paul9639 writes: Define Facism

Fine: A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, others, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc.), the retention of private ownership of the means of production, beligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc.

Of course, I've always preferred Mussolini's definition: 'Fascism' should more appropriately be called 'Corporatism' because it is a merger of State and corporate power.

But, paul9639, who here is blaming the Republican party for the troubles in his life?

Republican version of the same quote. We tell you what to think and when to think it, and if you don't, you won't exist."

the very next post:

you are free to say virtually any damned thing you want to say, regardless how stupid or inane.

LMAO!

[Excuse me while I head to buy an Elton John album.]

Hmm....I had the exact opposite idea - Pirate the hell out of everything he ever recorded and hand out copies to passerby in the mall next weekend.

In fact, every time an entertainer says something I think is completely out of line, I'm going to pirate their stuff and hand it out for free to random people that I meet.

[It's downright anarchist, if you ask me. ]

You do know that Jefferson is one of my personal heroes, right?

Pay attention, quiz next week.

I'm lost. Who is Cyancis in this thread? Is it Big Jake? Thanks.

Elton John is an idiot, his rant has made that abundantly clear. 1/2 of Hollywood is bashing Bush every chance they get, there is no censorship or repression. It is preceived to exist only in the cloudy minds of the simple people.

eps writes: Compared to the nation building of the past (post ww2 germany and japan) that is not an outrageous number of casulties.

No. Compared to nation building of the past, Iraq has had extraordinarily high casualties. In the six years of American occupation of Japan, not a single member of the occupation force was killed.

I admit that apologists of the Iraq debacle have put forth a valiant effort to rewrite history and make the disaster in Baghdad seem small potatoes by hisotrical standards. They do this by slyly massaging dates and events of World War II and other conflicts.

One of their favorite canards involves the Nazi resistance group known as the Werewolves. What is usually omitted from history of their exploits is that almost all of their adverntures occurred BEFORE V-E Day. In other words, they weren't so much occupation fighters as they were dying remnants of a Nazi government that had yet to surrender.

One of the most authoritative texts on the Werewolves was published by the United States Army's history the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946. It noted that no guerilla warfare emerged and that "There was no major campaign of sabotage. There was no destruction of water mains or energy plants worth noting. In fact, the far greater problem for the occupying forces was the misbehavior of desperate displaced persons, who accounted for much of the crime in the American zone."

Lest one expect that this was merely pro-American propaganda, the Germans felt the same way. Golo Mann's History of Germany Since 1789 noted that, "[t]he [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign..."

And, Antony Beevor's The Fall of Berlin 1945 noted that:

In the west, the Allies found that Werwolf was a fiasco. Bunkers prepared for Werwolf operations had supplies "for 10-15 days only" and the fanaticism of the Hitler Youth members they captured had entirely disappeared. They were "no more than frightened, unhappy youths." Few resorted to the suicide pills which they had been given "to escape the strain of interrogation and, above all, the inducement to commit treason." Many, when sent off by their controllers to prepare terrorist acts, had sneaked home.

MorningBreath writes: 1/2 of Hollywood is bashing Bush every chance they get, there is no censorship or repression.

If there really were no repression, no quasi-approved official line, Mr. John's statements wouldn't have made the news. And, his opinion wouldn't have met with such vitriolic condemnation simply because he made (heaven forbid) an unflattering comment about a politician.

And, if you think that this is a good thing, perhaps you'll applaud when public figures are excoriated by the media for criticizing Democrats.

[but I am willing to bet hard cash that Jefferson never pirated anyone's songs to give away to random people. Nor would he have congratulated anyone who had that idea.]

Go back and re-read his letters and writings. he'd have been appalled at what's become of modern day political parties. Not to mention the actions of certain lawyers and corporations abuse of the court systems (SCO, RIAA spring to mind) to advance personal goals at the expense of society at large.

There's a reason no teacher dares talk about the man...he terrifies the current establishment.

Weaver95 writes: he'd have been appalled at what's become of modern day political parties.

I don't think he'd be any more appalled at modern day parties than they he was at those of his day. He despised the idea of thoughtlessly surrendering one's own ideas to those of another. That was going on back then, too.

What I think he'd particularly be appalled with is the current state of pseudo-capitalism. Jefferson was pre-capitalist (a fact that makes me giggle whenever I hear some moron claim that the United States was founded on the capitalist ideal) -- but he saw how Smith's theories were being bastardized for the benefit of the wealthy in an attempt to return to feudalism under a new name:

We now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a next best blessing to the monarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest steppingstone to it.

"Armed, pissed off peasants are the only thing the opressive rulers understand."

Sounds like the Second Amendment.

Since when do we look to celebrities for political incite? Not to mention one who has a queen. And also is...well obvious.

BigJake writes: Hmmm... after re-reading that article, I still don't see where he was excoriated...

Then, perhaps you should take the time to read this thread.

I like this thread better when there was more poetry.