Fascist controlled? The Republicans have a majority in all branches of government (Congress, White House, Governorships, State legislatures), but not big enough so they aren't able to make any sort of autocracy nor they want it. Blood n Guts said it better.
not big enough NOW, but in the future they might.
The same of course goes for the dems, but they arnt a prob right now
dont say that it cant happen, because it just might surprise you
As posted above, there have been many times in US history where a single party has wielded large amounts of power and influence by means of a huge majority over a short period of time or a solid majority over a long period of time. This doesn't mean that it never will happen, but if provides a strong correlation that shows that there is very little chance of it ever happening, even if a party does gain the kind of power needed for it to occur.
Besides, a fascist government is opposite in structure to the one favored by the Republicans.
A tribute to the one of finest pioneering groups in aerospace technology the world will ever know
Just because our government right now is basicially under republican control doesnt mean we can do as we please. We still have to at least listen to the minority.
Why is it that I never seem to hear Republicans complain as much as democrats do? When the government has been under democratic control historicially, I dont ever remember hearing repubs complaining. Yet any time repubs take it, dems whine like there is no tomorrow.
Why is it that I never seem to hear Republicans complain as much as democrats do? When the government has been under democratic control historicially, I dont ever remember hearing repubs complaining. Yet any time repubs take it, dems whine like there is no tomorrow.
Because:
A. You don't read the news & get information from both sides, at least not so well.
B. Because the Republicans have a majority in Congress, governorships and state legislatures and there's a Republican president so the Democrats have more to fight against and they have to keep themselves visible in the media in order to get more support & votes.
C. You have just started to follow the news some years ago.
D. You want to believe otherwise.
E. All above.
Returning back to good ol' Pub, at least for some time
Last edited by Relander; October 10th, 2005 at 09:31 AM.
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
So he picks a choice based on similar religious implications and not judicial qualifications? Wow...simply wow.
As posted above, there have been many times in US history where a single party has wielded large amounts of power and influence by means of a huge majority over a short period of time or a solid majority over a long period of time. This doesn't mean that it never will happen, but if provides a strong correlation that shows that there is very little chance of it ever happening, even if a party does gain the kind of power needed for it to occur.
ya thats what they said when the nazi's started gaining power
I seriously doubt that. Post WWI Weimar Republic Germany had no history as a democratic country to compare to. The US does, and that history shows that under conditions where parties gain a large amount of power, they did not turned the nation into a dictatorship.
To compare the rise of the Nazis to "a rise of the Republicans" is also inaccurate. The Nazis never won a majority of the German parliament, nor held the most seats of any party. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Prime minister. When the Reichstag caught fire, Hitler blamed in on communist subversives and exercised his constitutional right to rule by decree, one of the many flaws in the Weimar constitution. The Nazis did not seize power by gaining a majority in the government, which is how you claim the Republicans will, and has already been refuted by the history of previous powerful majorities. In fact no Fascist government was set up after being popularly elected. Franco won the Spanish Civil War. Mussolini and his black shirts were given (seized) power by King Victor Emanuel III.
Could the Republicans seize power in a similar matter and then set up a fascist government? Possible although so highly improbable that we likely will see the earth conquered by aliens first. A common nature of all fascist governments was an origin as a group that sought to overthrow the government. Mussolini and Franco successfully did so; Hitler and the Nazis tried to in the failed Beer Hall Putsch, which resulted in his imprisonment for treason. The Republicans have not demonstrated any such nature. Even the concept of them creating a fascist government is seriously flawed. On a political spectrum, Republicans are the exact opposite of an all powerful central government and government that exerts large amounts of control over the economy. Believing the Republicans to set up a fascist government is only second to most improbable after them setting up a communist government.
A tribute to the one of finest pioneering groups in aerospace technology the world will ever know
"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.
Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.
Now it's crystal clear what her motives are going to be if she gets voted in.
I understand what you are trying to say, I just doubt that "owned" is the best way to put it. Howard Dean got owned. Jimmy Carter got owned. Bob Dole got owned. Meirs got rejected.
This is my personal theory...
I'm starting to think W announced the Miers news today to knock the White Sox championship off the front page. It makes sense. W's parents are humiliated rooting for the Astros at Game 4, and he steals the Sox thunder by announcing Miers withdrawal. Yet, again, the White Sox get no respect from the media or the White House.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: Harriet Miers. 
.gif "Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) at that stupid method of spelling color")
Linear Mode
