Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

> So, lemme get this straight:
>
> I raise the topic of this fancy little maneuver by the Bush
> administration and point out that it indicates Bad Things about the
> administration's attitude towards the USian people and the
> constitution.

 No, you overreacted about some head of some commission that is  
responsible
for elections talking to a lawyer and posted a political posting to a  
software
mailing list called "facism gaining ground in the US" that was based on
your overreaction.
> You conclude that I've raised the topic because I'm led around by the
> nose by a reactionary press.
>  Rather than actually answer the issue at
> hand, you find fault with the press stories on the same topic and
> dismiss my concerns as something constructed in an editorial room.
> You skip over the part where you bother to demonstrate exactly _why_
> the press' reaction should be consider excessive.  You skip over the
> part where you reason that I'm just an extension of the press,
> apparently a person just to be led around by propoganda.


 Its easy to skip over those parts because I never made any of those
leaps that I'm aware of. My first post was to the issue at hand.
My second post started talking about how the level of
political discourse in this country has sunk to mutual hatred in  
response to
an "I hate GWB" postscript. I postulated
that this was because of how the media sensationalized everything. I  
then
pointed out how I felt that the article was more hype then substance
and dug up some countervailing facts. I think the press reaction is
always excessive, so like the boy that cried wolf, how are we supposed
to judge when they are excessive and when they aren't?

 I don't remember ever saying you were an extension of the press. I did
say I thought you were overreacting. In other places I've said that I
think there's a middle ground between being asleep and running around
claiming everything is fascist.

 At one point you felt I accused you of intentionally misreading the
original CNN article, and I said that I rather said it was written
in such a way that you were more likely to do so accidentally.

 Oh, and I think the press is sensationalist, not reactionary.
A reactionary press would be extremely conservative.



> And then you wonder why I think you are just mixing it up and should
> generally be ignored?   Remarkable.

Reading back through the posts (names removed to protect the innocent):

 1. You have a long post.
 2. A second long post.
 3. Someone makes the "tinfoil hat" remark.
 4. Someone else reponds that you're not all wrong.
 5. Someone else trashes the tinfoil hat remark
 6. Someone suggest you get a weblog.
 7. Someone lends support for #4.
 8. Someone else votes for RSS on your new weblog...

 Not much intelligent debate so far...

 9. Someone argues against this leading the way to fascism.
 10. My first posting, offering some non-doomsday scenarios, and  
pointing out the point
from the article that the NY primary elections had been delayed.  
Basically, an "I dunno, its
not necessarily the end of the world, could be good in some ways" post.
 11. Someone answers my question on what would happen if a terrorist
attack prevented people from voting by pointing out it varied from state
to state.
 12. Someone says they like reading your OT posts.
 13. FOAD
 14. Joke about neocon jews owning alumnium.
 15. links to larouche to prove the existence of neocons.
 16. Some posting that rebukes FOAD
17. Turns out FOAD wasn't for Tom it was for someone else.
18. An anti-FOAD post.
19. Someone else agrees with me, then ties in the 2nd amendment.
20. Further Clarification on the FOAD
21. Someone responds to me.
22. Post #3 from you.
23. question about why the US feels we are at war.
24. someone agreeing with some point you made.
25. Second post from me, responding to #9 which had a PS about how they  
"despise" GWB. I stated that the level of hatred I've been seeing in US  
politics was depressing. I characterized the article as typical of the  
media hysteria machine, and went through how it was constructed to  
imply a great many things without stating them. I point out that its
the EAC not the DHS who started this.
26. Someone else says its perhaps in the fascist direction, yet not a  
real step
towards fascist. Constrasts your first post with your second.
27. Someone corrects Notstandsgesetze for Notverordnungen
28. Someone goes through and responds to points in you second post.
29. Third post by you, responding to #13 as to why some people thought  
suspension
of normal rights is necessary.
30. My third post, responding to #13 about why Americans feel they are  
at war. I also
respond to an item from #13 about whether being involved in afghanistan  
is a necessary
tribute for gaining a permanent seat on the Security Council.
31. Notstandsgesetze vs. Notverordnungen again.
32. Europeans start responding to my rather sloppy posting on #25 and  
some debate ensues, much of which is my fault for my tendency to say  
things loosely in an aside.

 What was I being accused of again? Oh yeah, taking the thread off  
topic, and "mixing it up". Yeah, all that FOAD & tinfoil hat nonsense  
were prime examples of intelligent discussion.

> (You also, aside from that, made a big fuss about whether it was
> division A or ministry B of the executive branch that we're talking
> about: amusing because it makes little difference either way and
> because, since the first article, it turns out it was division A after
> all!)

  Really, where do you see that? All the stuff I saw about it when I  
just
Googled still had it in the "memo swapping" stage. Here's a better,  
more balanced
article then the CNN article BTW:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44676-2004Jul12.html

 I haven't seen anything newer then Jul 12th when this thread started.  
I have seen:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1153500.htm
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/9165741.htm? 
1c

But they pretty much deflate this whole story to my reading.

Anyways, the reason it makes a difference between DHS and EAC is that
its very common for large portions of the government to be staffed with  
people
who aren't very partisan. Neither party has a lock on all the smart  
people in
the world, so often there are people who have served our government  
under different
parties, Richard Clarke being a famous example. Additionally, the  
political parties know they have to work together on many issues, so  
there are large precedents for how to setup
bipartisan committees that the government is pretty scrupulous about  
following. I didn't
respond earlier because I was thinking about digging through Congresses  
website to see
if I could find the relevant rules.

>         > However, my original posting on this issue was that I felt
>         > you had overreacted, and that the reason I thought this was
>         > so was that you were encouraged to do so by the media
>         > coverage.
>
> You get for yourself roughly that intellectual respect that you
> display for others.

 Ok, so I gave you too much credit. You didn't overreact because of the  
hysteria
that the media brings to everything, you overreacted because...I dunno.  
Why did
you overreact again? Because you hate Bush. Why do you hate Bush?  
Because you think
he's an idiot. So why do you think he's an idiot? Do you have specific  
evidence of this,
or is it part of the general "I hate Bush" mantra I hear from others?

>  You dunce.

 Ah, insults, the last resort of people too stubborn to admit they  
might be wrong?
 When have I insulted you that you feel that you now have the right
to insult me?

 You're a fan of Occam's razor. Isn't it a simpler explanation that  
some committee head
on elections sought an ill-advised legal opinion then that there is  
some vast conspiracy run by DHS to somehow take over the government on  
election day?

 Pierce