Are we becoming a totalitarian government? (1 Viewer)

[aps]

I know this may sound like an extreme question, but you have to admit that some of the things going on seem to give some resemblance to a totalitarian government.

Bob Herbert, who writes for the New York Times had an article yesterday, where he talked about how our government (i.e., the office of the Presidency) has put fear in us regarding terrorism that has caused Americans to overlook the freedoms that have been taken away from us. He laid out the following facts, which I think there is, at a minimum, some truth in them (I actually thing we meet all of them).

Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included
(1) an excessive reliance on secrecy,
(2) the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population,
(3) a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy,
(4) the promotion of blind patriotism,
(5) the denial of human rights,
(6) the curtailment of the rule of law,
(7) hostility to a free press and
(8) the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/opinion/15herbert.html

It's rather shocking to think of how many of these situations are applicable.

 

[BubbaBob]

I know this may sound like an extreme question, but you have to admit that some of the things going on seem to give some resemblance to a totalitarian government.

Bob Herbert, who writes for the New York Times had an article yesterday, where he talked about how our government (i.e., the office of the Presidency) has put fear in us regarding terrorism that has caused Americans to overlook the freedoms that have been taken away from us. He laid out the following facts, which I think there is, at a minimum, some truth in them (I actually thing we meet all of them).



It's rather shocking to think of how many of these situations are applicable.

If you see government as stagnant...sort of set in stone with tiny, incremental change, then yes...we are going in a totalitarian direction. If, however, you see government direction as being directed more like a pendelum, albiet a seemingly slow one by our human impatient standards, then I think we are simply approaching one end of the swing of the pendelum.

Most folks have a tolerance level. We'll put up with a LOT of crap, but we have limits. I personally think we have about reached the limit of our tolerance. I, personally, think it really close to time for another tea party.

I'm a republican...OLD SCHOOL republican...smaller, less intrusive government. I think most republicans/conservatives are the same...but...I think many of us have not yet...but are close...to reaching our tolerance level. And when you get right down to it, folks who have had enough CAN force change...at the polls. Lobbyists don't have but one vote, just like the rest of us. PACs don't have ANY vote. Bottom line, we CAN change things anytime we wish...if we get full enough of the crap.

BubbaBob

 

[Goobieman]

I know this may sound like an extreme question, but you have to admit that some of the things going on seem to give some resemblance to a totalitarian government.

Yeah.
Congress and the courts have been disbanded and elections suspended; the President rules by personal decree and there is no mechanism to control him.

Totalitarianism:
Domination by a single, like-minded governing elite of all (or virtually all) organized political, economic, social and cultural activities in a country by means of a single-party monopoly of power, police repression not only of all forms of dissent and opposition but also of all forms of independent private organizations as such, rigorous censorship of the mass media, centralized state planning and administration of the economy, and pervasive propaganda to inculcate the principles of the obligatory official ideology.
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/totalitarianism

You got a long way to go, baby.

 

[aps]

Yeah.
Congress and the courts have been disbanded and elections suspended; the President rules by personal decree and there is no mechanism to control him.

Totalitarianism:
Domination by a single, like-minded governing elite of all (or virtually all) organized political, economic, social and cultural activities in a country by means of a single-party monopoly of power [Bush Administration], police repression not only of all forms of dissent [anyone who disagrees with the president’s policies regarding the war on terrorism is unpatriotic and lives in a pre-9-11 world] and opposition but also of all forms of independent private organizations as such, rigorous censorship of the mass media [crticism of any media that speaks against the Bush Administration (anything but Fox)], centralized state planning and administration of the economy [tax cuts benefiting rich], and pervasive propaganda to inculcate the principles of the obligatory official ideology [Jeff Gannon; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon, Armstrong Williams].
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/totalitarianism

You got a long way to go, baby.

Maybe not! :shock:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I know this may sound like an extreme question, but you have to admit that some of the things going on seem to give some resemblance to a totalitarian government.

Bob Herbert, who writes for the New York Times had an article yesterday, where he talked about how our government (i.e., the office of the Presidency) has put fear in us regarding terrorism that has caused Americans to overlook the freedoms that have been taken away from us. He laid out the following facts, which I think there is, at a minimum, some truth in them (I actually thing we meet all of them).



It's rather shocking to think of how many of these situations are applicable.

I'm sorry but our friends at the times may actually want to learn the definition of a totalitarian government before the start to compare the U.S. to one:

A totalitarian régime or state attempts to control nearly every aspect of personal, economic, and political life.

Last time I checked we have a Bill of Rights, a laizzes faire economic system, and free elections. We're not even close to a totalitarian regime someone ought to tell this guy that WORDS MEAN THINGS.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Maybe not! :shock:

Originally Posted by Goobieman
Yeah.
Congress and the courts have been disbanded and elections suspended; the President rules by personal decree and there is no mechanism to control him.

Totalitarianism:
Domination by a single, like-minded governing elite of all (or virtually all) organized political, economic, social and cultural activities in a country by means of a single-party monopoly of power [Bush Administration],

Ya umm when did Bush disband the Congress and the Judiciary? When have the Republicans outlawed other political parties? It's not our fault that you guys can't win elections maybe if you quit calling the president the next Hitler and focused on the issues instead you might (and I stress might) win one . . . but I doubt it. :lol:

police repression not only of all forms of dissent [anyone who disagrees with the president’s policies regarding the war on terrorism is unpatriotic and lives in a pre-9-11 world]

Disagreement is fine I disagree with the President on a lot of issues it's aiding and abetting the enemy that some of us have a problem with.

and opposition but also of all forms of independent private organizations as such, rigorous censorship of the mass media [crticism of any media that speaks against the Bush Administration (anything but Fox)],

So the Bush administration is closing down the NYT's who just called him a totalitarian dictator? Your own article proves hands down that we still have freedom of the press.

centralized state planning and administration of the economy [tax cuts benefiting rich],

Bwahahahaha do you know what a state planned economy is? Tax cuts are the antithesis of a state planned economy, increased taxes and regulation would fit the analogy a bit better in that sense it is the Democrats who fit the bill for totalitarian, not to mention the Democrats domination over the airwaves that they had for nearly 100 years under the "fairness" doctrine which silenced the right in this country but now when the right actually has a mike no no we can't have that now can we? I mean how dare we challenge the liberal propoganda.

and pervasive propaganda to inculcate the principles of the obligatory official ideology [Jeff Gannon; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon, Armstrong Williams].
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/totalitarianism

You got a long way to go, baby.

Pervasive propoganda like Michael Moore, Al-Franken, Noam Chomsky and George Soros? How about the liberal media and the liberal domination of academia?

 

[Goobieman]

Maybe not! :shock:

When was Congress disbanded and the Constitution suspended?

Domination by a single, like-minded governing elite of all (or virtually all) organized political, economic, social and cultural activities in a country by means of a single-party monopoly of power [Bush Administration],

The mere fact that we have -elections- that put parties into power nullifies any point you might be trying to make here

police repression not only of all forms of dissent [anyone who disagrees with the president’s policies regarding the war on terrorism is unpatriotic and lives in a pre-9-11 world]

So, these people are arrested and thrown in prison - because they disagree?
That's what "police repression" means.

and opposition but also of all forms of independent private organizations as such, rigorous censorship of the mass media [crticism of any media that speaks against the Bush Administration (anything but Fox)],

Criticism is not censorship.
And what about the "All forms of independent private organizations"?
Has the Bush Administration disbanded NOW? The Sierra Club? The Brady Campaign?
The Democratic Party?
No?
So where is your point?

centralized state planning and administration of the economy [tax cuts benefiting rich],

I see you don't know what "Centalized state planning and administration of the economy" means.
Hint: think "5 year plan".
Get back to us when the Bush administration announces one.

and pervasive propaganda to inculcate the principles of the obligatory official ideology

Does the pervasive propaganda from the Left qualify here?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included
(1) an excessive reliance on secrecy,
(2) the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population,
(3) a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy,
(4) the promotion of blind patriotism,
(5) the denial of human rights,
(6) the curtailment of the rule of law,
(7) hostility to a free press and
(8) the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.

This has been in progress in this cycle since 1993. Which is fairly long as such cycles go, but not unprecedented. The move away from a freedom based society towards a command society began with the Civil War, and it's been making progress in fits and spurts ever since.

Has Congress been disbanded? No. Nero had Senators to play with in Rome, too, and Gorbachev still had the Politburo as he tried to keep the last gasps of the Soviet empire in his grasp. So the presence of archaic forms doesn't really mean much.

The question isn't really if Congress can do anything to reverse current trends, but if it will do anything. That answer is "no".

Give it time, see what happens. While we're not a "totalitarian" government yet, our elected officials are doing everything they can to set up the protocols and attitudes to permit it some day.

 

[alphieb]

Has Bush ever vetoed a bill?????? I suppose we are becoming too tolerant.

 

[jamesrage]

I know this may sound like an extreme question, but you have to admit that some of the things going on seem to give some resemblance to a totalitarian government.

Bob Herbert, who writes for the New York Times had an article yesterday, where he talked about how our government (i.e., the office of the Presidency) has put fear in us regarding terrorism that has caused Americans to overlook the freedoms that have been taken away from us. He laid out the following facts, which I think there is, at a minimum, some truth in them (I actually thing we meet all of them).

Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included
(1) an excessive reliance on secrecy,
(2) the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population,
(3) a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy,
(4) the promotion of blind patriotism,
(5) the denial of human rights,
(6) the curtailment of the rule of law,
(7) hostility to a free press and
(8) the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary peopl

It's rather shocking to think of how many of these situations are applicable.

I do not think much credit should be given to anti-war liberal.It seems everytime something happens that some liberal does not like they throw out the facist card.Do you realize that if the media did the same **** in WWI they do now they would be tossed in jail for sedition and perhaps treason.

 

[aps]

I do not think much credit should be given to anti-war liberal.It seems everytime something happens that some liberal does not like they throw out the facist card.Do you realize that if the media did the same **** in WWI they do now they would be tossed in jail for sedition and perhaps treason.

Oh, so this is supposed to be a rationale for why you don't give much credit to an "anti-war liberal"? LOL Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay. *sarcasm*

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh, so this is supposed to be a rationale for why you don't give much credit to an "anti-war liberal"? LOL Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay. *sarcasm*

By your logic aps FDR was a totalitarian dictator, I can make the case against the liberal/socialist hero quite easily so keep it up.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Trajan Octavian Titus,

By your logic aps FDR was a totalitarian dictator, I can make the case against the liberal/socialist hero quite easily so keep it up.

I'd like to see what you have to say on the.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

How about the liberal media and the liberal domination of academia?

Sit and ponder this for a second. Why do you think that is?


Maybe if you repubs were more concerned about the betterment of our society and less concerned about making money, you'd 'take one for the team' and start trying to be professors...

Or maybe that is way to complex of an idea?
There is a much simpler one, than I've seen used.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Maybe if you repubs were more concerned about the betterment of our society and less concerned about making money, you'd 'take one for the team' and start trying to be professors...

:rofl :rofl

 

[Captain America]

Sit and ponder this for a second. Why do you think that is?


Maybe if you repubs were more concerned about the betterment of our society and less concerned about making money, you'd 'take one for the team' and start trying to be professors...

Or maybe that is way to complex of an idea?
There is a much simpler one, than I've seen used.

People with higher education and intelligence, a requirement to teach upper level academia, often do tend to be liberal. What does that tell ya? It goes with the territory.

Certainly not in ALL cases, but enough to tip the scales toward the liberal side.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

hhahah, glad i could get a rise outta ya!
But seriously, liberals care more about society as a whole---that's a safe generalization, doncha think?
Cap'n, you are correct. But it's just coincidence, that more professors are liberal....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sit and ponder this for a second. Why do you think that is?


Maybe if you repubs were more concerned about the betterment of our society and less concerned about making money, you'd 'take one for the team' and start trying to be professors...

Or maybe that is way to complex of an idea?
There is a much simpler one, than I've seen used.

Hay I'm not the one running around accusing people of being totalitarian. Secondly, it's quite hard for a conservative to get a professorship unless they keep their views a secret it's called group think, I believe in an academic bill of rights to keep partisan politics out of the classroom so everyones voice is heard. You want fascist you want totalitarian, try being a conservative at a liberal school and see how far your grades get demoted that's fascism.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

hhahah, glad i could get a rise outta ya!
But seriously, liberals care more about society as a whole---that's a safe generalization, doncha think?
Cap'n, you are correct. But it's just coincidence, that more professors are liberal....

No. It's childish and vacuous.

"Liberals", by which term I take to mean the modern mealy-mouthed socialist elitist seeking to control the lives of men because they consider those men not competent to run their own lives, seek to alter society into their vision of magnanimous generousity towards the lower classes using someone else's money. That's clearly a mold that doesn't wear well.

Americans, by which term I mean those people who not only understand that this country was founded not only on individual liberty but individual responsibility, think "liberals" aren't much good for ******* on, and nothing much else, either. Americans figure almost all the problems with the country and world today is that "liberals" have had their own way for far too long, and look what they've managed to screw up.

The liberal's view of society is control.

The American's view of society is freedom. Clearly the latter is better for men.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Let's see?

If you don't vote for a REP or DEM presidential candidate your vote
will not count! (No true representation)


A presidential candidate can win even if he does not have a majority
(of the peoples) Vote. (No fairness in the current governing system)

The only two parties that can make changes haven't and don't!
(The US is looking more like a 3rd world country that a Utopian one)

Corruption is rampant in US politics, and very little or nothing is being done
to stop it. (No desire by politicians to correct criminal actions)

The US is run by the REP-DEM Monopoly (That's 1 party away from a Dictatorship)

So I think yes is your answer!

 

[Donkey1499]

I know this may sound like an extreme question, but you have to admit that some of the things going on seem to give some resemblance to a totalitarian government.

Bob Herbert, who writes for the New York Times had an article yesterday, where he talked about how our government (i.e., the office of the Presidency) has put fear in us regarding terrorism that has caused Americans to overlook the freedoms that have been taken away from us. He laid out the following facts, which I think there is, at a minimum, some truth in them (I actually thing we meet all of them).



It's rather shocking to think of how many of these situations are applicable.

Leading down a totalitarian path? I agree with you, although only partially. This can only be blamed on ALL politicians and the press. Not just the WhiteHouse. Your biasness sticks out like a parrot among doves.

 

[aps]

Leading down a totalitarian path? I agree with you, although only partially. This can only be blamed on ALL politicians and the press. Not just the WhiteHouse. Your biasness sticks out like a parrot among doves.

LMAO! Priceless, Donkey! :lamo

 

[jamesrage]

Oh, so this is supposed to be a rationale for why you don't give much credit to an "anti-war liberal"? LOL Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay. *sarcasm*

I find it amusing how some libs try to make it seem that scum back then were allowed to root for our enemies like they are now under the guise of anti-war protesters.