• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Bush A FASCIST? (1 Viewer)

Is The Busha Administation a Fascist Regime?

  • YES - I agree with the definitions cited in this thread

    Votes: 9 29.0%
  • Almost NO - I don't think they're Fascist but I'm getting worried.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Almost YES - but not there yet - on it's way to being Fascist

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • NO WAY - They're nothing to worry about

    Votes: 15 48.4%

  • Total voters
    31

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This data has been published here before but as time passes I think it becomes more and more self-evident that the Bush Administration is acting more and more like a Fascist dictatorship.

Poll Question? Is The Bush Administration a Fascist Regime?

I do not think everything I list below is exactly correct but way too much of it is. So much so that I've reached the conclusion that The Bush Administration is a Neo-Fascist regime, 21st Century style. To make this easier to read I've highlighted the keys (to me) in bold type.

To help you all think it through before voting, here's some insightful points re Fascism:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Source: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
 
Last edited:
Wake me when they refuse to leave in 08, lol.:lol:
 
Deegan said:
Wake me when they refuse to leave in 08, lol.:lol:
I'm not suggesting that would happen however I am worried about more "irregularities" in elections etc. Voting machines and the problems associated with them should worry everyone, you know?
 
26 X World Champs said:
I'm not suggesting that would happen however I am worried about more "irregularities" in elections etc. Voting machines and the problems associated with them should worry everyone, you know?

I know this has been discussed for six years, and I have still not been convinced of any wrong doing, other then the usual crap both sides attempt every election. I do support a redesign of the machines, to allow for a paper reciept, but I have not heard much other then that concern.
 
Of coarse he's a facist! Just look at all the examples we have of him doing what he wants without any regard for the law, the Constitution, public opinion or Congressional oversight:
  • Attacking Iraq without UNSC authorization
  • Domestic wiretapping
  • Data mining
  • Renditions and right to torture
  • Sheer volume of his "signing statements"
  • His own words proclaiming he is, "the decider".
This is just scratching the surface. Katrina showed the world he doesn't give a damn about Americans. He cares only for himself.
 
Billo_Really said:
This is just scratching the surface. Katrina showed the world he doesn't give a damn about Americans. He cares only for himself.

i was over a friends house last night
she had just gotten back from Biloxi where her brother is a 'government employee'
He told her that the local government in Louisianna decided to allow New Orleans to receive an enema due to the overwhelming low life population therein
how all the impoverished districts were either renters or squatters, and in actuality lost nothing but their clothes
and now all the homeowners will be able to rebuild while Houston and other cities deal with the problems of flushed out waste of the city
 
DeeJayH said:
i was over a friends house last night
she had just gotten back from Biloxi where her brother is a 'government employee'
He told her that the local government in Louisianna decided to allow New Orleans to receive an enema due to the overwhelming low life population therein
how all the impoverished districts were either renters or squatters, and in actuality lost nothing but their clothes
and now all the homeowners will be able to rebuild while Houston and other cities deal with the problems of flushed out waste of the city
With all due respect can you understand how ridiculous this sounds? Sorry but to me that is Republican excuse making for mistreatment of the poor and most needy. Your own post even says it's so.
 
26 X World Champs said:
With all due respect can you understand how ridiculous this sounds? Sorry but to me that is Republican excuse making for mistreatment of the poor and most needy. Your own post even says it's so.

no respect necessary, they are not my words
but NO did need an enema, so to speak
but it should have started with teh corrupt politicians
 
DeeJayH said:
no respect necessary, they are not my words
but NO did need an enema, so to speak
but it should have started with teh corrupt politicians
I agree...the level of corruption SINCE Katrina is unprecedented. The NY Times wrote a long piece about it a week or so ago.

But you know what? It all ties back to Bush creating a Fascist government that buys it's way to anything it so desires. The truly ironic thing is that the Bush Administration tried so hard to pass itself off as being of good moral values when in reality it is the exact opposite.

Reread the 14 points of Fascism that I started this thread with and tell me where Bush does not meet those standards?
 
Thinking terror suspects should have their financial transactions monitored; thinking POWS should be treated like (gasp) ...POWS = common sense.

Socialists like Castro, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler = ACTUAL fascists.


Hysterically mindless thread as always, champs...Congrats. :roll:


26 X World Champs said:
I agree...the level of corruption SINCE Katrina is unprecedented. The NY Times wrote a long piece about it a week or so ago.

NYT hasn't endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Ike. They are far left. Saying they wrote criticisms of Bush is like saying Democrats protected a felon...well, yeah...of course...it's what they do.
 
Last edited:
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
-Benito Mussolini
That sounds pretty close.
 
Just to give you an idea how embasyllic it is to apply this list to Bush, let's apply #6 to the media here today...




The following is a short list of some household name-media people and which Democrats in office they worked for before being trusted to disseminate "objective" news:

NBC Tim Russert-Governor Mario Cuomo (D), Senator Pat Moynihan (D).

CNN Jeff Greenfield-Senator Bobby Kennedy (D), Mayor John Lindsay (D).

MSNBC Chris Matthews-President Jimmy Carter (D), House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D).

NBC Ken Bode-Presidential candidate Morris Udall (D).

PBS Bill Moyers-President L.B. Johnson (D).

NBC Brian Williams-President Jimmy Carter (D).

ABC Rick Underforth-President Carter (D), President Clinton (D), and a handful of Senators, all (D).

PBS Elizabeth Brackett-Mayoral candidate Bill Singer (D), Brackett was also HERSELF a candidate (D).

NBC Jane Pauley worked on the state Democratic Committee of Indiana (D).

ABC Pierre Salinger-President Kennedy (D), he also WAS a senator from California (D).

CBS Lesley Stahl-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New Yorker Ken Auletta-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New York Times David Shipley-President Bill Clinton (D).

New York Times Leslie Gelb-Presidents Johnson (D) and Clinton (D).

New York Times Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, American Prospect James Fallows-President Jimmy Carter (D).

CNN, Los Angeles Times Tom Johnson-President Johnson (D).

Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Walter Pincus-Senator J.W. Fulbright (D), Pincus’s wife was also a Clinton appointee.

New York Times Jack Rosenthal-Presidents Kennedy (D) and Johnson (D).

USA Today John Seigenthaler-President Kennedy (D).

New Yorker Sidney Blumenthal-President Clinton (D).

U.S. News and World Report Donald Baer-President Clinton (D).

Nightline, New York Times Carolyn Curiel-President Clinton (D).

NBC Thomas Ross-President Clinton (D).

Nightline Tara Sonenshine-President Clinton (D).

TIME Strobe Talbott-President Clinton (D).


And one of my personal favorites, Dee Dee Myers, worked for Bill Clinton (D) and then got hired by Roger Ailes (the evil genius credited with Fox’s “conservative bias”-what a laugh!)

THEN, there are the media figures who are sons, daughters and spouses of prominent Democrats:

ABC-Chris Cuomo

E!-Eleanor Mondale

ABC-Cokie Roberts

Newsweek-Evan Thomas, who is the grandson of one of America’s most notorious Communists. Comrade Evan has been caught manipulating the news to protect Senator Bob Kerrey (D), and President Clinton (D)-he buried the Monica Lewinsky story for weeks until Matt Drudge finally forced it into the spotlight.

All of this, and he is still the editor of Newsweek.

And Maria Shriver, of NBC, is the niece of ultra-liberal, Teddy Kennedy, but, in all fairness, THIS one is also married to a pseudo-Republican, Governor Swarzenneger.


-Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, NONE of the major papers have endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

-What about all the studies done by respectable, non-partisan groups proving a huge liberal tilt among reporters, anchors, news directors and producers?

-What about the multitude of unexplainable examples I have provided like: Dan Rather calling a leak about Bill Clinton's indictment "well-orchestrated" and "Republican backed," only to find out the next day that a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ADMITTEDLY, ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information? Where do you suppose Dan got his bad information? It sure as hell wasn't from research. He made it up....because he is a liberal.
 
Got some sort of source for your list there, aqua? I know you didn't just pull all of that off of the top of your head.
 
aquapub said:
Just to give you an idea how embasyllic it is to apply this list to Bush, let's apply #6 to the media here today.
Your post is a perfect example of the growing Fascism in the Republican Party, especially in the Bush Administration. In the post that I wrote to start this thread I said:
Originally Posted by 26 X World ChampsI do not think everything I list below is exactly correct but way too much of it is...To make this easier to read I've highlighted the keys (to me) in bold type.
The one point that you're trying to pass off as proof that Bush is not a Neo-Fascist is point #6 which you will note that I did NOT highlight any portion of that point because I did not see it as actually relating to Bush specifically or overall.

Conveniently you ignored the other 13 points as if they have no truth in them. I think it's because you're unable to rebut the reality so you chose the one point that you can exploit...kind of like what a Neo-Fascist would do to manipulate the media, ironic, isn't it?

You also keep mentioning that the NY Times and the Wash. Post have not endorsed a Republican presidential nominee since IKE. You've ranted about this before, just last week only then you claimed that the Times had trashed Guilliani when he ran as they do to all Republicans, remember this?
Originally Posted by aquapub
RE: Giuliani
The New York Times has aggressively undermined, vilified, and lied about everything the man has fought for. They hate him. He is not a member of their party.
To which I posted this TRUTH:
So you write that the NY Times HATES Giuliani simply because he's a Republican. I guess you have some explaining to do since the Times ENDORSED Giuliani for Mayor in 1997!

Don't believe me? Well read this please:

Quote:
EDITORIAL DESK

Election Day Choices

(NYT) 366 words
Published: November 4, 1997

Today voters will choose New York City's next mayor, New Jersey's next governor and other officials. They will also vote on important ballot issues. Polls will be open from 6 A.M. to 9 P.M. in New York State, and 7 A.M. to 8 P.M. in New Jersey. Here is a summary of our endorsements:

New York City

MAYOR
Rudolph Giuliani (R)

Source: http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...A80994DF494D81

How is this possible Aquapub? You're so clear in your attack of the NY Times and their partisan politics! Seems to me that you might need to look into the mirror if you want to see someone who hates a politician because of his party affiliation.
Source: http://www.debatepolitics.com/338770-post363.html

Of course you never acknowledged your erroneous accusation (very Cheney of you) and now you're back tossing out the same rhetoric only its revised to omit Rudi, not that it matters.

At the end of the day I'd like to see you go through all 14 points and defend the Bush Administation as not being Fascist. This would make for an excellent debate. Are you up for the challenge or will you cut and run???
 
Last edited:
26 X World Champs said:
I'm not suggesting that would happen however I am worried about more "irregularities" in elections etc. Voting machines and the problems associated with them should worry everyone, you know?

You arent concerned with anything but bashing Bush.

Troll.jpg
 
Goobieman said:
You arent concerned with anything but bashing Bush.
Great rebuttal! How about typing some responses to the 14 points listed that disprove Bush as a Neo-Fascist? Isn't that what Debate Politics is supposed to be?

How come no one is able to dispute the points listed here enough to change what I perceive is the truth?

Bush is a Neo-Fascist IMHO. Prove me wrong, anyone?
 
Goobieman said:
You arent concerned with anything but bashing Bush.

Troll.jpg

Moderator's Warning:
Debate the topic please, not the members.
 
Doremus Jessup said:
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
-Benito Mussolini
That sounds pretty close.


You took the words right out of my mouth. Bush is without a doubt a fascist in the Mussolini mold: "A goverment by the corporation of the corporation, and for the corporation." If the US, doesn't do something soon, a new corporate lead Third Reich could take the place of democracy. Our government has lost track of its obligation to serve the people and is now owned by corporate donors and K street lobbyists.
 
hipsterdufus said:
You took the words right out of my mouth. Bush is without a doubt a fascist in the Mussolini mold: "A goverment by the corporation of the corporation, and for the corporation." If the US, doesn't do something soon, a new corporate lead Third Reich could take the place of democracy. Our government has lost track of its obligation to serve the people and is now owned by corporate donors and K street lobbyists.
Very true, very true! I like the term Neo-Fascist to describe Bush and his Administration, it seems like an apt description.

Have you noticed that so far no one has actually been able to disprove the 14 points that are the thesis of this thread? It is amazing how accurate each point is in describing the Bush Administration.

So far the only rebuttals have been to call me names or to refute the single point that I deemphasized as the least valid of the 14.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Very true, very true! I like the term Neo-Fascist to describe Bush and his Administration, it seems like an apt description.

Have you noticed that so far no one has actually been able to disprove the 14 points that are the thesis of this thread? It is amazing how accurate each point is in describing the Bush Administration.

So far the only rebuttals have been to call me names or to refute the single point that I deemphasized as the least valid of the 14.

What did you expect? Reason?
 
I think the fascist talk is a bit overdone and I find it counterproductive. I see this administration as embodying that which I might call crony capitalism or say they represent the oligarchy, but fascism to me involves more of a grandiose racial element which I do not see here. There may be certain elements of fascism here, but the racial element is not present, and that is not only one of the key traits, but the one so many peopel reference when the term is used. That's why I think it is counterproductive, because when people use the term fascist it only invites a backlash and one that is easily dismissed -- "look -- he has a black woman as secretary of state", etc. THis just makes whoever made the statement appear extreme and reactive and doesn't accomplish much.

From where I sit, much of the extreme left is guilty of all that which they complain about in Bush. All this knee jerk apologia for Islamist fascim (and actual support) undermines any credibility people might have that they stand against fascim. All the antisemitism of the extreme left is indicative of a racism far greater than that shown by Bush, so my advice is to make sure one's house is not glass before tossing the grenades. If a person wishes to stand against fascism I think that is a great thing, but let's not be so selective here, o.k.?
 
Gardener said:
From where I sit, much of the extreme left is guilty of all that which they complain about in Bush. All this knee jerk apologia for Islamist fascim (and actual support) undermines any credibility people might have that they stand against fascim.
Support of Islamist Terrorism? By whom exactly? If you're simply referring to a tiny amount of people on the extreme left or right that is not relevant to me bacause they have no foundation for furthering their idealogy. If, however, you're lumping almost ALL liberals into a Pro-Islam grouping I would be very curious to read about your rationale for this type of belief?
Gardener said:
All the antisemitism of the extreme left is indicative of a racism far greater than that shown by Bush, so my advice is to make sure one's house is not glass before tossing the grenades. If a person wishes to stand against fascism I think that is a great thing, but let's not be so selective here, o.k.?
Anti-semitism by the left? I have no idea what you mean. By definition
Liberalism is:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
I'm unable to comprehend your anti-semitism accusation as I know of know block of Liberals that are prejudiced in the manner your attesting. Can you explain? I hope you're not simpy referring to one or two lone-wolf crazies who have no support from anywhere?
 
hipsterdufus said:
You took the words right out of my mouth. Bush is without a doubt a fascist in the Mussolini mold: "A goverment by the corporation of the corporation, and for the corporation." If the US, doesn't do something soon, a new corporate lead Third Reich could take the place of democracy. Our government has lost track of its obligation to serve the people and is now owned by corporate donors and K street lobbyists.


This is unique to the present administration, house and senate ?
This type of naivety has allowed our country to be divided, while both parties continue to sell our nation to the financiers on wall street.
Get a clue, those that set the monetary policy, and profit the greatest from our suffering will continue to pull the strings for each and every future president.That the Bush admin is the admin responsible for ushering in some sort of new fascism is so simplistic, borders on comedy.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Support of Islamist Terrorism? By whom exactly?


Nobody in this thread, and I would suggest to you that you pay attention to the fact that I said extreme left rather than liberal. You must paint politics with quite a wide brush if your defense mechanisms kick in to the point where you confuse the two. The extreme left is every bit as authoritarian and dogmatic as the extreme right, and these people are most definitely not liberal because they do not espouse liberal values. Learn the difference, o.k.?


You might wish to peruse a few boards like democratic underground, Daily Koss or Commongroundcommonsense.org (which sprung from the remnants of the Kerry forum), or even take greater pains to peruse this one because there is definitely a signifigant portion of the left that is antisemitic and acts as apologists for Islamism.

Politics isn't something so simple as a football game, though far too many people play it as if it were so. You may see your "team" as being under attack by me, but I'm actually on it. I voted for Kerry, I support women's rights and gay rights, I am stronly in favor of the separation of church and state, I believe in progressive taxation and strong environmental regulation, but this has not prevented me from noticing the rather large number of people who repeat the same knee jerk babble when it comes to views towards Islamism that are a complete abrogation of the values they purport to uphold. These people are absolutely killing the left, and for the very reason that you illustrated so clearly -- that people do not distinguish between liberal and authoritarian left and the whole left gets painted according to the perceptions created by these dogmatic leftists.


Just go to an antiwar rally organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. some time, because if you are finding no antisemitism on the left, I would suggest it is because you aren't looking for it and because you are too busy defending perceived attacks to open your eyes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom