47 AM (#740716) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: GUEST,greg stephenss Well, I think I might agree, but I'm not sure, that's a helluva convoluted question, Art! |
|
02 Jul 02 - 11:49 AM (#740747) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: mack/misophist The beauty and (to some) usefulness of the phrase has always been that at one level it's a condemnation and at another, it's literally true. Thus it means whatever your tone of voice says. If you embarrass yourself, you can always lie (as if bush didn't) about your tone of voice. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 12:01 PM (#740754) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Jack the Sailor I don't think that fascism is the right word for Bush's policies. Not when we have perfectly good more accurate words like, stupid and shortsighted. Real fascism would give us some measure of protection from the terrorists. Bush seems determined to give us the worst of all possible worlds. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 03:00 PM (#740853) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Bobert There is a nasty biproduct of democracy, the way it is practiced in the US, and it has some elements of fascism inherently in it. The majority does get to impose its will on the minority, no matter how you cut it. It's always been this way. I guess what makes these times a little scarier are the folks who have gotten into power, because in the name of "security" they are repeating some of the things that Hitler did in the 30's. Except it's even easier for this administration than it was for Hitler because they don't have to go out and kill folks to take control of information, they allready own it, lock, stock and barrel. And also in this inforamtion/ misinformation age, when you couple your ownership interests with a population of people who are also controled by their own economic pressures, it's not difficult to see how the majority is created. So, yeah, we do have a nation of sheep who are willing to let their freedoms go in the name of freedom, and their liberties go in the name of security. Bad mix. Bobert |
|
02 Jul 02 - 04:01 PM (#740895) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: GUEST,Midchuck downstairs If I can figure out the meaning of the original post, it is that it's not acceptable for the Right to use the term, "politically correct," in speaking of the Left, but it is acceptable for the Left to use the terms, "goons, robber barons, gun thugs and plain old suit-and-tie thieves," not to mention "Facists," in speaking of the Right. Why is this not a double standard? Or is it the position of the Left that "A double standard is perfectly all right, because we're morally superior to them?" Keep in mind that they feel morally superior to you. And us rational anarchists feel morally superior to both of your houses. Peter. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 05:24 PM (#740945) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: katlaughing So is that a wish for a pox on them both, Peter?*bg* Since the "right" made p.c. such a "dirty word" there must be a positive phrase we can turn into a nasty one to represent them, something they are proud of calling themselves, hmmm.....maybe moral majority...naw, we already did that one...um...family values folks...that's a pretty broad brush, but they sure don't represent my family values, so...naw, I think Art's got it right, they're just a bunch of fascists, even their homeland security has an ominous ring to it...when it should everyone has a pot to piss in, plus health coverage and other things which help ordinary people feel secure and I don't mean from some amorphous boogey-man. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 05:32 PM (#740947) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Art Thieme I'm even confused by my original posth ere. Sorry for being carried away with and mesmerized by the sounds of my own verbosity. I guess I'm still upset with the way Bill Clinton was treated during his 8 years. Since Republicans took/won the election, are their doings "politically correct" and open to derision according to the definitions of that phrase they came up with themselves to play down Democratic leanings and programs? My feelings about the GOP being something akin to the new fascists are fueled by what they are tearing down here---and by looking to history. Leftists were pretty smashed and neutralized in the USA. The sad list of descriptive terms I used (goons, robber barons, gun thugs etc.) were historical terms used in popular speech as well as the literature and media of those times. 'Twas an effort to enlighten------also to point out people using ham-fisted tactics and worse to get their way. What were the robber barons of old---as well as the leaders of Arthur Andersen, Enron and Worldcom----if not "plain old suit-and-tie thieves?" It does seem that if history repeats like folks say it does, it always costs twice as much each time around!! Art Thieme
|
|
02 Jul 02 - 05:36 PM (#740949) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Naemanson My, my, ladies and gentlemen. Are you insinuating that our fearless leader might be leading us astray. Don't you understand that he will protect us from those who would do us wrong. It's not his fault that group incudes all those dirty godless anti-American darkskinned rag wearing poorly educated people. Everyone knows this world was created for white men. Once all the others understand and accept that we can have the 1950's back and everything will be hunky dory again. [Tongue FIRMLY stuck in cheek] |
|
02 Jul 02 - 06:33 PM (#740990) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Bobert Art: While I find Bush and Co. very distasteful, Bill Clinton, behind the smile and charm, was no saint. He was very much a corporate puppet. Just did a better job than Bush of hiding it. Bush wears it proudly, which I think does say something about his intellegnce, or lack there of. But, hey, you gotta hand it to the right wing. They have created a world situation that with their careful and deliberate program of misinformantion and opinion manipulation that, for now, they're winning big and the world's working class is loosing big. And the Third World, well, loosing even bigger... Bobert |
|
02 Jul 02 - 06:55 PM (#741003) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: DonMeixner Lets don't forget we are speaking of politicians here. And without meaning to be snide, rude, cynical or be branded an anarchist lets remember they are only as honest and forthright with us as it suits their agenda. Personally, I don't think either Bush or Clinton could lie straight in the Lincoln bedroom. Regarding truth or lies, Clinton got caught at it. Bush hasn't yet. I am told by many that Clinton was just as involved with Enron as Bush is. I don't know this is a fact but it wouldn't surprise me. Big business knows where to butter it's bread politically and there for I am sure business is as entrenched in the Republican's as it is in the Democrats. I live in a small village, I can help to shape my world at that level so I do. So should we all I think. And if we can shape our villages we can shape our counties and states. I ain't so sure about the federal government tho'. Don |
|
02 Jul 02 - 07:14 PM (#741017) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: artbrooks The problems with labels, like PC and liberal (my own pet hate, as a label not as a concept), is that people throw them around as if they knew what the label itself actually meant. "Fascism" is an economic concept that means centralized control of privately-owned industry, and owes its name to the (not particularly successful) policies of Mussolini's government. I don't think anyone would argue that George Dubya is in favor of central control of much of anything that involves the rich 1%. It is entirely possible to be narrow-minded and to want to impose your own standards on everyone as if only your opinion could possibly have any value without espousing failed economic theories. What we actually have in this country is an oligarchy, and that's probably true any place where either the voting franchise is restricted (legally or effectively) or it costs so much to get elected to anything meaningful that only the independently wealthy can participate. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 08:00 PM (#741035) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Donuel silly sailor, fascism does not protect the people.
artbrooks has nailed the oligarchic MIC with his astute hammer.
In the US the response to the word fascism is normally an eyeroll and a smiling titter. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 08:03 PM (#741039) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: katlaughing Politicians are like diapers...both need to be changed frequently. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 09:07 PM (#741076) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Midchuck ...and for exactly the same reason. P. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 09:43 PM (#741097) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Amos ...in order to cover the ass of those presumed innocent? A |
|
02 Jul 02 - 09:49 PM (#741100) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: artbrooks No, because they are usually full of shit. |
|
02 Jul 02 - 10:54 PM (#741125) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Janice in NJ I prefer to reserve the term Fascism for totalitarian states organized along the lines of Italy from Mussolini's assumption of power to his overthrow. To wit: 1. A totalitarian single party political system in which the supremacy of the state becomes an end unto itself, and in which all true opposition (organized or not) is outlawed. 2. An one-dimensional hyper-nationalism in which patriotism is equated with mass public rituals, and also in which any questioning of such rituals is branded disloyal at best and treasonous at worst. 3. The complete subjugation of the individual to the state, and the complete rejection of the belief that the individual has any rights other than those granted by the state. 4. A subserviant judiciary which lacks any pretense of independence, which displays no commitment to uphold generally recognized principles of fairness, and which far from being the champion of justice is merely another instrument of state oppression. 5. The complete absence of any independent political, economic, journalistic, cultural, or educational institutions that can serve as countervailing forces to the one-party state. Whatever institutions do exist, from newspapers to trade associations to labor unions to universities, are controled by the party and/or the state. Otherwise they are surpressed. 6. Military and paramilitary forces whose numbers and authority are far in excess of any required for legitimate national defense and internal security. All states, even the most democratic ones, act in a more or less authoritarian manner from time to time. That's inherent in exercizing state power. However, real Fascism, as outlined above, is something of an entirely different magnitude. |
|
03 Jul 02 - 12:22 AM (#741157) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: GUEST,C.T. Thieme |
|
03 Jul 02 - 01:00 AM (#741171) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: GUEST,C.T. Thieme Oops. Hit Enter instead of Tab. Kind of like stepping on the cat's tail when you're peeking through the keyhole. Well, good to see my old dad shaking his cane at the injustices of the world. Long as you caught me, I'll share this clarifying thought from the inbred regions of my mind. I was thinking of the term we so liberally use, Democracy. We claim to be a Democratic society. Yet in the Grecian formula (also good for getting out the gray), a Democracy would mean that every citizen has a vote in every decision made. We stumble closer to a Republic in which elected representatives are supposed to do just that, represent our interests. That implies that you have a choice as to what those interests are. Being as "both houses" seem to have somewhat similar agendas, we gravitate towards the side of lesser evil no matter which way we think that is. We still do have a voice, but it's fading fast. Regardless of the competence, justification, etc., Jessie (The Body) Ventura was a prime example of the electorate protesting the lack of choice in representation. But now we are watching those choices disappear on a national level. We are rapidly losing our rights to privacy and personal freedoms in the name of safety. Orwell's vision, once the antithesis of America, is beginning to bud, and no one is weeding. Now the problem with most liberal sentiment is that we leave more room for our own error. "I might be wrong. I do not know. I am not the absolute authority on this issue." The problem is that there are those that exploit this, namely, the Bush or any Bush-like administration willing to do the thinking for us by mandating what laws they will and will not abide by. Suspected terrorists or accomplices are held either in military or federal custody at the whim of the White House. And the rights of these prisoners change drastically. In Ohio State (have we forgotten 4 dead in Ohio?), at a recent presidential speech, would-be protesters were threatened with expulsion and arrest should they protest. And the media? I remember being told about the Vietnam era. How the war was on every television screen across the nation. How the media helped solidify the horror in the common citizen by not allowing them the luxury of killing at a distance without ever seeing the enemy. Now, over three decades later, when a camera can fit into the head of a pin and a satellite can pick up a signal from anywhere on the globe, now we are limited to video game simulations to illustrate wars in multiple locations we couldn't even place on a map. Something is not being told. I understand the need for military secrecy, but we are not even finding out after the fact. We are not being allowed to know. What we are allowed to know is being dictated to us. What we are allowed to ask. What we are allowed to do. What we are being allowed to say. Another term? One who dictates? Well, there it is. Another off the cuff book when no one asked my opinion in the first place. If anyone is curious as to where I'm getting this information from, stop by www.fair.org (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Thanks to all for bearing with my splitting hairs. But you know what my old Dad used to say, "you have to split a few hairs to make rabbit stew." (Well, he might have said it.) Agape, C.T. heathen@mc.net http://www.heathens-haven.com |
|
03 Jul 02 - 02:42 AM (#741200) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: katlaughing Wow! Great to see the chip off the old block here! Well said, C.T.!! |
|
03 Jul 02 - 06:52 AM (#741283) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Celtic Soul I hate to pick nits, but the USA is *not* a democracy. It is a consitutional republic.
|
|
03 Jul 02 - 03:00 PM (#741663) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: Art Thieme Nice, Chris !! Thank you. Folks, you can now see that when I resort to saying someone or something is "fascist", my son has the wherewithall and the mind to pretty much tell it like I meant it---and all without my name-calling. In the future I will be asking him to edit all my posts. That way I'll be more able to stay out of your various dog houses---me being the people-pleaser that I am. Once in a while Chris used to follow after me when he was little, picking up the "stuff" off the birm while I walked the dog. He's still doing that. (Pardon me, please: I thought I was in that other thread about the guy who turns shit into art. Chris might've done that today --- but with Art !) Art Thieme |
|
03 Jul 02 - 07:11 PM (#741823) Subject: RE: DISCUSS--Polit.Correct-Bush-fascism????? From: McGrath of Harlow You've got a great political term in your history in America which has the merit of having a sort of ambiguity, similar in that way to "politically correct". By that I mean it's the kind of term which can be used by people to decribe themselves approvingly, and by other people to describe the same people contemptuously.
It seems to me that Bush and Co (lareg Co)can quite reasonably and accurately be described as Know Nothings." Modified Know Nothings, but essentially a continuation/revival. (For Cathoic read Muslim, for example.)
Are there any somgs speciafically about the Know Nothings? Anything worth reviving?
Or maybe Vigilante Men.
|