Hmmm...Let's see which party represents these values.
|
|
Main Entry: fas·cism
Function: noun
1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Function: noun
1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
-snakelips
vocabulary and our understanding of what a word means to you changes the whole discussion.
I always tie it to a corporately owned and controlled government (government is US)---and also classism.
Link
Those are LEFT wing desires!
-snakelips
The right wants less government – but it tends to be in the form that aids the less fortunate.
For example; less government oversight, corporate restrictions (environmental controls), fewer social programs (privatize social security and education). This is basically a "fend-for-yourself" strategy.
But, they are fine which more government in the form of wire tapping, holding people indefinitely without trial on suspicion of terrorism, use of military.
I do agree with you, and there are provisions in the constitution, about regulating business. And I want less executive control (because those powers apply whether a Dem or a Rep is in the White House, and it's too much power in the hands of one person), less suppression of dissenting opinions (although I don't see where that's happening now), etc.
The wire-tapping thing is OK with me personally, because the constitution only protects us from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. It is REASONABLE to me to listen in to phone calls originating or going out to known terrorists or terrorism supporting countries. And there is oversight of the taps, after the fact, so we are afforded some protection.
We should try the people held on terrorism suspicion, but NOT in civilian courts. Too lenient, and too great a chance to reveal national security secrets. I worry that this big push to try them will simply result in summary executions on the battlefield when one of these guys is caught shooting at us. That seems a waste.
Use of the military....that's a big one. Lets cover that some other time.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
-snakelips
I understand if people think "I don't have anything to hide", but this could easily be used for corporate or political purposees. I think that is bad. Remeber, if democrats get in control, they will have that power.
Economists will tell you there needs to be a balance. The government’ s job isn’t to hinder businesses, but to make sure the playing field is fair. Also, it is there to protect individual freedoms (a key to resisting fascism) and provide consumer/employee protection. We don’t exist only to the benefit of corporations; rather, we are a nation or family that needs to take care of one another.
The current administration has done more to expand executive power than any other.
How is it that the Republicans are misrepresenting Obama’s tax plan? He will reduce taxes for 95% of the population.
We should care for one another, but I don't think that is something gov't should do or enforce. That's not its roll.
I'm not going to defend the Bush administration, I'm not happy with it either. I want to work out what SHOULD be and work to make sure we don't put someone worse in office.
I think we are having problems with Obama's tax plan because firstly, his spending plans far out pace revenues that will be gained by the 5% (if that is to believed) increase he has in mind. Secondly, I feel that increasing taxes on those who already pay a big majority of them in the first place will result in an economic slowdown, and it's just plain unfair. If you want to talk a flat percentage rate across the board, combined with closing a huge number of loopholes and shelters, then that sounds exciting. A great number of people now pay NO taxes, and yet use a lot of gov't services. That is not fair and only encourages MORE use of those services.
-snakelips
It seems to me your kind of attitude is one that would forcibly suppress the opposition. Am I not entitled to my opinion? If the left has no problem granting healthcare, income, prescription drugs, needles, condoms, housing, and any other entitlement to people, you'd think you'd at least grant me an opinion.
Thank you for your kindness.
-snakelips