Cantor eats it!!!

[Gerald Lively]

The fascist leader (Tea Party) guru lost in a primary election.  Repeat:  in a primary election.  He is out. Gone. Down the toilet. I'm so sad, naaaaaw!

[Hemodoc]

The fascist leader (Tea Party) guru lost in a primary election.  Repeat:  in a primary election.  He is out. Gone. Down the toilet. I'm so sad, naaaaaw!

Hmmm, fascist? Interesting. Europe has folks on the Right that are fascists and totalitarian. Europe has folks on the Left who are communist and totalitarian. America uses the same terms, Left and Right, but they do not have the same meaning as in Europe. The American left is liberal with socialist leanings and wanting big government solutions. The Right is the conservative side looking at the private sector as the best place for financial security.

It is funny that you call Eric Cantor a Tea Bagger. Sorry, he lost to the Tea Party candidate in the election.

What is out for this year is immigration reform, i,e, amnesty.   Lastly, the Tea Party is for very limited government and constitutional representation. That is the exact opposite of fascism Gerald. But have your own way.

Lastly, I hope all is going well, take care,

Peter

[Gerald Lively]

In a more serious academic approach; fascism is notable for its non-inclusive practices and laws limiting resources to people different from the favored class.  Add an association with corporate interests so strong that corporations and government make policy, and you have fascism.  A totalitarian approach is not necessary in the definition of fascism.  An oligarchy will suffice.
If you need to see how and why this fascist agenda is unfolding I can supply you with the Koch Bros published platform from 1980 and the January 20, 2009 Republican meeting to initiate this agenda, but it is very long.

[Hemodoc]

In a more serious academic approach; fascism is notable for its non-inclusive practices and laws limiting resources to people different from the favored class.  Add an association with corporate interests so strong that corporations and government make policy, and you have fascism.  A totalitarian approach is not necessary in the definition of fascism.  An oligarchy will suffice.
If you need to see how and why this fascist agenda is unfolding I can supply you with the Koch Bros published platform from 1980 and the January 20, 2009 Republican meeting to initiate this agenda, but it is very long.

Gerald, the Koch brothers are small potatoes compared to George Soros and the Democratic minions marching ahead of Obama. The Koch brothers are by far NOT the biggest political spenders.

Secondly, looking at your definition of fascism, which is different than the European definition I would add, you likewise overlook the  direct connection with Obama and HIS groupies in the corporate world.

If you want to state that all these politicians on both the GOP and DEM side of affairs are corrupt, well yes, that is where it is at isn't it. If you want to state that both sides wish to split and divide us against them at the peon level you and I operate in, then yes, I agree.

The point is this, why do you so vigorously attack "Teabaggers" yet overlook the much larger corporate support on the left? You are falling prey to the puppet masters yourself.

[Gerald Lively]

Doc:
You argue micro points when the discussion is on a macro level.  A few responses to your post:
1.  Soros supports Democrats and does not have strings attached to his contributions.
2.  Fascism, as defined in contemporary political science terms, is at our doorstep. What Europeans think is beside the point.
3.  Fascism does not hold citizens as a first priority.  Congress is probably corrupt and I could make a case for that too.
4.  The Tea Party (teabaggers) are an extension of the John Birch Society.  The Koch family had their hands in both.
5.  Teabagger is a legitimate word.
6.  I do not belief I exempted the Obama administration from my post.

[Gerald Lively]

HemoDoc:  Here is one aspect of fascism in America:
Last year, the DoD's Minerva Initiative funded a project to determine 'Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?' which, however, conflates peaceful activists with "supporters of political violence" who are different from terrorists only in that they do not embark on "armed militancy" themselves. The project explicitly sets out to study non-violent activists:
"In every context we find many individuals who share the demographic, family, cultural, and/or socioeconomic background of those who decided to engage in terrorism, and yet refrained themselves from taking up armed militancy, even though they were sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups. The field of terrorism studies has not, until recently, attempted to look at this control group. This project is not about terrorists, but about supporters of political violence."
I contacted the project's principal investigator, Prof Maria Rasmussen of the US Naval Postgraduate School, asking why non-violent activists working for NGOs should be equated to supporters of political violence – and which "parties and NGOs" were being investigated – but received no response.
Similarly, Minerva programme staff refused to answer a series of similar questions I put to them, including asking how "radical causes" promoted by peaceful NGOs constituted a potential national security threat of interest to the DoD.
Among my questions, I asked:
"Does the US Department of Defense see protest movements and social activism in different parts of the world as a threat to US national security? If so, why? Does the US Department of Defense consider political movements aiming for large scale political and economic change as a national security matter? If so, why? Activism, protest, 'political movements' and of course NGOs are a vital element of a healthy civil society and democracy - why is it that the DoD is funding research to investigate such issues?"
According to Prof David Price, a cultural anthropologist at St Martin's University in Washington DC and author of Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State, "when you looked at the individual bits of many of these projects they sort of looked like normal social science, textual analysis, historical research, and so on, but when you added these bits up they all shared themes of legibility with all the distortions of over-simplification. Minerva is farming out the piece-work of empire in ways that can allow individuals to disassociate their individual contributions from the larger project."
Prof Price has previously exposed how the Pentagon's Human Terrain Systems (HTS) programme - designed to embed social scientists in military field operations - routinely conducted training scenarios set in regions "within the United States."
Citing a summary critique of the programme sent to HTS directors by a former employee, Price reported that the HTS training scenarios "adapted COIN [counterinsurgency] for Afghanistan/Iraq" to domestic situations "in the USA where the local population was seen from the military perspective as threatening the established balance of power and influence, and challenging law and order."
One war-game, said Price, involved environmental activists protesting pollution from a coal-fired plant near Missouri, some of whom were members of the well-known environmental NGO Sierra Club. Participants were tasked to "identify those who were 'problem-solvers' and those who were 'problem-causers,' and the rest of the population whom would be the target of the information operations to move their Center of Gravity toward that set of viewpoints and values which was the 'desired end-state' of the military's strategy."
Such war-games are consistent with a raft of Pentagon planning documents which suggest that National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance is partially motivated to prepare for the destabilising impact of coming environmental, energy and economic shocks.

[Gerald Lively]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown

[Gerald Lively]

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:
•   “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
•   “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
•   “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
•   “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
•   “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
•   “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence.  Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
•   “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
•   “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
•   “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
•   “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
•   “We advocate the complete separation of education and State.  Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
•   “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
•   “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
•   “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
•   “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
•   “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
•   “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
•   “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
•   “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
•   “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
•   “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
•   “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
•   “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
•   “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
•   “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
•   “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
 

[Jean]

So, Eric Canter is gone, do you think Boehner will go next or Obama? Or even Hillary? They all have my vote, to go away that is.

[Gerald Lively]

Jean;
Will Cantor's demise change the political picture? Hmmmm!
Forecasting politics is risky business. Here are my observations;  Moderate Republicans will be emboldened and GOP intra-mural fighting will become more intense. 
The Tea Party is still a major factor and it still looks like a cancer on American democracy.
The informed Republican voter, and there are not that many, will reject the more radical candidates.
The mid-term voting this fall will tell us everything we need to know.  The real question there is; will the Tea Party hold the line or begin to lose ground.  I don't see the Tea Party gaining.

[Hemodoc]

Doc:
You argue micro points when the discussion is on a macro level.  A few responses to your post:
1.  Soros supports Democrats and does not have strings attached to his contributions.
2.  Fascism, as defined in contemporary political science terms, is at our doorstep. What Europeans think is beside the point.
3.  Fascism does not hold citizens as a first priority.  Congress is probably corrupt and I could make a case for that too.
4.  The Tea Party (teabaggers) are an extension of the John Birch Society.  The Koch family had their hands in both.
5.  Teabagger is a legitimate word.
6.  I do not belief I exempted the Obama administration from my post.

Dear Gerald, I believe we agree on many more points than we disagree. However, definition of terms is probably at the heart of much of that disagreement making that important.

1) Teabaggers, well, at the micro level, I would be considered a "Teabagger" since I support limited government and constitutional freedoms. That is what I believe the term "Teabagger" refers in my own reference. If folks at a macro level wish to use those desires and that of the many small voices who are in agreement with that, I have no argument that there is much going on behind the scenes, but the underlying sentiment of a wide portion of the US population agrees with limited govenment and constitutional freedoms. I believe you are also within that framework of beliefs which then leads to question, the term Teabagger.

2) What Europeans think is not the point. The european definition of fascism is legitimate for a specific reason. That is called rightwing politics in Europe. Left wing politics in Europe is communism. Both are totallitarian. The moderates are those seeking limited freedoms within those two extremes. The American left and right are defined quite differently in this nation, yet you seem to be equating the American right with fascism. Sorry, the American right to me means the above, limited government and constitutional freedom. In Europe, that would be much more in line with a centrist view. Once again, defining of terms is all important if we are going to converse.

3) Totalitarrianism is much more worthwhile conversation in my opinion because of the difficulty of defining fascism, no one seems to agree on that, but totalitarianism is quite easy to see and represent. Bush removed many important constitutional freedoms, Obama has stayed on course and expanded what Bush started. How then are they different? Both are leading the US to a totalitarian society. One is considered on the right, the other on the left, but shucks the outcome for both is the same. It seems like they have achieved their principle goal, to divide and conquer and have peons like you and me arguing about fascism.

[Simon Dog]

I am a a pro-freedom individual, however, the teabaggers are an embarrassment because they seem to think that "freedom" means being "free to live in a theocratic state".

The tea party and republicans constantly stand for things like limiting abortion access; keeping references to god in public functions; opposing gay marriage; opposing medical and legal marijuana; and supporting "traditional values" by saying that government should not interfere with you life unless, of course, you choose a lifestyle other than that preferred by overweight middle aged white republicans.  Democrats score higher in the "lifestyle freedom" (unless your lifestyle involves playing with assault rifles at the local gun club), but are the party of those who receive transfer payments, not those who work for a living.

In other words, each is a party of freedom but only in on dimension - economic or social.

[Hemodoc]

I am a a pro-freedom individual, however, the teabaggers are an embarrassment because they seem to think that "freedom" means being "free to live in a theocratic state".

The tea party and republicans constantly stand for things like limiting abortion access; keeping references to god in public functions; opposing gay marriage; opposing medical and legal marijuana; and supporting "traditional values" by saying that government should not interfere with you life unless, of course, you choose a lifestyle other than that preferred by overweight middle aged white republicans.  Democrats score higher in the "lifestyle freedom" (unless your lifestyle involves playing with assault rifles at the local gun club), but are the party of those who receive transfer payments, not those who work for a living.

In other words, each is a party of freedom but only in on dimension - economic or social.

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. As a so called "Teabagger" I don't at all support a Theocratic state. Far from it. I suspect you don't understand the origin of separation of church and state coming from the very first Baptist church in America in Rhode Island. Separation of church and state is a religious idea my friend to protect the church from the government.

Far from a theocracy, yes, I oppose abortion as do a large portion of the population. And I don't support legalized pot or gay marriage.

However, I recognize that America is a democracy and is no longer a godly nation much to our demise. I am also aware that legislating morality does not work. However if supporting traditional values is somehow subversive, oh well, that is the new America I guess.

[Gerald Lively]

When the Tea Party is in action, they promulgate hate. Hate is a strong word.  I hate that there are those who are out to destroy the American way of life.  The Koch Brothers provided a written example in the Libertarian platform of 1980.  The John Birch Society has been seen recently spread myths such as "child vaccinations cause disease" as they lean towards fascism.  Then there is the Tea Party!  What follows is a Tea Party plan to destroy government under a Democrat, worse, a black President.
I think today we should all remember that on January 20, 2009 (inauguration day) GOP House Leaders & GOP Senators plotted to sabotage the US Economy along with failed candidate for President, Newt Gingrich, and GOP Propaganda Minister Frank Luntz; in other words, the Tea Party made a plan.
     FACT 1. In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that on inauguration night, 2009, during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.
      FACT 2: Draper wrote the guest list included:
The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).
Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich - Failed GOP candidate for President
    FACT 3: Newt Gingrich confirms meeting took place in an interview with Al Sharpton's Politics Nation on June 12, 2012
SHARPTON: In fact, let`s go to a book that Mr. Draper wrote about the night of the inauguration. There was a meeting at a hotel near the inaugural ball, about a mile away ... He writes about that night the plan was to show united and unyielding
opposition to the president`s economic policies ... And Draper writes that you told the group -- you, Newt Gingrich, "You will remember this day...you will remember this day the seeds of 2012 were sown."
     FACT 4: Two months after Paul Ryan's covert meeting where they plotted to sabotage the US Economy, in March 2009, Rep. Pete Sessions said Republicans should follow the model of the Taliban in its battles against President Obama.
     In the March 2009 interview with National Journal Rep Sessions said:
PETE SESSIONS:  "Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban.  Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side"
~Rep Pete Sessions, March 2009 to National Journal
    FACT 5: Also, at the January 20, 2009 meeting they plotted to suddenly stop supporting any Stimulus Legislation, even though, they all supported Bush/Cheney Stimulus legislation. At the meeting, Rep Kevin McCarthy said
KEVIN McCARTHY:  "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill. Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies."
FACT 6: Remember, these same Republican members of Congress supported the very Bush/Cheney policies that caused America to teeter on the brink of the 2nd Great Depression and caused the 2007 US Economic Meltdown.
Every one of these Senior members of Congress have threatened Government Shutdown over things like:
- Funding planned parenthood,
FACT 8: Meanwhile, the 2009 Sabotage the U.S. Economy covert meeting members, Senators: Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, and Bob Corker have:
 
- Filibustered more Bills (over 300) than any Congress combined in US History. 
- Voted NO on every single piece of Legislation brought to the Floor including:
NO on Al Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment,
NO on Lilly Ledbetter,
NO on Fair Pay Act,
NO on Anti-Outsourcing Bill (2010)
    FACT 9: The House members who attended the 2009 Sabotage America meeting have been busy rejecting legislation that helps victims of natural disaster.
    Representatives: Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren have voted NO on every single piece of Legislation including:
 NO on increasing FEMA during natural disasters.
     FACT 10:     Paul Ryan and these other same failed Congressmen have been on tv constantly chanting the lie that they were guilty of ... the lie that "President Obama's policies undermine the US Economy."
     FACT 10:     Paul Ryan and these other same failed Congressmen have been on tv constantly chanting the lie that they were guilty of ... the lie that "President Obama's policies undermine the US Economy."
     FACT 11: Other Legislation used to sabotage US Economy
   Paul Ryan and the Republicans in Congress refused to negotiate or even discuss passing President Obama's American Jobs Act that independent economists claim would create 1.3 million new jobs.
     FACT 12: Paul Ryan and Republicans blocked President Obama's 2012 Anti-Outsourcing Bill - which is a Bill to discourage the outsourcing of American jobs.  Naturally, journalists in India celebrated GOP efforts to undermine American Workers.
    FACT 13: The Washington Post reported that Republicans have made it clear that the Federal Reserve would face fierce Republican criticism if it takes further actions to stimulate the economy before the election. The Washington Post wrote that,
   Republicans... have expressed deep concern about measures taken by the Fed to support the economy -- and could be doubly upset if new efforts goose the stock market and are perceived to work in favor of President Obama's re-election.

[Hemodoc]

Yup, we are haters, rapists, racists, bigoted, ignorant, backward people. Yup, that is us. Well, have fun. It seems that is where this is heading. Have a great day Gerald, I guess you don't really want to debate much of anything. Oh, and let me get back to the American theocracy action group so that we can deny everyone religious tolerance and get rid of the separation of church and state as well as ban gay marriage again.

[Gerald Lively]

Doc:  Ya see Doc, I was trained to be a political scientist plus a minor in Small Group Dynamics.  If you expect patients to listen to you, then you should listen to me.
Or, you can stick your head in the sand.

[Hemodoc]

Doc:  Ya see Doc, I was trained to be a political scientist plus a minor in Small Group Dynamics.  If you expect patients to listen to you, then you should listen to me.
Or, you can stick your head in the sand.

Gerald, when you are really interested in debating these issues, I am more than happy to have a frank discussion but simply spreading propaganda and falsehoods about so called Teabaggers is not of much interest.

Until then, I hope all is well with you.

Have a great Father's Day,

Peter

[kristina]

This is most fascinating to read...

There is one point I beg to differ:

According to sociological studies, Fascisme is mainly a state of mind and not that much of a "political party" and the same goes for communisme...

... and if we very carefully compare the two, there is hardly any difference, except for the so-called different "moral claims" ...

... that's just my  as a European...

[Hemodoc]

This is most fascinating to read...

There is one point I beg to differ:

According to sociological studies, Fascisme is mainly a state of mind and not that much of a "political party" and the same goes for communisme...

... and if we very carefully compare the two, there is hardly any difference, except for the so-called different "moral claims" ...

... that's just my  as a European...

Fascism and Communism end in the same type of totalitarianism. The American right and left are different than the European right and left. Classically, the American left is liberal based and the American right is conservative based.

I have no doubt that on the political spectrum from complete freedom with no government structure, i.e., anarchy and the other end of the spectrum totalitarian authority, America started with the Articles of Confederation which were not much of a step beyond anarchy and they failed. The original Federal Constitutionalists were a bit to the "left" of the Articles of Confederation, but were very much into a limited and restrained government where freedom was defined by the people and by the states. By our current American definitions of the "left" and the "right," that time period politically was far to the right of center in the restraint against a large and intrusive government.

Ever since, we have moved incessantly to the left with larger and more intrusive government powers at the state, federal, county and city levels. I am afraid that the founding fathers would not in any sense recognize the mess we have today with an all intrusive government that deems the Bill of Rights as a nuisance to overcome instead of protections of God given rights.

Both the GOP and the Dems, the two prevailing parties are far to the left of our historical "center."  Both parties while in power in congress or in the White House have usurped the freedoms given to us by God and guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Anyone over the age of 50 can account incredible freedoms compared to the kids of today.  In the last 50 years, the amount of rules and regulations promulgated at federal, state, county and city levels is by far staggering to say the least.

If we want to talk about the factions of the elite who wish to further consolidate their own power and usurp our freedoms enslaving us as serfs once again, then Gerald, whey are you stopping with the Koch brothers. I could if I felt bothered to do so produce the same sort of draconian actions on the "left" within the Democratic Party.

BOTH, well, perhaps ALL political parties have been corrupted by the love of money and power. What is your point Gerald? Are the Dems pure of the same maleficence that you lay at the feet of the Koch brothers and the GOP? Sorry, but if all you wish to do is to bash Teabaggers, then you are simply espousing liberal propaganda and whose head is really in the sand my friend?

[Simon Dog]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. As a so called "Teabagger" I don't at all support a Theocratic state. Far from it. I suspect you don't understand the origin of separation of church and state coming from the very first Baptist church in America in Rhode Island. Separation of church and state is a religious idea my friend to protect the church from the government.

Far from a theocracy, yes, I oppose abortion as do a large portion of the population. And I don't support legalized pot or gay marriage.

However, I recognize that America is a democracy and is no longer a godly nation much to our demise. I am also aware that legislating morality does not work. However if supporting traditional values is somehow subversive, oh well, that is the new America I guess.

Well, I suppose I should have said "theocratic light".   The test I apply to references to God in governmental functions is "would the public accept a reference to Allah, Ganesh or Beelzebub in place of God?".   In order to give all religions equal footing, perhaps the $1 bill should have "In God We trust", the $5 "Allah Snackbar", the $10 "Ganesh Rocks" and the $20 "this space intentionally left blank".  There are plenty of other examples of govt endorsement of religion - for example, in NY it is illegal to sell beer before noon on Sunday ("church hours"), and MA has extra restrictions on trade during the sabbath (though these have been considerably reduced in recent years), and "under God" in the pledge was added by congress as an explicit endorsement of religion in the face of the godless commie threat.

The idea of separation of chuch and state has evolved from the early days when it was simply to protect churches form the govt - as currently interpreted by the courts, it also means the govt cannot endorse any specific religion, or even endorse no religion.  Basically "hands off".

But, even though it does not relate to a theocratic state, the "oppose abortion; don't support legalized pot; and do not support gay marriage" does prove you are an example of a teabagger who believes the govt should be running individual's live for them (although inclusion of abortion in that list of mine is questionable, and there is a credible argument to be made that anti-abortion laws protect the innocent).

[Hemodoc]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. As a so called "Teabagger" I don't at all support a Theocratic state. Far from it. I suspect you don't understand the origin of separation of church and state coming from the very first Baptist church in America in Rhode Island. Separation of church and state is a religious idea my friend to protect the church from the government.

Far from a theocracy, yes, I oppose abortion as do a large portion of the population. And I don't support legalized pot or gay marriage.

However, I recognize that America is a democracy and is no longer a godly nation much to our demise. I am also aware that legislating morality does not work. However if supporting traditional values is somehow subversive, oh well, that is the new America I guess.

Well, I suppose I should have said "theocratic light".   The test I apply to references to God in governmental functions is "would the public accept a reference to Allah, Ganesh or Beelzebub in place of God?".   In order to give all religions equal footing, perhaps the $1 bill should have "In God We trust", the $5 "Allah Snackbar", the $10 "Ganesh Rocks" and the $20 "this space intentionally left blank".  There are plenty of other examples of govt endorsement of religion - for example, in NY it is illegal to sell beer before noon on Sunday ("church hours"), and MA has extra restrictions on trade during the sabbath (though these have been considerably reduced in recent years), and "under God" in the pledge was added by congress as an explicit endorsement of religion in the fact of the godless commie threat.

The idea of separation of chuch and state has evolved from the early days when it was simply to protect churches form the govt - as currently interpreted by the courts, it also means the govt cannot endorse any specific religion, or even endorse no religion.  Basically "hands off".

But, even though it does not relate to a theocratic state, the "oppose abortion; don't support legalized pot; and do not support gay marriage" does prove you are an example of a teabagger who believes the govt should be running individual's live for them (although inclusion of abortion in that list of mine is questionable, and there is a credible argument to be made that anti-abortion laws protect the innocent).

Simon, it is simple etiquette to let me speak for myself.

Sorry, wrong again my friend. You continue to show complete ignorance of the Tea party. At the peon level that we are in, much in contrast to your failed understanding, we simply want the government off of our backs. When you add in the fact that many in the Tea Party movement, once again at the peon level, are Libertarian, then I guess you don't understand that they don't want government telling them what to do about ANYTHING. Drugs, sex, religion, motorcycle helmets, you name it, they just want to decide for themselves what they want to do.

Myself personally, yes, I am opposed to those things you list, but no, I don't want the government to tell folks what to do. On the other hand, I would rather that that this nation choose a godly path, but I am afraid America as a godly nation is long since past. You can't legislate morality, remember, I stated that above once already. I guess you weren't paying attention but it is interesting to see how biased folks views are against "teabaggers."

[Gerald Lively]

In a more serious academic approach; fascism is notable for its non-inclusive practices and laws limiting resources to people different from the favored class.  Add an association with corporate interests so strong that corporations and government make policy, and you have fascism.  A totalitarian approach is not necessary in the definition of fascism.  An oligarchy will suffice.

[Gerald Lively]

HemoDoc:  I posted facts, documented facts.  Your dismissal of apparently uncomfortable facts is disingenuous.

[Gerald Lively]

HemoDoc:  You do not know what the writers of the Articles of Confederation had in mind nor do you know anymore about the US Constitution than what is written.  We do know from the preambles of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that this government was created for the people, by the people and of the people (Lincoln).  Congress has lost sight of that purpose.  Why?  Look no further than far right conservatives and the Tea Party.
I documented for you, the genesis of obstructive politics, which you wrote off as "propaganda".  You cannot deny history.
With respect to the Koch brothers, I provided you with a platform they wrote, which happens to be a public document, a platform for election to public office meant to be read by the public.
I submit that government has an obligation to serve the people of the United States first; not war, not oil subsidies, not farm subsidies, not NSA programs that violate the 4th amendment, and not programs that prepare this government for control of a revolt by its own citizens (see the beginning of this thread). 
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  If you are starving and are homeless, you can do none of these things.  The people need healthcare, a safety net and somewhere to work.  That may be food stamps and subsidized housing.  This is yours and my obligation to the American people.

[Simon Dog]

Anyone over the age of 50 can account incredible freedoms compared to the kids of today. 

If you had predicted any of the following 15 years ago, you would have been considered part of the tinfoil hat crowd:

- Secret US prisons overseas
- Secret dockets in every federal court
- Holding of US citizens by the military without a trial
- National Security Letters - subpoenas issued directly by law enforcement, that you cannot even disclose except to your attorney