Is the USA a pseudo-fascist state? (Police constantly abusing people)

[Teelie]

And it's all thanks to terrorism.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

@MessiahDecoy So if you don't pick a side it means you don't care?

I'm saying there is such thing as apathy and nuetrality.

How can you say you care about the issue of abortion, gun control, domestic spying, etc. if you don't take a stance either way?

Give me some examples.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Nope, I understood clearly. You responded anyone who doesn't want to take an extreme position on something is doing nothing but being apathetic and inactive.

That is certainly your interpretation.

But I'm not advocating extremism. I'm simply advocating taking a position.

 

[zeroapoc]

There is a such thing as seeing validity on both sides of an issue.

 

[DirtyHarry]

I'm saying there is such thing as apathy and nuetrality.

How can you say you care about the issue of abortion, gun control, domestic spying, etc. if you don't take a stance either way?

Give me some examples.

Any compromise comes after a fight.

If you don't fight the middle ground will be further away from your principles.

So I can't care about an issue and see both sides of the argument? I have to pick a side and argue against others who feel differently even if some things they say make sense to me? We can't discuss issues, agree on some things, disagree, come to a conclusion on what is best for everyone and help eachother work towards a solution?

No, I have to pick a side and force myself to believe everything that side says, fight against others or else nothing will get done

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There is a such thing as seeing validity on both sides of an issue.

A mixed position isn't necessarily apathy.

and a solid position isn't necessarily unreasonable or extreme.

 

[DeadPresident]

So I can't care about an issue and see both sides of the argument? I have to pick a side and argue against others who feel differently even if some things they say make sense to me? We can't discuss issues, agree on some things, disagree, come to a conclusion on what is best for everyone and help eachother work towards a solution?

No, I have to pick a side and force myself to believe everything that side says, fight against others or else nothing will get done

I don't think he was necessarily advocating adopting a predetermined position on a topic, rather that people should take a position that addresses an issue, even if it's a new one they just made up? Could be wrong though.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So I can't care about an issue and see both sides of the argument? I have to pick a side and argue against others who feel differently even if some things they say make sense to me? We can't discuss issues, agree on some things, disagree, come to a conclusion on what is best for everyone and help eachother work towards a solution?

No, I have to pick a side and force myself to believe everything that side says, fight against others or else nothing will get done

I think two opposing sides constantly improving their argument eventually helps everyone get to the root of the problem and achieve a sensible middle ground.

But you don't get there without people taking a solid position and arguing his/her points and then making adjustments after the other side makes a convincing counterargument.

Ultimately the public judges which side makes the most sense and we advance as a society.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Oh there's always a place for the angry young man, with his working class ties and his radical plans. And he's never been able to learn from mistakes, so he can't understand why his heart always breaks. And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost. And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on his cross. And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.

I believe I've passed the age, of conciousness and righteous rage. I've found that just surviving is a noble fight. I once believed in causes too and had my pointless point of view, but life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

-BILLY JOEL

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Oh there's always a place for the angry young man, with his working class ties and his radical plans. And he's never been able to learn from mistakes, so he can't understand why his heart always breaks. And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost. And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on his cross. And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.

I beleive I've passed the age, of conciousness and righteous rage. I've found that just surviving is a noble fight. I once believed in causes too and had my pointless point of view, but life went no matter who was wrong or right.

-BILLY JOEL

Does this apply to all causes people have fought for in the past? Cause I'm pretty sure many causes were advanced through collective effort.

Well I'm sure the song at least has a nice melody.

 

[zeroapoc]

A mixed position isn't necessarily apathy.

No, a mixed position is apathy at all.

Seriously the position that you're 100% right and everyone who disagrees is obligated to make their way towards you is an unproductive stance. The issues we face in the modern world are complicated and complex. Not absolute.

 

[DirtyHarry]

Ultimately the public judges which side makes the most sense and we advance as a society.

Too bad a lot of that public cares more about Justin Bieber than their liberties being taken away.

 

[SentinelMind]

When it comes to safety vs liberty, my view is this.

No matter how organized and gifted a terrorist cell is, they can only cause so much limited destruction. If a terrorist attack went off in a public place in my city, I'd just stay inside and stay at small private/low key locations. They can't blow up every building.

On the flip side, a militarized police force can barge into every private property in a neighborhood, so they are an entity I would have to deal with. I don't really feel like having to tell a stressed out, gun-wielding officer where I was born, what I do for a living while another officer asks me to step outside while they search my premises.

That's just me...others here in this thread seem to be ok with warrantless searches and seizures.

It's human nature for organizations to want to centralize power and expand power all in the name of order and safety, its happened since the beginning of time. If you want to call that a 'conspiracy theory' as a deflection, so be it.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I have not read this thread. I am responding to the title, and the title only.

The USA is not a pseudo-fascist state, and I think anyone who believes that has no clue what fascism really is.

 

[moviedoors]

I have not read this thread. I am responding to the title, and the title only.

The USA is not a pseudo-fascist state, and I think anyone who believes that has no clue what fascism really is.

Yep.

 

[redhawk23]

Well then there should be a constitutional waiver for certain people giving the government permission to ignore their constitutional rights.

But you need to understand, not everyone wants to give up those rights to stop a terrorist attack that is less likely to kill someone than fast food, driving, or even water.

The thing with these statistics is that yes it is true that in America, people rarely die from terrorist attacks. It can be argued that it is exactly because of the security measures that have been taken, at least partially.

Our malls are a lot safer from terrorist attacks than markets in Iraq and other places, which are bombed with terrible frequency.

 

[Wolfwood]

Did they know it was two college kids at that time though? It was a terrorist attack. They had no idea if that was just the beginning or what. I think they responded accordingly.

I know a bunch of Cops, and a DEA agent and they are some of the nicest people I've ever met.

Are you cooking meth as well?

 

[Alex_Spider]

Someone who pays taxes? Gives a damn about civil liberties?

Someone who knows a bit about history, has seen these reactions before, and knows what it could lead to?

What's the over-used quote about sacrificing liberty for safety?

lol well said

 

[Thundercrack85]

The thing with these statistics is that yes it is true that in America, people rarely die from terrorist attacks. It can be argued that it is exactly because of the security measures that have been taken, at least partially.

Our malls are a lot safer from terrorist attacks than markets in Iraq and other places, which are bombed with terrible frequency.

Considering the TSA has yet to foil a single terrorist attack, and the Underwear Bomber (who the US even got warning about) was stopped by an amateur Dutch film director (not say an air marshall) you do have to admit, that a lot of these measures have been for naught. And then there's the machines that might cause cancer, and the corruption surrounding them.

Not to mention the unprecedented NSA snooping, for which they have very little to show.

I'm not saying none of the measures have worked, but let's not pretend it's a great system. Or even a particularly good one. It's a terrible one.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Who are you to decide though what is a proper way to handle a terrorist attack? Again.....they had no idea if they were working for someone who had bigger plans, to possibly bomb other buildings or other public places in the area....or in other cities....they had one goal, capture these men and make them talk to find out if there was anything more.

I'm pretty sure the runners who had their legs blown off laying in the middle of the streets didn't mind their government protecting the town.....

People as a whole are dumb and panicky. For them to take order, direct people, and if that meant taking some out of their homes to search ever inch of the city until they were found, I honestly have no problem with.

Well the same principle applies if you happened to be a victim of authority harassment, or even worse, if you got shot by a hotheaded officer for doing nothing wrong. I am sure you would want the people to stand by your side and demand justice for the harm that they caused to you. In the end, it is not a matter if bad cops outnumber the good ones or the other way around. The fact that they are holding a gun and get to choose who lives and who dies, that is something to be concerned about.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

If you don't like the status quo, support the Green Parties, drop the Democrats and Republicans.

Don't like the fact that our Police look more like Swat Teams? That's probably because they're afraid the guy in the house is carrying an AR 15 and a 50 caliber hand gun he can buy online. All thanks to NRA lobbying and fear from our own elected officials from losing their jobs through public opinion.

Don't like the invasive NSA listening in on everything you do? Don't elect the officials who support it because they're too afraid to be labeled as 'weak on defense' and shunned by their own older constituents.

By now we should know that the people on Capital Hill mostly care about self preservation and winning another term. If you want change, you have to make sure you do not vote for them again and again.

 

[SentinelMind]

The thing with these statistics is that yes it is true that in America, people rarely die from terrorist attacks. It can be argued that it is exactly because of the security measures that have been taken, at least partially.

Our malls are a lot safer from terrorist attacks than markets in Iraq and other places, which are bombed with terrible frequency.

You can't compare domestic terrorism from a political dissenter inside home country to guerrilla warfare terrorism against foreign occupants. Domestic terrorism would be last resort against a fringe group who felt ostracized and wanted to shape public policy in the home country (i.e. eco-terrorist groups). The terrorism in Afghanistan, on the other hand, is against US soldiers. They are trying to expel foreign combatants.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If you don't like the status quo, support the Green Parties, drop the Democrats and Republicans.

Don't like the fact that our Police look more like Swat Teams? That's probably because they're afraid the guy in the house is carrying an AR 15 and a 50 caliber hand gun he can buy online. All thanks to NRA lobbying and fear from our own elected officials from losing their jobs through public opinion.

Don't like the invasive NSA listening in on everything you do? Don't elect the officials who support it because they're too afraid to be labeled as 'weak on defense' and shunned by their own older constituents.

By now we should know that the people on Capital Hill mostly care about self preservation and winning another term. If you want change, you have to make sure you do not vote for them again and again.

The game is rigged.

Obama was supposed to be about change and hope. He was supposed to be the guy who reigned in the War on Terror, starting with gitmo. Instead he broadened the War on Terror. A classic case of bait and switch.

I doubt there's anyone who can get through the election process who isn't heavily indoctrinated in neo-conservative values either secretly or openly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Though he's a politician, I'm not sure how much of that was Obama being two-faced, or him just buckling under the newfound responsibilities of being president.

Either way, he's been a huge disappointment.

 

[SentinelMind]

You go through a rigid filtering process to win donors and mainstream media support for nomination to either of the two parties for President. Obama passed that rigid process with flying colors. That's all there needs to be said about that for those who thought he'd be different and transform DC.