American Population supports Fascist LAws

Oh please! What a silly question.

The simple answer for jacki-mo is how many canadian snowbirds of which there are plenty in arizona will be asked for their papers vs poc?

Hey..Americans made xenophobic lunatics Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck multi-millionaires.

These people equate health care,empathy,compassion and social justice to Nazi Germany and most of the American public eat it up like their shit is chocolate ice cream.

How can anyone look themselves in the mirror and consider themselves 'free' and/or 'democratic' when they loathe social progression and civil liberties?

If you look up the 14 definitions of fascism,you'll recognize the United States.

The Reform Party = The Republican Party....There's no difference.

Quote:

Americans believe that only they should have any rights. 

And that's just a relatively recent development in the USA. 

Ole Jeb an George Bush don't want them Tejas (an New Mexico an Arizona) landowners to be hassled and denied all the cheap (im)migrant workers they can get, don't you know?

Fascism is a phrase that tends to get thrown around a fair deal these days.  There are some historians who would argue that fascism was an inter-war phenomenon. S.J. Woolf's fascism in Europe has chapters on national fascist movement in many countries during that time period.

Caissa wrote:

Fascism is a phrase that tends to get thrown around a fair deal these days.  There are some historians who would argue that fascism was an inter-war phenomenon. S.J. Woolf's fascism in Europe has chapters on national fascist movement in many countries during that time period.

Find this to be a very 'lulling' comment, as it indicates "no worries here it is all in the past", when in fact there are lots of worries and reasons for naming what is going on.

Especially given that so many of the names are the same as those who were players back in the 1930's and 40's.

Not going to bother listing all the other reasons why that comment is purile, as once it is indicated for what it is, most all becomes self-evident. However if some want other reasons as they can't see them, I will gladly indicate them

Remind wrote: Not going to bother listing all the other reasons why that comment is purile, as once it is indicated for what it is, most all becomes self-evident. However if some want other reasons as they can't see them, I will gladly indicate them

Every sentence I wrote was factually correct, yet you called in "purile" (sic), Remind

Since you obviously know so much more than I do about fascism and its academic study, would you care to write something that substantively addresses my post?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

DaveW wrote:

if there is ever a detailed, sensible thread about the Arizona legislation,  keep us informed, eh?

If you ever have a reasoned response to anything posted here feel free to share.  Your view that America is innocent of anything and every other country is wrong is imperialist.   

Quote:

Quote:

Quite the opposite: US may well be guilty, but a thread that does not include any details about the Arizona legislation (never read it, just dunno), then veers as usual into Hey, you 'n Hitler! territory is pointless.

Quote:

Get it now!!!!

Or else?

let's not forget however that we support fascist laws too...

Canada's War on Islam: the case of Mohamed Harkat

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/06/canadas-war-on-islam-case-of-moham...

"Like in America post-911, Canadian Muslims have been victimized, vilified, and persecuted for their faith, ethnicity, prominence of activism. They've been targeted, hunted down, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in their right to counsel, tried on secret evidence, convicted or incriminated on bogus charges, given long sentences and incarcerated as political prisoners or deported to certain torture, imprisonment or death by so-called democratic countries that, in fact, mock the rule of law and judicial fairness.."

Not that Wikipedia is the be all and end all but I'll reproduce this part here:

In World War II and afterwards, fascism became heavily denounced. In political discourse, the term "fascist" is commonly used to denote authoritarian tendencies, but is often used as a pejorative epithet by adherents to both left-wing and right-wing politics to denigrate those with opposing viewpoints. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".[77] Richard Griffiths argued in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".[39] "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-war organisations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term "neo-fascist".[78]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Anyone looking to read academic works on fascism should visit their local public or university library.

I think much of my generation's understanding of the term 'fascist' can be summed up by its use by a certain Jeffery "The Dude" Lebowski. He responded to an attack on his personage by the chief of police of Malibu by by decrying him as a "fucking fascist!". Thusly I have come to use the term "f-in' fascist" to describe anyone in any position of power who attempts to use that position to oppress someone's mental of physical wellbeing. It also has a nicer alliteratory ring to it than "neo-fascist". 

"Your view that America is innocent of anything and every other country is wrong is imperialist."

There is also the unfortunate counter-view that everything America does is imperialist and every other country is innocent. This was really evident, on the left, during the Kosovo War: people like Michael Parenti resorted to racist attacks against the 'Islamist' Albanians and supported Serbia's vicious ethnic cleansing and mass rapes, because the U.S./NATO fought Yugoslavia. Noam Chomsky once dismissed reports of Khmer Rouge and Viet-Cong attrocities as CIA propaganda. This kind of prejudice cuts both ways.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Read Parenti's 'To Kill A Nation' and throw up.

The left is as bad about this as the right: people denying that the Pinochet regime murdered people, the Mujahedin were the pederastic mysogenist predecessors of the Taliban, or that defacto ethnic cleansing occured when Israel was founded. And, sometimes, they switch sides, 1984-like: now, the left love the Mujahedin-cum-Taliban and Kurd-gassing/Shi'a-slaughtering Iraqi Ba'athists...which Ronald Reagan's Administration used to support.

Whatever you think about Arizona's SB 1070 (most of its critics haven't actually read it), there are several issues here. First of all, there are so-called sanctuary cities, including Phoenix, which actually forbid their police from enforcing Federal immigration laws. This is because of the influence of business lobbies (cheap labour) and America's notoriously fraud-prone voting system, which allows non citizens to vote (unlike Canada and every other democracy, voter ID requirments are considered 'racist'). SB 1070 requires local police to enforce the existing law. The Federal border authorities have done very little to stop the flow of border-hoppers. And this is not just a case of poor people crossing into Arizona to make a few bucks as labourers. Armed drug gangs--literally, with machinegun-toting escorts--have attacked and killed Arizona residents. Mexican gangs have engaged in shootouts in border towns and Phoenix is now the nation's kidnap capital. There is also a tremendous financial burden. Businesses don't buy insurance for illegal/undocumented employees, which means uninsured medical costs are offloaded on hospitals as bad debt. The Obama Health Bill cuts Federal subsidies to hospitals, which means the state and local governments have to swallow these costs. (Arizona recently approved, by ballot, a 1% sales tax increase.) There is also a glut of no hablo ingles students, whose parents don't pay taxes, burdening local school systems. Frustration with these issues explains the '70% in favour' matter.

Here's the text of SB 1070:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Here, for comparison, is a bit about Mexico's immigration laws:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-to...

'Fasism' really is a term that's suffered much definition creep. The Il Duce version is probably similar to corporatist states like Singapore and, at times, South Korea and Taiwan, and PRI-era Mexico. Hitlerite fascism is possibly closest to the Iranian theocracy. Hugo Chavez' rule is certainly looking very fascistic, like a Latino Ba'athist. America may be many things, but 'fascist' (planned, but mostly privately-owned economy, one-party rule, severe censorship) it's not. And it's absurd to claim that there is anything in Arizona approaching Nazi antisemitism and antiziganism, or even the old, segregationist South.

'Hispanic' is not a 'race', but an ethno-linguistic group of people in every shade. So-called 'White Hispanics' (like Alexis Bledel and Charlie Sheen) make up the bulk of the U.S. Hispanic population, and much of Mexico's. If there's any sort of profiling going on, it's of the linguistic variety. There is also the issue of language in much of the U.S./Mexican debate, with ENGLISH ONLY! signs cropping up with increasing regularity, along with English-only schools. Really, Quebec, with things like Bill 101 and its public school policy, is a better point of comparison to U.S. border states, as 'French' and 'English' Canadian, like 'Hispanic', are ethno-linguistic--NOT 'racial'--categories.

Regarding the issue of immigrant crime, your blogger friend seems to like to extrapolate from individual instances to some sort of unjustified trend ... a common tactic of right wingers:

Quote:

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly cited one reason to support Arizona's harsh new anti-immigrant law: the state's exploding crime rate.

As FAIR documented in a May 17 Action Alert, there is no such crime wave in the state. What's more, most research shows that immigrants tend to commit less crime than the population at large.

link .....

Quote:

MEXICO CITY (AP) — It's one of the safest parts of America, and it's getting safer.

It's the U.S.-Mexico border, and even as politicians say more federal troops are needed to fight rising violence, government data obtained by The Associated Press show it actually isn't so dangerous after all.

The top four big cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin, according to a new FBI report. And an in-house Customs and Border Protection report shows that Border Patrol agents face far less danger than street cops in most U.S. cities.

link ....

As for the employment and health care costs ... there are also lots of non-border states, even states that have very little "immigration problem" at all, that have the same economic problems ... but of course USians will always find someone "ELSE" to blame for their own ignorance and stupid choices ... illegal immigrants didn't vote George Bush and his neo-con pieces of shit into office. It is the Neo-cons and your Wall Street Banksters (the whole lot of them being illegal Mexican immigrants I suppose) that are the cause of your economic problems.

No one is claiming there is no crime in the border states, just not the "illegal immigrant" crime wave that is claimed by right wingers. Nothing you posted shows that border state are any less safe than your average US state ... the FBI actually says that those border states are among the safest of US states. Either provide statistics fo back up your accusation (not just anecdotal individual incidents) or stop making wild accusations not based on fact.

As for Obama cancelling hospital subsidies, again where is your evidence? I see where the bill provides for a subsidy for hospitals to move to Electronic Health Records, subsidies which in 2015 will start to withdrawn from those hospitals that don't meet specific standards of delivering on those electronic records.

And as for blaming immigrants for the result of greed of Wall Street, then I suggest that you;re attacking the wrong people ... attack Wall Street, since they are the ones with the powers that are causing the problem; they are the ones making the real profit from the activity.

No, instead of taking the logical and reasonable approach to the problem, you want to spend more money on a stupid plan (going after immigrants) that is doomed to failure ... as long as the Wall Street ruling class makes profits from cheap labour there will be poor people willing to climb fences, dig tunnels, or hide in backs of trucks, to sneak into the USA and work for the benefit of the rich pricks on Wall Street.

The USA is not in trouble because of poor Mexicans sneaking into the USA to pick oranges and clean toilets; the USA is in trouble because corporations are giving your high paying jobs to India and China, and Wall Street is rigging the financial game so that they cannot lose, and you cannot win.

You're going after the wrong people.

Oh, and I read the Arizona bill you linked to ... can't find any law that protects people from racial profiling.

The only mentipon of race is "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin." ... which doesn't say anything about what the cops can do based on "race, color or national origin" .... big fucking deal, the cops can round up a bunch of Mexican looking people, hold them while they do what owuld otherwise be illegal investigations, then find the few "Mexican looking detainees" that might not have proper documentation and go to the AG then ... the AG then doesn't have to worry about a case based simply on "race, color or national origin", because by now they have additional evidence .... but the rest of the "Mexican looking detainees" have already had their legal rights violated by the police, and the law says nothing that prevents that.