Fascism: Good or Bad?

[Serenity]

Can't wait to see his movie Feb 10th.

[shostakovich]

From Shap: "So it is my understanding then that you view the President as an uneducated moron who is cleverly heading a grand conspiracy to move this nation toward a while skirting the edge of legality just enough to keep him clear of impeachment. Pretty clever for a moron."

Maybe "moron" is too strong. He is far less educated than a world leader should be. The president of Iran makes Bush look (relatively) educated. I believe Bush works off gut feeling and is fed in his determined direction by people who are educated, even clever. His decisions (justifications for) don't come from his own severely limited brain.

------------------------------------------------------

"I'm actually still waiting for someone to identify provable lies that he has told. I think I asked for those a year or so ago, and disproved the ones that were posted."

Wait no longer. A tape has been making the rounds of Bush saying a year ago that phone spying still requires a court order, long after the NSA was doing it without a court order, will constitute a lie --- to some of us, anyway.

I'll reiterate the first two lies of his that I recall.
1) In the 2000 campaign he talked about decreasing taxes (appealing to the richer) and a medication bill for the elderly (appealing to the poorer) that was to take effect in 2001. When he was "elected" he quickly moved for tax relief. He meant that one. On Sept 10, 2001 the other plan had not been mentioned at all. He lied about that one.
2) As he was drumming up war reasons (passionately), he kept assuring us (hollowly), "only as a last resort". He didn't mean it. The UN inspectors were still in Iraq, and while they were, Saddam would not have been able to use WMD (if he had them). If they remained in Iraq indefinitely, looking over Saddam's shoulder, that would have been deterrent enough. The war was NOT a last resort.
Your Friendly Fencing Partner, Shos

[Shapley]

On the prescription drug bill:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031208-2.html

You may not have liked the final bill, but it did pass and was signed into law.

Also, from a 2002 speech:

Earlier this week, I also announced action to bring lower cost generic drugs to market more quickly. Right now, some brand name drug companies are using legal maneuvers to delay the approval of generic drugs, sometimes for years. We're setting new limits on those delays. By reducing the public's wait for quality generic drugs, we will reduce the cost of prescriptions in this country by more than $3 billion each year. These savings will help employer health plans, state Medicaid programs, and seniors who buy medicines on their own.

On health care reform, we still have much work ahead of us. I applaud the House of Representatives for passing a prescription drug benefit for seniors, and for its efforts to fix the nation's badly broken medical liability system, which is driving up the cost of medicine and driving good doctors out of the profession. I'm disappointed that the Senate has failed to act on these important reforms.

which can be found here:

http://www.drugstorebestbuys.info/news/bills2002.htm

So I wouldn't call that a lie.

As for the 'last resort' statement, I'll not argue whether or not it was a last resort, but it is entirely possible that the President viewed it as such.

The courts have always upheld that tapping of domestic phone calls require a warrant, but that they have no jurisdiction over international phone calls. FISA was set to deal with international calls in which one party was a citizen of the United States, but the courts have yet to clarify whether warrants are specifically required in such cases. The press uses the term 'domestic wiretaps', but we are actually talking about international calls with one party in the United States.

V/R
Shapley

So, if I give you the 'last resort' claim, and you'll give me the prescription drug claim, then that leaves on lie and one 'maybe' with the wiretaps. Hardly enough to hang a man, impeach him, or justify the clamor against him. Given the normal level of dishonesty in Washington, I'd say he's running pretty high in the 'honest' column.

<small>[ 02-08-2006, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Shapley]

Here's some more on the drug bill:

http://factcheck.org/article125.html

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Shapley:


So, if I give you the 'last resort' claim, and you'll give me the prescription drug claim, then that leaves on lie and one 'maybe' with the wiretaps. Hardly enough to hang a man, impeach him, or justify the clamor against him. Given the normal level of dishonesty in Washington, I'd say he's running pretty high in the 'honest' column.

Really?

:tsk! tsk! tsk!:

Y'all had Clinton impeached over "one lie", and that one didn't kill anyone.

As for GWB, unfortunately it looks as though it will take history to unequivocally prove all of the lies he and his gang have perpetrated on the American people, even though we see the fruits of those lies every day in the people killed because of them.

[Shapley]

OT,

Clinton was impeached over one lie told under oath. If we tried to impeach him over every lie he told, the trial would still be going on...

You might recall that there was a famous court ruling (It was mentioned quite often during the debate over McCain-Feingold) that said in essence that political speech is protected speech, and that the right to lie is inherent in the right to freedom of speech. Campaign ads, campaign speeches, campaign promises can legally be dishonest, which is why there are never any legal ramifications over all those misleading and/or outright wrong campaign ads. Fact checkers 'out' the lies in the ads, and the ads are often pulled as a result, but no legal action is taken.

However, one you put your hand on the Bible and swear an oath to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', you place yourself at legal risk.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 02-08-2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Is that why Torturer General Gonzalez refused to swear in before the Senate committee?

Is that why the oil executives refused to swear in before their hearings?

Is that why GWB refused to testify before the 9/11 comission?

I love it; it's not a lie if they don't swear in prior to telling it?

Doesn't taking the oath of office mean he has to be accountable to the American people for what he does and what he says?

:yellow wiggle alert:

[Shapley]

OT,

I didn't say a lie isn't a lie if it's not told under oath, I said it's not impeachable.

I've no idea why the Judiciary commitee did not require Mr. Gonzales to be sworn in. President Bush did testify before the 9/11 commission.

V/R
Shapley

[lliam]

Hi Lliam. Your catalog of quotes on Moseley indicates how highly he was regarded by peers. At the beginning you say he was one of the most evil Britons. At the end you have History Magazine laudind him as the best. I'm confused. And what was it that made him a fascist?
===========================================

Hi again Shos, I don't know why Mosley became a fascist.

He wanted all the slums cleared and proper living accommodation (new houses built) for the common people of this country.
He could have changed the economy round for the good but, the cabinet would not listen to him.
They where to set in their ways to listen to what they thought was an impossible dream.
If Mosley had come to power we would not have had a second world war in this country.
As you know Shos I'm not politically minded, I only write about what I read as far as politics is concerned.


The British Union of Fascists - 1932 – 1940
--------------------------------------------------

British Union was opposed to both Finance Capitalism (the private ownership of industry) and State Socialism (the state ownership of industry) and sought to reorganise economic life along the lines of the Corporate State. This meant that all companies above a certain size would be run by one of 16 Corporations under the joint control of Management, Workers and Consumers. The Government would only intervene in the event of major discord within the Corporation. For example, there would have been a Coalmining Corporation, Agricultural Corporation, Steelmaking Corporation, Medical Corporation, Transport Corporation and so on. However, British Union was opposed to the multi-party system of government. Voting would be based on an occupational franchise, rather than the present geographical basis, with miners voting for a choice of miner candidates, farm workers voting for agricultural candidates, doctors and nurses voting for medical candidates. It was suggested that this would create a Government of experts elected by experts.

Although regular elections would be held at which the Government could be dismissed and replaced, only one party would legally exist until that happened: British Union. Whilst never a movement of pacifism, British Union declared that it was opposed to British involvement in any war whatsoever - unless the interests of Britain or her Empire were directly threatened. So it campaigned against war with Germany, whose territorial ambitions it saw as being directed eastwards into Russia.

Although Mosley specifically forbade anti-Semitism to his followers, and British Union actually had a number of Jewish members, events however soon propelled the Black shirts and large sections of the Jewish community into hostile conflict. British Union alleged that a large proportion of the people convicted of physical attacks on BU speakers and paper sellers were Jewish; that many Jews were trying to push Britain into war with Germany not in the British but the Jewish interest; and that Jews were over-represented in International Finance and Communism - activities that British Union strongly opposed.

Notable Jewish members of British Union included John Beckett (BU Director of Publications and Editor of Action, Bill Leaper - Editor of the Black shirt, and Harold Soref - a BU Standard Bearer at the Olympia meeting who later became Tory M.P for Ormskirk. Also another BU internee taught German Mosley during his wartime imprisonment in Brixton Gaol: Albert Lynden (aka Lewinska), a Polish-Jew who was a member of British Union's Ealing branch.

The B.U.F. quickly established a network of branches throughout Great Britain. Organisation was on semi-military lines: each branch consisted of Units under the charge of a Branch Officer (later called District Leader) who was in turn under the supervision of a National Inspecting Officer. This reflected the fact that a high proportion of early members were ex-servicemen of the First World War. All active members wore a uniform that consisted of grey trousers and a black fencing tunic-displaying insignia of rank. Mosley alone wore the black shirt without any distinction of rank. Women were organised in a separate local formation under a Women's' District Leader.

[BigJon@Work]

And what is Mosley's son runnning today? That most capitalistic of enterprises . . .

[shostakovich]

From Shap:"On the prescription drug bill:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031208-2.html

You may not have liked the final bill, but it did pass and was signed into law."

--------------------------------------------------------
Hi Shap. The 2000 promise about medication help on the way in 2001 was not what finally passed as the (atrocious) Medicare Bill that began to be implemented this year. I don't believe it was connected to Medicare at all. The "lie" was that the promise was a phony, whose value was to offset the more generous Democratic plan (also not connected to Medicare) that was to be implemented in 2002.

As for the new Medicare Bill, it allows for no price bargaining with drug companies. Heck, that(bargaining) might have resulted in lower costs AND wages (OK, I'm pushing the Shos Solution) for the drug companies. The Bill also made re-importation of drugs from Canada illegal. Don't want those companies losing business. I think that feature is in the process of being changed, probably because the small percentage of customers it would affect is not significant. The part that's really hard to swallow (bitterest pill) is that HMOs and insurers are involved at all. The "privatizing" of Medicare D has "for-profit" companies now administering what non-profit Medicare could have done. The government is backing the plan to the extent of what will likely be $1 trillion over 10 years. That amount could have done a fine job on aiding individuals directly from Medicare. But, as some of us have seen, the administration puts business and industry first in all things. To be fair (and I hate it when I'm on a roll), the plan will actually help most of us old fogeys (and hurt the poorest among us, who will no longer get free drugs). But the national debt will grow larger with the parasite insurers-HMOs involved than it would have without them.

The Medicare Bill is not the "lie" I first referred to, and you are correct that I don't like it, even if it helps me personally. A pox on all the Congress people who voted for it, which includes Connecticut's own Nancy Johnson.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lliam, thanks for the additional info on Moseley. I like the guy. So there are good fascists and bad fascists after all?
Shos
-------------------------------------------------------
PS: Shap, I never took your commentary as acidic. In fact I admire your loyalty to Bush. It actually inspires me. I still hope, if not expect, that I can some day remove the scales from your eyes.

[lliam]

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:
And what is Mosley's son runnning today? That most capitalistic of enterprises . . .

Maybe you should enlighten us BJ@work.

I only know that, Max Mosley, is President of the FIA to which I have no interest.
So, come on BJ let's have the insight of this guy. :confused:

[BigJon@Work]

Max Mosley is in charge of the sporting side of Formula One racing. Where $100 million annual is considerd a low budget team. 8O

And in the end, what have they got for the big bucks? A used race car or three.

<small>[ 02-15-2006, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: BigJon@Work ]</small>

[lliam]

Hi again BJ, I'm sorry but motor racing has never interested me.

So, is Max doing something wrong?

[BigJon@Work]

Your loss.

Max is doing nothing wrong, it's just the contrast between the Fascist's ideals and the uber-capitalism of Formula 1 that I find interesting.