http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm




In "Fascism Anyone?" Laurence Britt identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."

Point #1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
.........and let's not forget the failed "Bring 'em on!"

Military Will March Front and Center at Inaugural Festivities

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/sssindex.gif

American Nation Brainwashed: I spoke to some 2,000 students during their annual lecture at a Baptist college in Pennsylvania. After a short prayer service for peace centered on the Beatitudes, I took the stage and got right to the point. “Now let me get this straight,” I said. “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ - With that, the place exploded, and 500 students stormed out. The rest of them then started chanting, “Bush! Bush! Bush!” Some may remember Duce! Duce! Duce! -ed.

Marketing campaign to portray Fayetteville as America's most patriotic city suggests daily parades, tax breaks for flag-wavers and requiring all restaurants to serve apple pie.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

(each sentence below is a link to the evidence on the webpage this originates from)


A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees – some as young as 10 – are also being subjected to rape and torture

White House Fought New Curbs on Interrogations

US 'preparing to detain terror suspects for life without trial'

The Actual FBI Memo (pdf) Referring to the Exec. Order Authorizing Use of Torture

U.S. oks evidence gained through torture.

U.S. cuts World Court's jurisdiction

Congress Moves to Cut Aid to Allies That Support World Criminal Court

The Bush administration has concluded for the first time that some non-Iraqi prisoners captured by American forces in Iraq are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions

Bush administration pulls out of death penalty treaty that protects Americans abroad, just to execute Mexicans on Texas death row

House bill looks to legalize torture by foreign operatives

If the Senate confirms Alberto Gonzales as attorney general it will confirm that America is a country that supports and engages in torture of prisoners.

Ashcroft refuses to give Congress torture memo

July 1, 2003: U.S. Suspends Military Aid to Nearly 50 Countries: because they have supported the International Criminal Court and failed to exempt Americans from possible prosecution.

Outsourcing Torture: Contractors act as interrogators: Defense Department turned to private sources to question prisoners for intelligence gathering.
US has at least 9000 prisoners in secret detention

al-Qaida Detainees 'Disappeared' : At least 11 al-Qaida suspects have "disappeared" in U.S. custody, and some may have been tortured, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued Monday.

Guantanamo Eyes Possible Execution Chamber

Bush Civil Rights report released: "...the administration has failed to exhibit leadership or define a clear focus, relegating civil rights to a low priority."

Congress Pushes Penalties For Those Who Support The International Criminal Court: "The fact is, most Republicans want to see the International Criminal Court killed and see this as another nail in its coffin," one aide said in an interview last week.

Secrecy shrouds U.S. torture jet: The covert procedure, which must be authorized by a presidential directive, has gained little attention inside the United States.

U.N. Human Rights Experts: 'U.S. Treatment of Detainees Inhuman and Degrading'

Group: US killed detainees: A US human rights group has alleged that at least 37 detainees died of torture in US detention centres at Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Point #1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays

So do patriotic and proud nations.... there's nothing wrong with supporting your country.... its good to be loyal and any problems that are going on there's really nothing you can do about lol.... (besides post about it on allforums)

But it must be IMPOSSIBLE for us to proud.. we HAVE to be fascist right?
Originally posted by Freethinker

Military Will March Front and Center at Inaugural Festivities

your point? I don't see us parading down the street with nukes and guns? There's a big difference between an occasional Inaugural event and trying to scare people into place...

AmOriginally posted by Freethinker
American Nation Brainwashed: I spoke to some 2,000 students during their annual lecture at a Baptist college in Pennsylvania. After a short prayer service for peace centered on the Beatitudes, I took the stage and got right to the point. “Now let me get this straight,” I said. “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ - With that, the place exploded, and 500 students stormed out. The rest of them then started chanting, “Bush! Bush! Bush!” Some may remember Duce! Duce! Duce! -ed.

First off....your comparison of "Bush" to "Duce" is dumb, so anyone who chants anyone's name is a fascist? LOL, wow, it doesnt take much does it?

As for the pennsylvania thing.... there's a couple things that could be going on there.... maybe they ARE bitter, and dont like him ripping into the guy they support, which is kind of dumb but okay. or... Maybe they just have heard it all before

Which brings me to another point ive wanted to discuss.... politics and religion. FT first off you so adamently cry for seperation of church and state, but yet you constantly use examples of churches and such to try to prove a political point..... i thought they were supposed to be seperated? lol

And this is more of my personal thoughts here. Honestly, i have political views, and i have religious views...... sometimes they do contradict each other. I mean.. do two wrongs make a right? Look at Iraq. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers"... and reading scripture its obvious that Jesus does not smile upon war, BUT... if it means ending decades and hundreds of years of violence over in the middle east? who knows. Politically i agree that going over there was the right move, just to try to tame the bee hive called the middle east.... so they don't blow up the whole planet. So you can see how this is tough for us religious folk to always put a sound foot forward..... and some people handle it better than others. I just think its something you might need to understand, because you rip into republican moves and blame it on the religion...when its not necessarily the religion that is being represented......

Originally posted by Decka

Am
First off....your comparison of "Bush" to "Duce" is dumb, so anyone who chants anyone's name is a fascist? LOL, wow, it doesnt take much does it?

.

you didn't get the point at all did you?

Originally posted by ivan
you didn't get the point at all did you?

i guess i didnt.. what is it a joke? because the arguement was weak at best

Sometimes, when all else has apparently failed, it takes strong action to acquire the peace you speak of.

America and the allies were peace makers in World War II.
They whipped Axis ass until there was peace.

peace through superior firepower

number 3 of the 14 characteristics fascist regimes (note; numerous example of each of the fourteen characteristics common to fascist regimes can be found in the actions of the Rightwing leaders of the US Government)


3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The People are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived or purported common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.


SB 24, Ohio law to muzzle "liberals" -- http://dailykos.com/story/2005/1/28/85410/0152

Britain's War On Islam: "We Will Blow Your Son's head Off" they say.

Cheney warns that if Kerry is elected, the USA will suffer a "devastating attack"

A scared populace is a compliant populace -- http://portal.tds.net/newsreader.php?id=36575

Terrorists are likely planning U.S. attacks, a U.S. Homeland Security official said Friday.


Ann Coulter's fascist screed; "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right"


How U.S. Attorney-General, a Christian Evangelist With Anti-Islamic Views On Record, Is Waging War On American Muslims

Dr. James J. Zogby: A co-ordinated and bigoted assault (The anti-Arab campaign being waged today in the U.S. is an organised multi-pronged effort targeting a variety of Arab leaders, institutions and Islam.)

Congressman: Muslims 'enemy amongst us' -- http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37099

number 4 of the 14 characteristics fascist regimes (note; numerous example of each of the fourteen characteristics common to fascist regimes are clearly demonstrated by the actions of the Rightwing leaders of the US Government)

4.) Supremacy of the Military


Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


Bush budget: Military wins: Bush proposed a $2.57 trillion budget for 2006 on Monday that would erase scores of programs, cull savings from Medicaid and cut housing for the disabled and many other programs. Its fate will be decided by Congress over coming months. -- http://tinyurl.com/5y6o9

Current US Military budget 2004 --http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

CIA in decline, Pentagon on the rise: The recent revelation that the Department of Defense has been operating its own espionage arm for the last two years confirms Rumsfeld’s success in sidelining the CIA. -- http://tinyurl.com/6v8wo

Three cable channels now feed news, information and entertainment about the armed services into millions of living rooms 24 hours a day, seven days a week: The Military Channel, the Military History Channel and the Pentagon Channel. = http://www.oldamericancentury.org/mil_channel.htm

Pentagon to spend 75 billion for three new brigades = http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13656621

Bush’s Domestic Program Hit List -- http://tinyurl.com/68qut

Originally posted by Decka
There's nothing wrong with supporting your country.... its good to be loyal and any problems that are going on there's really nothing you can do about it....

IOW, what you're saying is that --------

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg

Originally posted by Travh20
peace through superior firepower

translation;

Wrong is Right.

Bombing a country back to the Stone Age is Liberating the Oppressed.

War is Peace.

Lies are Truth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

................George Orwell would be proud.

peace through superior firepower Look Decka even Travh got it....

I believe that the military is one of the very few things that the government should be a part of.

And also, peace is maintained through the willingness of the people to cooperate, and if that isnt working, the military. If you disagree with someone, and there is no higher power, peace is obtained through force. It is a very natural thing.

I believe that the military is one of the very few things that the government should be a part of.
I believe we're forgetting the entire concept of "defense"(which is the only kind of military the government has rights to be interfering with, and then they should only be there to keep it organized, not to lead it). It's being twisted to "premptive defense" which is nothing more than blind offensive tactics. Something no governing body has the rights to do, something that is a transgression only dictatorships participate in.

and if that isnt working, the military. If you disagree with someone, and there is no higher power, peace is obtained through force. It is a very natural thing.
That's disgusting.

peace through superior firepower
As is this.

Originally posted by Travh20
peace through superior firepower

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."--- Mao Zedong

Originally posted by Evil Homer
I believe ....... peace is obtained through force. It is a very natural thing.

It is, IMO, a very unnatural thing.

Homo sapiens is the ONLY species of animal that kills other members of the same species for reasons like "jealously" or "greed" or "offended honor"..

"Peace" --for the sake of peace-- is unknown throughout the rest of the animal kingdom.

how do you think something becomes the alpha male? an election?

We homo sapiens have just made it very effective and violent. Its our specialty.

The animal kingdom is constantly at war. fights for supremacy, for food, for survival. Ant colonies have wars over food, plants develop natural pesticides. All life is struggle and war. We are just really good at it.

Originally posted by Blibblob
[BI believe we're forgetting the entire concept of "defense"(which is the only kind of military the government has rights to be interfering with, and then they should only be there to keep it organized, not to lead it). It's being twisted to "premptive defense" which is nothing more than blind offensive tactics. [/B]

Your idea of "defense" dates back to when wooden ships lobbed cannonballs at our ports. There are weapons and systems today that, once deployed, are unstoppable. Pre-emption is defense now.

My favorite example is when Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility, garnering the ire of most of the world. To those who can't think strategically, it was wrong.

Originally posted by Freethinker
It is, IMO, a very unnatural thing.

Homo sapiens is the ONLY species of animal that kills other members of the same species for reasons like "jealously" or "greed" or "offended honor"..

"Peace" --for the sake of peace-- is unknown throughout the rest of the animal kingdom.

My dog ripped apart my neighbors dog when it tried to eat its food. She's a greedy little bitch.

(number 5 of the 14 characteristics fascist regimes (note; numerous example of each of the fourteen characteristics common to fascist regimes are clearly demonstrated by the actions of the Rightwing leaders of the US Government)

5.) Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.


The Bush Administration issues medical guidelines that rape victims should just carry the child to term

Bush refuses to sign U.N proposal on women's "sexual" rights

Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 failed to provide any exception if a woman's health is at stake.

Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records

W. David Hager chairman of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs. Hager believes that headaches, PMS and eating disorders can be cured by reading Scripture. -- http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/4357004.htm

Bush Administration to Extend Health Coverage to Fetuses but Not to Pregnant Women -- http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr_02_0506bush.html

The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.

GOP candidate approves of the execution of homosexuals -- http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320

College Republicans Plan 'Straight Pride Week'

Bush calls for constitutional ban on same-sex marriages

According to the Secretary of Education, PBS can air kids shows with evangelicals, but not lesbians -- http://tinyurl.com/6sjsk

College Republicans Plan 'Straight Pride Week'


the horror!!! there are republicans on college campuses? they must be eradicated

Originally posted by Freethinker
It is, IMO, a very unnatural thing.

Homo sapiens is the ONLY species of animal that kills other members of the same species for reasons like "jealously" or "greed" or "offended honor"..


You don't know much about animals, do you?

You don't know much about animals, do you? You see thats the thing about intelligence. Its suppossed to help us overcome our self destructive instincts.

When you catch on fire the animalistic instinct is to run, a great way to burn to death. With brains however we can know that we should snuff the fire out.

FT,

GOP candidate approves of the execution of homosexuals -- http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story...10/25/5445/1320

To say that this one kook represents the GOP is as absurd as saying all Democrats are racist because Senator Byrd was a cross burning member of the KKK. You can't hold the whole party accountable by one nutcases views.


College Republicans Plan 'Straight Pride Week'

If people can celebrate being gay and lesbian I don't see the difference. And I bet the people holding this event will not be dressed up in lewd outfits in public in view of children. If you can stomach it, look at the picture of this gay parade that happened in broad daylight on a public street.

(link deleted)

You won't be seeing this immoral behavior at the "Straight Pride Week"


Bush calls for constitutional ban on same-sex marriages

And the problem is.......


The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.

Which group are you referring to. I'm not being sarcastic, just curious.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
Bush calls for constitutional ban on same-sex marriages

And the problem is.......
Maybe the problem is that Bush wants to put some trivial, current events issue into the Constitution to appease the Religious Right, while at the same time curtailing the rights of 5% or so of the population.

Anyone who thinks that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriages needs to take a civics class or five.

Originally posted by Freethinker
College Republicans Plan 'Straight Pride Week'
Oh NOOOOOOooooo! Equal participation in a right to express ones views publicly, and dare I say constitutionally. On that subject in general, screw gay pride parades. They're a sickening, morally debauched, grotesque, nauseating assault on the senses, and we live in a society that wants to extend those malcontents further privileges. I'd say fine if they'd collectively control their latent desires to drop their clothing, paint their bodies, and galavant around like a bunch of coked-up psychos in public, but you and I both know that won't happen. The only thing that'll change in the future is their "parades" will get bigger, and most of the people in attendance will sport wedding rings.

Oh yeah, on edit - they'll also have their kids there eating ice cream while being forced to watch one daddy spank the other with a studded leather paddle in an effort to "open" their minds to "reality". Don't worry though, Pops will explain it by saying, "It's all in an effort to establish equal rights, sweetie." "You know, both your daddies love you sooooooo much, don't you? SUPER!"

anyone who thinks everyone should see something as trivial just because they do needs to come out of the ivory tower for a while. and nowhere in a civics class will it say that the president is not allowed to back or propose a constitutional ammendment

******GOP candidate approves of the execution of homosexuals ********

Originally posted by GW_Rules
To say that this one kook represents the GOP is as absurd as saying all Democrats are racist.....

No one said that that one kook represents the entire GOP.

But the mere fact that he, as a candidate for high political office, would propose such a thing --when taken together with the other numerous examples of sexist actions on the part of various Conservatives--- illustrates a certain mindset and pattern of behavior of that group of people.


""Bush calls for constitutional ban on same-sex marriages""

Originally posted by GW_Rules
And the problem is.......

Endemic sexism and prejudice against gay/lesbian American citizens.




""The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.""



Originally posted by GW_Rules
Which group are you referring to. I'm not being sarcastic, just curious.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/95420/1/

The Washington-based Independent Women’s Forum (IWF).

Originally posted by The Praetorian
On that subject in general, screw gay pride parades. They're a sickening, morally debauched, grotesque, nauseating assault on the senses, and we live in a society that wants to extend those malcontents further privileges. I'd say fine if they'd collectively control their latent desires to drop their clothing, paint their bodies, and galavant around like a bunch of coked-up psychos in public, but you and I both know that won't happen.

Of course heterosexuals never behave this way in public. :rolleyes:

Since I don't want to post pornography, I'll just suggest you do a Google image search using the term "Mardi Gras Nudity" and then come back and tell me how bad the "gays" behave in public.

you say anti feminist like its a bad thing.

Homo sapiens is the ONLY species of animal that kills other members of the same species for reasons like "jealously" or "greed" or "offended honor"..

Originally posted by Leper
You don't know much about animals, do you?

?!?!?

At the top is the specific statement you seem to be challenging.

By all means, Leper.......provide me an example of an animal ---other than a human--- killing another because of "jealously" or "greed" or "offended honor".

I am breathless with anticipation.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Of course heterosexuals never behave this way in public. :rolleyes:

Since I don't want to post pornography, I'll just suggest you do a Google image search using the term "Mardi Gras Nudity" and then come back and tell me how bad the "gays" behave in public.


mardi gras is a party, not a political statement. gay parades are supposed to be to show the gays as one of us and all that. It is a bad image to attach yourself willingly when you are fighitng for acceptance by mainstream america. lesbians riding unicycles juggling dildos and gay men wearing nothing but leather chaps and thongs spanking each other atop a giant penis float are not going to win much appreciation from red state america

Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.
When asked whether they thought same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.
Twenty-eight percent said same-sex "marriages" should be valid and 4 percent had no opinion. The survey of 443 adults was conducted March 18 to 20.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm

The numbers keep growing and growing.

Originally posted by Travh20
mardi gras is a party, not a political statement. gay parades are supposed to be to show the gays as one of us and all that. It is a bad image to attach yourself willingly when you are fighitng for acceptance by mainstream america. lesbians riding unicycles juggling dildos and gay men wearing nothing but leather chaps and thongs spanking each other atop a giant penis float are not going to win much appreciation from red state america

As a matter of fact Trav, I completely agree with you on this issue, and I find this kind of behavior offensive as well. My point is that it's wrong to suggest that only gays are guilty of this sort of asinine behavior, or to use the behavior of a few gay idiots as an excuse to hate all gay people.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.
When asked whether they thought same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.
Twenty-eight percent said same-sex "marriages" should be valid and 4 percent had no opinion. The survey of 443 adults was conducted March 18 to 20.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm

The numbers keep growing and growing.

Forgive me if I'm blunt here GW, but I don't think a poll by the Washington Times on the subject of gay marriage is worth very much.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Forgive me if I'm blunt here GW, but I don't think a poll by the Washington Times on the subject of gay marriage is worth very much.

The Washington Post did not conduct the poll, it just reported it. CNN/USA Today/Gollop are responisible for the numbers. CNN and USA Today are both liberal and Gallop is the most respected polling company.

Originally posted by Travh20
mardi gras is a party, not a political statement. gay parades are supposed to be to show the gays as one of us and all that. It is a bad image to attach yourself willingly when you are fighitng for acceptance by mainstream america. lesbians riding unicycles juggling dildos and gay men wearing nothing but leather chaps and thongs spanking each other atop a giant penis float are not going to win much appreciation from red state america
Exactly, Trav. Vile, heterosexuals do behave badly in public when the crowd is composed of 21-28 year-old drunkards who annually fly from all over the nation to get fucked up and see titties at a KNOWN party for doing just that. All gays need is a crowd of on lookers, a dildo, a paddle, assless chaps, and a few willing partners. Btw, your get-togethers are WAY more graphic than Mardi gras. In New Orleans, you'll need some beads to cop a look, where as, at a pride parade, all you need are a set of eyes, children, daylight, and voila - nudity and a transparent agenda is everywhere.

Originally posted by Freethinker
No one said that that one kook represents the entire GOP.

But the mere fact that he, as a candidate for high political office, would propose such a thing --when taken together with the other numerous examples of sexist actions on the part of various Conservatives--- illustrates a certain mindset and pattern of behavior of that group of people.


So he doesn't represent the entire GOP, but they all think like him? You basically just contradicted yourself.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
As a matter of fact Trav, I completely agree with you on this issue, and I find this kind of behavior offensive as well. My point is that it's wrong to suggest that only gays are guilty of this sort of asinine behavior, or to use the behavior of a few gay idiots as an excuse to hate all gay people.
I agree, and I wasn't using it to further bolster a "hate" of gay people, but I loathe the bastards who attend those parades, which includes both the spectators and the prancing lunatics that provide the type "entertainment" in which would make Gandhi want to punch them.

Originally posted by Travh20
anyone who thinks everyone should see something as trivial just because they do needs to come out of the ivory tower for a while. and nowhere in a civics class will it say that the president is not allowed to back or propose a constitutional ammendment
For God's sake, you idiot, I'm talking about the fact that the Constitution is supposed to be our most sacred document, and is supposed to guarantee basic rights and such, and Bush is using it as a political topic to a highly unpopular (yet legally supported) activity.
Originally posted by GW_Rules
Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.
When asked whether they thought same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.
Twenty-eight percent said same-sex "marriages" should be valid and 4 percent had no opinion. The survey of 443 adults was conducted March 18 to 20.

http://washingtontimes.com/national...14205-2153r.htm

The numbers keep growing and growing.
Pardon me for asking, but what the hell does this prove, besides the fact that gay marriage is unpopular in the U.S. (a fact already very well-known)?

Pardon me for asking, but what the hell does this prove, besides the fact that gay marriage is unpopular in the U.S. (a fact already very well-known)?
That since this country is obviously a pure democracy we should ban midgets.

Oh, wait, we're talking about gay people, ban the gay gene, I'm sorry.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I agree, and I wasn't using it to further bolster a "hate" of gay people, but I loathe the bastards who attend those parades, which includes both the spectators and the prancing lunatics that provide the type "entertainment" in which would make Gandhi want to punch them.

I understand how you feel Prae, but the fact remains that the people who attend these parades were held up as examples of "gays", not "extremist gays" or "gay idiots"...I don't think all straight people attend Mardi Gras and behave badly, nor do I "loathe" the people who do...it's just not for me.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
For God's sake, you idiot, I'm talking about the fact that the Constitution is supposed to be our most sacred document, and is supposed to guarantee basic rights and such, and Bush is using it as a political topic to a highly unpopular (yet legally supported) activity.

Pardon me for asking, but what the hell does this prove, besides the fact that gay marriage is unpopular in the U.S. (a fact already very well-known)?

The original poster brought up the issue of Bush proposing a ban on same-sex marriage. And this latest poll says that if it were up to the people it would be passed. I'm posting on topic, more people should try it.

I have a question. What makes same sex marriages immoral. That seems to be one of the main arguments coming out of far right field.

Also, what makes nudity immoral for that part?

Originally posted by Evil Homer
I have a question. What makes same sex marriages immoral. That seems to be one of the main arguments coming out of far right field.

Also, what makes nudity immoral for that part?

Victorian attitudes about sex.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
I have a question. What makes same sex marriages immoral. That seems to be one of the main arguments coming out of far right field.

Also, what makes nudity immoral for that part?

Nudity is not immoral. Public display of sexual nudity is. The majority of homosexuals are not immoral (just like the majority of straight people are not immoral).

In my opinion marriage is the union between to a man in a women. It's been recognized by every religion that way.

Gays and lesbians can care and love each other just as much as a man and women. I have no problem with a legal union between two people of the same sex. Allow them to have the same rights and benefits as a married couple. I just have a problem calling it a marriage.

That's just my opinion, blast me all you want.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
Nudity is not immoral. Public display of sexual nudity is. The majority of homosexuals are not immoral (just like the majority of straight people are not immoral).



The following statement suggests you believe gays are more immoral than straights...


If people can celebrate being gay and lesbian I don't see the difference. And I bet the people holding this event will not be dressed up in lewd outfits in public in view of children.

BTW GW, I have to ask...if you believe seeing such things is bad for children, why did you post a link to images that minors shouldn't see on a forum frequented by not a few minors?

Originally posted by GW_Rules
Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.

The fact that a majority of the citizenry are bigoted on one issue means nothing about how that issue should be fairly adjudicated.

A great majority of people in the South were at one time extremely opposed to ending slavery. That did not (even though the Southerners pointed out, absolutely correctly, that the Bible was on THEIR side in that argument!) mean that slavery should have been continued.

______________________________

George Bernard Shaw; "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to
the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

Originally posted by GW_Rules
And this latest poll says that if it were up to the people it would be passed.
Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It's not.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
Nudity is not immoral. Public display of sexual nudity is.

Let us say that in your opinion it is "immoral".

In some societies, it is not considered "immoral". Of course, those would be the "godless" societies, no doubt.

Evil people like the "sinful" tribes in the Amazon jungle.

BTW....what exactly IS "sexual" nudity.......??

Does it differ from plain old nudity?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The following statement suggests you believe gays are more immoral than straights...



BTW GW, I have to ask...if you believe seeing such things is bad for children, why did you post a link to images that minors shouldn't see on a forum frequented by not a few minors?

That was my mistake for posting it, I apologize. Thanks for removing it.

I did not say gay are more immoral. I would say the more exteme vocal gays and lesbians go out of the way to make a point in poor taste.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Let us say that in your opinion it is "immoral".

In some societies, it is not considered "immoral". Of course, those would be the "godless" societies, no doubt.

Evil people like the "sinful" tribes in the Amazon jungle.

BTW....what exactly IS "sexual" nudity.......??

Does it differ from plain old nudity?

I think topless woman with chaps with the ass hanging out, being whipped (mocked), ball gag, with a dildo dangling has some sexual overtones.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
I would say the more exteme vocal gays and lesbians go out of the way to make a point in poor taste.

I'll go along with that.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
I think topless woman with chaps with the ass hanging out, being whipped (mocked), ball gag, with a dildo dangling has some sexual overtones.

I'd agree that that would, without a doubt.

Just as a curiosity, though, what percentage of the American citizenry --who did not want to see it and who would be offended by it-- would you guess have witnessed a woman such as you've just described, in any public place........??

My guess; 0.0001 of 1%.

But even if 0.1 of 1% --an insanely high estimate, but let's be generous-- of the citizenry who did not wish to see it HAS witnessed such a sight, is it serious enough to get all worked up about, and begin clamoring for strict enforcement of laws against the people doing it??

still, what makes sex, nudity, and eroticism so....dirty? I am inclined to agree with Vile about Victorian ideals, but is there any other reason other than it is tradition?

Originally posted by Evil Homer
still, what makes sex, nudity, and eroticism so....dirty?
The fact that we live in a dignified, civilized society pretty much precludes our ability to walk around without clothes, grunting monosyllabically - that's what. I mean, really, shouldn't that be reserved for your bedroom, anyway? Why does it have to be made public?

Originally posted by Freethinker
But even if 0.1 of 1% --an insanely high estimate, but let's be generous-- of the citizenry who did not wish to see it HAS witnessed such a sight, is it serious enough to get all worked up about, and begin clamoring for strict enforcement of laws against the people doing it??
FT...they hold those functions during broad daylight in downtown areas. How can you assume that one tenth of a percent is "an insanely high estimate"? I'd say it's probably closer to 25%, even if the unfortunate souls who stumble on to it, do so accidentally. Either way, that's still a relatively conservative estimate. I don't know about Mississippi, but here in Chicago - we have some bona fide FREAKS, and I'm not joking. Visit a blue state if you want to go conservative.

Originally posted by Freethinker
BTW....what exactly IS "sexual" nudity.......??
I understand the question, but in all fairness to GW, I'd say a raging topless bull dyke on a Harley Davidson swallowing a black double dong constitutes sexual nudity.

I dont see why it has to be reserved for the bedroom. Who really cares? I mean, half the people on earth have one... ;)

I think that the United States has very unhealthy views towards sexuality. We treat it almost as a contagious disease. Everyone only speaks in whispers of ssseeexxxxx. I have no proof of this, but i also believe these notions of repression are what lead to sex crimes. (not all of them, but i have a hunch on a good many).

Also, if everyone was nude, you'd have to get very comfortable with yourself, and others. Then again, you might already be, because this is the norm. Maybe we'd all be friendlier towards each other if we all saw each other naked. (just hypothesizing hehe). Perhaps these physical bounderies create mental and emotional ones as well.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I'd say a raging topless bull dyke on a Harley Davidson swallowing a black double dong constitutes sexual nudity.

I'd say it constitutes inattentive driving. :D

:D

Originally posted by The Praetorian
FT...they hold those functions during broad daylight in downtown areas.

Ok.

a) how many of those functions involve, a topless woman with chaps with the ass hanging out, being whipped, a ball gag in her mouth, with a dildo dangling???

b) how many people who did not want to see such a display had it forced upon them, with no chance to turn away or to (gasp!!) simply not attend the function?????

c) far fewer than 25% of the American populace ---even if, hypothetically, they desperately WANTED TO-- have ever been anywhere NEAR a gay parade, much less have seen a woman such as the one described . A huge percentage of the American populace has never seen ANY parade in person in a large metropolitan area.

I lived in Houston (whcih has a large and vocal gay community) for over a year, and have been in MANY large cities, on hundreds upon hundreds of occasions, I would actively SEEK out strange and bizarre people and sights if I heard of them being on display, would literally walk over broken glass for the novelty of WITNESSING something as bizarre as what was described, and I have never seen or happened upon anything remotely like what was described-----ESPECIALLY not in public.

I still maintain that 0.1 of 1% is an insanely high extimate of the percentage of people in THIS country, who DID NOT WANT TO SEE IT, who HAVE nevertheless witnessed a topless, ball-gagged woman on the street in chaps in broad daylight with a dildo dangling.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

(number 6 of the 14 characteristics fascist regimes (note; numerous example of each of the fourteen characteristics common to fascist regimes are clearly demonstrated by the actions of the Rightwing leaders of the US Government)

6.) Controlled Mass Media


Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Free Press details recent governmental propaganda efforts, from faux-correspondent Jeff Gannon to paid-off pundit Armstrong Williams, and from the demise of FOIA to video news releases passed off as news.

See a Whitehouse fake news release here (opens realplayer)

Bush administration violated federal law by producing and distributing television news segments about the effects of drug use among young people. The GAO said the videos "constitute covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials

WHITE HOUSE TO AGENCIES: IGNORE GAO'S RULING ON 'ILLEGAL' TV NEWS RELEASES

Conservative columnist discloses CIA operative's name, liberal reporters face jail time -- http://tinyurl.com/53sgq

Chain of TV and radio station donates $300,000 worth of airtime to GOP candidates for free last-minute political ads -- http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/11220128p-12135910c.html

A television pundit gets secret payments to promote a new United States government education policy.
Columnists are paid to provide support for a White House marriage stance. Actresses play news reporters to promote drug laws. A system of ranking reporters who criticize official policy. These, and possibly many other public relations stunts, are some examples of publicity contracts paid for by the U.S. government, which has spent more than a quarter billion dollars on public relations in the past four years.

In bed with the republicans and banning antiwar songs: Clear channel

The White House recently called the president of NBC News, to discourage that network from broadcasting interviews with author of book about the Bush family

Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time

Nation's largest TV chain orders all 62 stations to show movie without commercials right before election

War Pictures Cause Yellowtimes.Org To Be Shut Down, Again

US seizes webservers from independent media sites

Fibbing It Up at Fox

FOX News doctors AP reports to mimic White House terminology

If it's allowed to stand, an FCC ruling will feed media merger mania

Articles published by American outlets suppressed in their own country

Bush's war on information: US editors forbidden to publish certain foreign writers

Reporters in chains: Under Homeland Security orders, journalists from England, Sweden, Holland and other friendly countries are being detained at U.S. airports, strip-searched and deported.

There was a study done a year ago in which one-third of the journalists who responded said they were asked to kill stories that were offensive to the clientele of their corporate bosses.

Originally posted by Freethinker
how many people who did not want to see such a display had it forced upon them, with no chance to turn away or to (gasp!!) simply not attend the function?????
Okay, fine - I agree, to a degree, but take radio for example. Here, ostensibly, we have a medium of communication that is completely public in domain. Using your logic, which I think is sound, why aren't newscasters, talk show hosts, and entertainers allowed to curse on the air? According to you, those who are offended can just change the station, or walk out of earshot of the broad cast, so why censor it? Either way, if we want to keep our argument consistent, then we can't rewrite the book. It is what it is, and in using your figure of .001% of the populous, we've determined that you admit the potential for people to be offended exists, so how can radio, TV, and advertisements be scrutinized differently than these parades?

Id really have to disagree with the notion that the media is on Bush's side.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
It is what it is, and in using your figure of .001% of the populous, we've determined that you admit the potential for people to be offended exists, so how can radio, TV, and advertisements be scrutinized differently than these parades?

They shouldn't be.

**Words** cannot be "evil" words or "wholesome" words......they can only be what some group of humans have, for whatever reason, decided are "bad" words and "ok" words.

Try to think of it in a strictly analytical sense for one minute.

The word *fuck* is no more "evil" than the word *chew*............ABSENT the totally arbitrary determination made by a human or group of humans.

An entire society concluding that speaking the word **Goddamn** or the word *shit* is somehow "wrong", or that it is to be illegal, is pure superstition.

Nothing more.

Id really have to disagree with the notion that the media is on Bush's side. Gee thats funny because of the 500 interviews iin the month before Iraq War II only 5 were anti-war. Their "news" clips looked like video games.

Oh, Whats that? No coverage what so ever about the huge discrepancies in exit polling data. Whats that? CNN changed their data to fit the elections outcome....There was a peculiar silence about Bush and Kerrys common alligence to a secret society whose sole admitted goal is to obtain power. (never trust anyone whose sole admitted goal is this)

What protests? 12 million people world wide was desrcibed as "hundreds of protestors." During the RNC the media pretended that there were no protestors, ignoring 500,000 people.

How about portraying Bush as a hero for failing to act on 9-11 pre-intelligence. How about the pussies covering the whitehouse. Their to afraid to even ask real questions lest BushCo revoke their status. What even more chickenshit is that they didnt ask real questions after whihc they could cause a huge stink about being kept out. Particularly after Bush gay prostitute was found out.

F911 used existing network footage that the networks refused to show. Particularly revolting was that no senator would support a recount in 2000.

ETC ETC ETC....>

This is not to say they let him get away with everything. You see the trick is to focus on teh samll bullshit so people actually think the media is being critical while in fact its passing the whoppers through the back door. The Coporate media will always do whatever is in its most profitable interests and right now Bush has swung the doors wide open.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Gee thats funny because of the 500 interviews iin the month before Iraq War II only 5 were anti-war. Their "news" clips looked like video games.

What, so you just make up data now?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Oh, Whats that? No coverage what so ever about the huge discrepancies in exit polling data. Whats that? CNN changed their data to fit the elections outcome....There was a peculiar silence about Bush and Kerrys common alligence to a secret society whose sole admitted goal is to obtain power. (never trust anyone whose sole admitted goal is this)

And yet somehow I learned of all of these things from the media. I wonder how that happened? Osmosis?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
What protests? 12 million people world wide was desrcibed as "hundreds of protestors." During the RNC the media pretended that there were no protestors, ignoring 500,000 people.

Not only did I hear of the protests, I heard of them from conservative leaning talk radio.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
How about portraying Bush as a hero for failing to act on 9-11 pre-intelligence.

I never ever saw such a thing.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
How about the pussies covering the whitehouse. Their to afraid to even ask real questions lest BushCo revoke their status. What even more chickenshit is that they didnt ask real questions after whihc they could cause a huge stink about being kept out. Particularly after Bush gay prostitute was found out.

Like Helen Thomas? You know, the White House reporter that called Bush the worst president ever?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
F911 used existing network footage that the networks refused to show. Particularly revolting was that no senator would support a recount in 2000.

No Senators supporting a recount (after multiple recounts had already been done) means that the media is right-leaning?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
The Coporate media will always do whatever is in its most profitable interests and right now Bush has swung the doors wide open.

You know what makes corporate media lots and lots of money? Stories about royal screwups at the highest levels of government. You know, like the Iran-Contra scandal. Or the Iran hostages - that actually spawned its own TV show (Nightline). Or the queen mother of them all - Watergate. No corporation is going to sit on an exclusive major scandal story that could earn them millions and millions of dollars. So either they're not doing what's in their most profitable interests or they are reporting on these things. Which is it?

Man, 500. You're really just throwin everything out there aren't you? Proven, Unproven, Ambiguous, Contested, doesn't matter, just keep shootin.

What, so you just make up data now?
What, So you don't just ask for a source anymore? Prick.

Oh...sorry It was 3 out of 393 interviews that were anti-war.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources — fewer than 1 percent — were affiliated with anti-war activism. Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS.
from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002228040_sundaygoodman03.html

citing: fair.org

Not only did I hear of the protests, I heard of them from conservative leaning talk radio. yet you heard nothing about the nation wide protests that had been going on for 5 months previous to F15.

No Senators supporting a recount (after multiple recounts had already been done) Multiple recounts had not been done. They were stopped by republican staffers terrorizing the recount then only 9 people were allowed to vote for the pResident. We didnt really want to know who the American people had voted for...were fine just assuming.

You know, like the Iran-Contra scandal. Wow that funny you would think they woulda brought up ol ronny trading Guns and Drugs with terrorists when he died. Or maybe that he (w/Bush)basically created the taliban and Al Queda. Instead he was treated like a saint.
No corporation is going to sit on an exclusive major scandal story that could earn them millions and millions of dollars. however if theyre making handfuls of cash from other businesses they own that profit heavily from Bush's legislation they could easily not even bother to investigate any such stories.

Originally posted by Freethinker
They shouldn't be.

**Words** cannot be "evil" words or "wholesome" words......they can only be what some group of humans have, for whatever reason, decided are "bad" words and "ok" words.

Try to think of it in a strictly analytical sense for one minute.

The word *fuck* is no more "evil" than the word *chew*............ABSENT the totally arbitrary determination made by a human or group of humans.

An entire society concluding that speaking the word **Goddamn** or the word *shit* is somehow "wrong", or that it is to be illegal, is pure superstition.

Nothing more.
You know what...

I've thought about this, and I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes "taboo" words just have a better way of expressing your perspective, and in being serious - I wish we didn't have social restrictions or a general predisposition to disliking words that are, as you said, just words. It is superstition...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I've thought about this, and I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes "taboo" words just have a better way of expressing your perspective,

Believe it or not, the Supreme Court agrees (the famous "Fuck the Draft" case).

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I've thought about this, and I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes "taboo" words just have a better way of expressing your perspective...

Yeah, and I think Cheney would agree too after shouting at Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Believe it or not, the Supreme Court agrees Too bad the pigs don't.

SO it turns out BushCo were the ones that have been illegally removing respectful audience members from tax-payer funded forums. But hey no one cares about whats admitted later everyone will just rememebr that is was "overzealous volunteers"...the cycle continues...


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub3

Previously, the White House dismissed the incident by stating an "overzealous volunteer" was responsible for denying three Americans their constitutional rights (an excuse they have used to justify similar blacklisting at Bush taxpayer funded events across America), but the White House did not identify the “volunteer” or his affiliation. And as FoxNews.com reported today [LINK], “Since the forum was considered an official event, neither the Colorado Republican Party nor its volunteers were involved, party officials said.”

Furthermore, Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House seemed to change his story and admitted in the article on Fox News.com that it wasn’t volunteers but White House staffers that were likely responsible. The FoxNews.com article stated [LINK] “Duffy said the White House sends advance teams to deal with logistics for any official event” – which the Denver town hall meeting was. “These teams typically handle the screening for speakers and audience members who will be sitting with or addressing the president during the event. They also keep an eye on the crowds for possible troublemakers.”