Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore
Z18 said:
3. I stand ready to admit when I'm incorrect about facts, and I do tend to rely on my memory and not re-check everything before I post (wow, that would take a while); therefore, I'm bound to err -- do you agree to the same liability? Because I certainly challenge several of your 'facts' in previous posts.
Unfortunately, I have to admit to spending far too much time looking up facts and have spent a rediculous amount of time in the past couple days posting this stuff (and yes, it does take a while). So this will be my last long post for a while.
Z18 said:
4. I didn't see any rebuttal to many of my other points; rather, only ones where it seems you believed you had an answer to prove me wrong... that's all fine, but don't leave me hanging on the other stuff 
Most of the other stuff were your viewpoints or opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I can only present facts, then it is up to you to make your own conclusions. Apparently you conclude different things given the same facts as me. Nothing to argue about.....it happens.
Z18 said:
what you're doing is rationalizing and creating unrealistic conspiracies in order to compensate for some ideology you already seem to have that America is overall a bad place
No, America is a great place. But sometimes the enemy is within. Americans have a hard time believing that our leaders can be capable of terrible things, but they can. America is not great simply because we are America. We are great when we do great things. If we do terrible things, then we are terrible. The last few years has been a mix of the two.
Z18 said:
Actually, first I don't necessarily accept your definition -- what you are describing is my understanding of socialism.
I think you are confused. Fascism and Socialism/Communism are complete opposites, which is why the Nazis were such enemies with the Communists.
Fascism is where the Corporations control or exert major influence over the government. Socialsim is where there are no corporations and where the government has complete control over the economy.
See the opposite?
Fasism = Corporate Control, Socialism = Government Control
What seems to confuse some people is that Naziism was sometimes called "National Socialism", but it was pure Fascism.
Socialism eliminates private ownership of business and private profit -- this is why the wealthy elite are always so much against socialism as their businesses would be consfiscated and their wealth would be divided up among the poor as is what happened in Russia & China when they turned communist. Cuba was slightly different as all the business owners were given compensation (i.e. fair value) for their businesses, but still they had no choice in the matter. In a socialist system, the profits earned by industy subsidize tax revenue and go to pay for public services for the people. A good example would be the United States Post Office. In a Communist country, every industry is managed in that way. In a Socialist country, just the major industries would be that way, while there would still be private ownership of smaller businesses.
Fascism is where the government's policies are made almost entirely so that the wealthy business owners can make more profit. If you ever watched the movie Schlinder's list, you can see how Nazi rule helped a mediocre businessman make millions through the use of slave labor. In the case of Nazi Germany, almost all their policies were pro-big-business. They outlawed all kinds of labor unions, and repealed all types of minimum wage and labor laws. As far as the Nazi control over the media, it was not Hitler calling the shots, but the same corporations that controlled him, also owned the newspapers and radio stations. Independent stations and newspapers were seized and closed down.
On the left/right political spectrum, Communism is the far left, and Fascism is the far right. Here in the United States, we have always been somewhere in the middle.
In the first half of the 20th Century, our country was moving more towards Socialism with the implementation of socialist institutions such as Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, labor laws, Minimum Wage, Medicare, and a progressive Income Tax.
But since then, we seem to be going in the opposite direction towards Fascism. During the last 20 years, our government has continued to cut the budget of all types of social programs, such as some of those I listed above. The Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s virtually eliminated the progressive Income Tax, lowering the top tax brackets from 60-90% down to less than 40%.
Also, many industries that were once government regulated have gone through deregulation, thus increasing corporate profit at the expense of the consumer (the California energy crisis is a good example of this).
As far as the media goes, the FCC has removed all regulations so that you now have 3 corporations that control more than 50% of the media. If the current trend continues, you can expect that 50% to become 90% or more. At the same time, the government has continued to cut funding for public (non-corporated-owned) stations such as PBS and NPR and now those stations need to rely on private donations -- as a result, many have had to close down.
And much of our foreign policy actions have been for the benefit of corporate interests in the Third World (in Pentagon terms, "the Gap")
Z18 said:
Regardless, again, the degree to which our government controls corporations and the press and whoever else you think they have their mind control wepons pointed at isn't even in the same ballpark as Nazi Germany.
You are still a little confused here. In Nazi Germany, it wasn't the government having influence over the corporations but the other way around. The reason the Nazis were elected into power was the vast amounts of money they spent on their campaigns -- all money given by the large corporations who supported (and benefited from) their policies.
And I don't want to get you all worked up, but I will mention that declassified documents show that much of that money came from American companies such as Ford and Standard Oil and British companies such as BP. Imagine that!!
Z18 said:
I am for minimal if any control or ownership of corporations by the government (outside of you can't really have 10 competing sewer lines going down your street).
Well, then that is where we differ. I am a socialist (not a strict communist). I am for a moderate form of socialism like what exists in Sweden, Israel, or even Cuba. I am not for the strict communism that existed in the Soviet Union, or what exists in China. I think there should be some private ownership of business, but limited to a certain size. There should be no monopolies, trusts, etc. Many of these types of laws exist on our books, but are not enforced at all since the days of FDR.
But like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Z18 said:
Or, stop and THINK for a moment how bloody impossible it would be to pull off such a stunt given how many people were there, and how much fun the American Left would have with such a story had it any shred of truth. Give me a break.
Well, here is the scene:
This wide-angle photo by Reuters of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in central Baghdad arouses suspicions that the "spontaneous jubilation" by the Iraqi masses shown on television around the world was a "media event" orchestrated by the Pentagon.
Rather than a spontaneous mass demonstration, the photo clearly shows that only a few dozen people participated in the largely empty and heavily guarded Fardus Square. American tanks and troops surrounded the square and one armored vehicle helped the Iraqis pull down the statue.
In the upper part of the photo, it appears that normal traffic into the square has been blocked by American troops. Conveniently, this square is in close proximity to the Palestine Hotel, which houses journalists covering the war. The timing of the activities is also suspicious -- the wrecking of the statue occurred during the morning shows on the American television networks.
