The next President

[Sig]

Actually, in the case of Germany, things were 180 degrees the opposite of what you say.

I was not talking about the Germans.... rather the folks we prevented from becoming Germans, iow almost all of Europe less Germany. Yes Hitler was popular, but only because he was able to give the people multiple scapegoats for which to direct their misery. Many of of the loons at that top of terrorsit groups maintain their popularity by the same method.

As for facism and elitism, it is in fact running rampant through France and Germany more so than the rest of the continent.

 

[Eric5273]

As for facism and elitism, it is in fact running rampant through France and Germany more so than the rest of the continent.

I find it hard to believe that you can say this. First of all, I'm not sure what "elitism" is...please explain.

I do a lot of business with companies in Europe, and their view of Bush is that he's a Fascist, and that by electing him, we are moving more towards a Fascist economy/government. Today most Europeans are totally anti-fascist and align themselves much more to the left in a socialist type of ideology. Socialism is the total opposite of Fascism. One has little-to-no private economic ownership, the other has total private ownership of every aspect of the economy. Don't confuse yourself with the fact that Naziism was also called "National Socialism" -- it is not the same thing. Hitler's biggest enemy was the Socialists/Communists as they were his economic ideological opposites.

BTW, the above info I posted about President Kennedy getting cheered in Europe, WAS about Germany specifically.

 

[Sig]

First of all, I'm not sure what "elitism" is...please explain.

Today most Europeans are totally anti-fascist and align themselves much more to the left in a socialist type of ideology. Socialism is the total opposite of Fascism.

As a form of govt., yes socialism and fascism are opposites. The ironic nature of socialist societies is that it's only socialism for the masses and facism for the top. And due to the inherent restrictions in socialistic societies, it is very difficult for any individual not in the elite class that enjoys control of just about everything to climb the societal class wall. So in the end, the elite are able to pour cement on a society and guarantee that the underlings remain so and their control/wealth remain unchallenged. The huge entitlements keep the masses satisfied enough as to not revolt, but also ensure that they always remain underlings. The elite I refer to are generally ultra-rich from old money and only thirst for the retention of power. The phenomenon of self-made individuals that we enjoy in the US is far more obscure in Europe due to the elites' firm grip on the entry to the upper class.

My reference to fascism was also in reference to another of fascism's definitions, 'belligerent racism'. Specifically with respect to religion.

 

[Eric5273]

Obviously you are describing a corrupt form of Socialism which has existed in places like the Soviet Union and exists today in North Korea. But there are other very pure systems like that in Sweden, Israel, or even Cuba where there is not this wealty "elite" that you refer to. The average person in Sweden enjoys a higher standard of living than the average American.

Fascism is much more likely to occur in Capitalist countries where the corporations gain so much influence over the government that the policies of the government are made for the benefit of these corporations. This is what happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and is what today exists in many countries around the world today. The term "banana republic" that was used to describe many Latin American countries during the 1970s and 1980s was Fascism. And since WWII, the United States is moving closer and closer to this type of system. With all the corporate welfare, wars for corporate conquest, the gradual disappearing of the progressive income tax, and the crackdown on political opposition, we are moving dangerously close to this type of system.

Europeans have lived through this type of system before, and they recognize the signs and have warned us. Don't try to turn this into a conspiracy theory. When they protest Bush, they are simply expressing their hate for him as a leader -- it is that simple. They are not showing hate for America as a country, or for our citizens, or our way of life.

 

[Sig]

The largest newspaper in our country, The New York Times

I rarely get to quote myself, but I will take advantage of this one. I mispoke by stating the NYT is the largest newspaper in the country. Perhaps I should have been more specific, that it is the largest circulated paper that bears a locality in the title. There are some national based papers that have higher circulation like the USA Today and the WSJ. This was eloquently pointed out to me by someone in the user reputation section.

For this crime against humanity, I earned a negative reputation remark
I apologize to all those I offended and mislead, I am now going to cry.

Gotta love the reputation system, a guy makes an honest mistake and gets a red mark. And to think I had straight Greens up until this point. My parents are going to be very upset.

 

[NsXMas]

Wow, people are actually leaving reputation for one another. I didn't find out until you mentioned it.

Another website that I read sometimes took away that feature because people got too focused on the reputation thing.

I have to admit I got a negative reputation point for speaking out against someone who posted some bad comments in another vote thread.

See, isn't politics just so hateful?

Anyway, who cares? I don't care whether I got positive or negative reputation points. I didn't even know about it until you mentioned it. Anyway, I won't be using it whatsoever.

The people that I deal with regularly are far more mature than to focus on these "reputation" dings or pings.

Life goes on, my man!

 

[Tom Larkins]

Facist, socialist, yes were pretty close in the 2000 election to putting this guy in office.