The United States is a Fascist Nation

MooZilla · Post by **MooZilla** » May 31, 2004, 2:10 pm

I saw that everbody was calling midnight a fascist, or said he was becoming one atleast. This inspired me to do a little bit of research (Yay for google) and this is what i found. I've known about this site for a little while now.

According to http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm the United States of America is a fascist nation, or pretty damn close to becoming one.

Some very important things i want to point out.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Funny, eh?

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

That's interesting....

Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Never would of thought.

Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

I'm sure thats happened more than a couple of times.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Hmmm....

Well I think im moving to Canada if Bush gets re-elected.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 31, 2004, 2:31 pm

We face a new frontier. War of today has a new form that we are still adapting to.

The first reaction is to squeeze our freedoms and cautiously look at our weaknesses. But over time a free people's desire to exercise freedom will restore any constricted boundaries.

If you look in our history, our country adapted in response to war. A different nation grew from the civil war. The same could be said from the world wars, Korea, and in a positive manner the Vietnam war.

What you fear is this change. It's a valid fear, but if you look at history, you'll see very similar issues showing in our country during WWI for example. There was restriction of the press, and demonization of certain ethnic groups. But take heart, history shows we worked it out. And I say if you look at things today we've learned from our past and we go to greater extents not to demonize one group of people. We're not perfect, but we're much better.

All I'm saying this isn't new. Every time we have a war this restriction of freedom happens, and history shows that once our past wars ended, our freedoms were restored.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 31, 2004, 3:32 pm

Very true Adex, but other then Iraq and afghanistan, were not at war.
Being that i believe you were referring to the "war on terrorism" which is another bullshit propaganda term such as "the war on drugs" or "the war on crime"
These are not "wars", and there is no way to win them. As long as we have a government with the same mentallity as this one, all this bullshit can become permanent.
The terrorist HAVE WON with the mentallity we are using. We go to Iraq and take out one of AQ's greatest enemys in the region, spawn more terrorist, world hatred and terrorism, as well as take away our freedoms at home, this does sound facioust, and that is never a good solution.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 31, 2004, 5:49 pm

LOL

That site isn't biased in it's defintions at all. ROFL

It's not interesting at all. It's someone opinion. Nothing more than the dribble found in every thread on this board.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 31, 2004, 5:57 pm

It's a good thing you admit that your posts are nothing but dribble Midnyte. Admitting shortcomings is the first step!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » May 31, 2004, 6:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:LOL

That site isn't biased in it's defintions at all. ROFL

It's not interesting at all. It's someone opinion. Nothing more than the dribble found in every thread on this board.

This from the guy that posted http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 31, 2004, 6:46 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:LOL

That site isn't biased in it's defintions at all. ROFL

It's not interesting at all. It's someone opinion. Nothing more than the dribble found in every thread on this board.

How is that biased?
How is that sites definition of fascism any different then what you believe a fascist government to be?

You have no credibility if you call something bullshit and have nothing to back it up with. I think you are just cringing in the similarities between the Bush regime and the regimes of Mussolini and Franco.

Who is more likely to have an accurate, unbiased perseption of the charicteristics of a fascist government?

A. -Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

B.Midnyte

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 31, 2004, 6:49 pm

Xzion, you don't see how every definition is filled with exact references to what is going on now? I mean, seriously man. I really wonder about some of you people sometimes. Like do you live in mental wards that have internet access?

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 31, 2004, 6:50 pm

I'd agree that we exhibit a few of those characteristics, for example we still have prisoners incarcerated in Cuba from the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Why Cuba? Because we can hold them there indefinitely without charging them. If they were on American soil, they'd be afforded all the legal rights granted to a citizen - such as a speedy trial, not being held without a charge, etc.

But I don't think it's true that we exhibit all of them. I don't believe we have a disdain for intellectuals and the Arts - perhaps a distate for the Arts but not disdain. Nor do I think our police have limitless power - on the contrary they are quite limited in their power, if you know your rights and the law well enough (or hire a lawyer who does) you can get away with just about anything. The O.J. Simpson trial is really a good example of how limited our police are. Even the suggestion of impropriety by the police can have a very profound effect in the courtroom.

Some we exhibit moderately. Mass media for example. While we do censor a lot - and that censorship seems to be growing more pronounced recently, the FCC recently raised fines from $27,500 to $500,000 per violation and is becoming increasingly fervent in their levying of those fines - I don't believe that we have a truly controlled mass media.

It's definitely something to watch though. It's a slippery slope, and we are visibly sliding in my opinion.

And you can't reasonably question the veracity of the 14 defining characteristics of Fascism, Midnyte. Granted, it is largely a matter of opinion as to whether or not the U.S. exhibits them, and if so to what degree, but the characteristics themselves are well researched and credible.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 31, 2004, 7:11 pm

Karae wrote:I'd agree that we exhibit a few of those characteristics, for example we still have prisoners incarcerated in Cuba from the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Why Cuba? Because we can hold them there indefinitely without charging them. If they were on American soil, they'd be afforded all the legal rights granted to a citizen - such as a speedy trial, not being held without a charge, etc.

But I don't think it's true that we exhibit all of them. I don't believe we have a disdain for intellectuals and the Arts - perhaps a distate for the Arts but not disdain. Nor do I think our police have limitless power - on the contrary they are quite limited in their power, if you know your rights and the law well enough (or hire a lawyer who does) you can get away with just about anything. The O.J. Simpson trial is really a good example of how limited our police are. Even the suggestion of impropriety by the police can have a very profound effect in the courtroom.

Some we exhibit moderately. Mass media for example. While we do censor a lot - and that censorship seems to be growing more pronounced recently, the FCC recently raised fines from $27,500 to $500,000 per violation and is becoming increasingly fervent in their levying of those fines - I don't believe that we have a truly controlled mass media.

It's definitely something to watch though. It's a slippery slope, and we are visibly sliding in my opinion.

And you can't reasonably question the veracity of the 14 defining characteristics of Fascism, Midnyte. Granted, it is largely a matter of opinion as to whether or not the U.S. exhibits them, and if so to what degree, but the characteristics themselves are well researched and credible.

I'll agree with you there. However, to have an actually worry that we are becoming a fascist society is one of ignorance and stupidity.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 31, 2004, 7:20 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I'll agree with you there. However, to have an actually worry that we are becoming a fascist society is one of ignorance and stupidity.

well that's right the fuck up your alley then!

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 31, 2004, 7:36 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:However, to have an actually worry that we are becoming a fascist society is one of ignorance and stupidity.

I agree with your sentiment, I think believing we're becoming truly Fascist is reactionary at best. However, I think it's important to be concerned about the few characteristics we do exhibit. Letting ourselves settle with things like a rampaging FCC, holding prisoners without charging them for years, Enron scandals and other cronyism, etc diminishes and dillutes the very freedom we're supposedly defending. It's ironic how often the phrase "in defense of freedom" has been used to justify doing things very similar to Fascists regimes when nobody in their right mind would ever suggest that people living under those regimes were free.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 31, 2004, 7:57 pm

Karae wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:However, to have an actually worry that we are becoming a fascist society is one of ignorance and stupidity.
I agree with your sentiment, I think believing we're becoming truly Fascist is reactionary at best. However, I think it's important to be concerned about the few characteristics we do exhibit. Letting ourselves settle with things like a rampaging FCC, holding prisoners without charging them for years, Enron scandals and other cronyism, etc diminishes and dillutes the very freedom we're supposedly defending. It's ironic how often the phrase "in defense of freedom" has been used to justify doing things very similar to Fascists regimes when nobody in their right mind would ever suggest that people living under those regimes were free.

/nods. The FCC thing is getting out of hand, at least in the case of Howard Stern anyway. I don't have a problem with them banning Janet Jacksons tit from TV though.

I do think the "defense of freedom" statement can ring true at times though. You do have to pay a price to be free. Case in point, the men and women risking their lives everyday abroad, helping our future be safer and giving the Iraqis and Afghanis a chance for a better tomorrow.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » May 31, 2004, 11:00 pm

As sick as I am regarding the current administration of our country, I just can't take an article from Rense seriously.

This is, after all, the same site that reported the rampant terror of the "monkey man" in India a couple of summers ago, and found "evidence" of a mythical Hindu bridge to some paradise...

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 1, 2004, 1:24 am

As a gun-toting rep, I must also roll my eyes at the seemingly ridiculousness of our situation in Iraq...

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 1, 2004, 11:55 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I really wonder about some of you people sometimes.

As compared to the rest of us wondering about you all the time.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 1, 2004, 1:34 pm

The actual definition of fascism without political slant
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

Let's see, all politicians of the two major american parties have or;
A polical philosophy
Exalt their nation above individuals
Support a centralized autocratic government
They would both like to have the powers of a dictatorial leader
They both want severe economic or social regimentation, but the repubs do tend to favor more laisez faire econ policies, while the dems support more open social issues, so they split the difference
They both scream down the opposition and seek to impeach, sure, harrass, and suppress

Based on our current two party system then it is in fact a remote stretch but you could identify the US as being partially fascist. Regardless of who wins the election, unless it is a third party type.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 1, 2004, 6:44 pm

WOOHOO Third parties!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 1, 2004, 7:17 pm

Karae wrote: Mass media for example. While we do censor a lot - and that censorship seems to be growing more pronounced recently, the FCC recently raised fines from $27,500 to $500,000 per violation and is becoming increasingly fervent in their levying of those fines - I don't believe that we have a truly controlled mass media.

Free speech is definitely not something that is regressing. Because the FCC's on some little crusade to cut back on some of the "obscenity", does not mean that you do not have the right to free speech. Howard Stern's ideas and political commentary are not being blocked or fined or anything else. He and others are being fined for crossing the line of decency when children could be watching or listening.

Personally, I think it is pretty much bullshit. They should be legislating against bad parents rather than some radio DJ. The parents should be enforcing what their child can listen to or not listen to. The FCC is trying to make a statement and put a slowdown to what was going to grow into a problem.

As people get immune to hearing and seeing certain things, the media pushes the envelope further and further to get their ratings. At some point someone has to put some limits down....and I think the FCC is really just putting the brakes to it now before things get a little too far out of control. But limiting your freedom to express an opinion......simply not happening.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 1, 2004, 8:26 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Karae wrote: Mass media for example. While we do censor a lot - and that censorship seems to be growing more pronounced recently, the FCC recently raised fines from $27,500 to $500,000 per violation and is becoming increasingly fervent in their levying of those fines - I don't believe that we have a truly controlled mass media.

Free speech is definitely not something that is regressing. Because the FCC's on some little crusade to cut back on some of the "obscenity", does not mean that you do not have the right to free speech. Howard Stern's ideas and political commentary are not being blocked or fined or anything else. He and others are being fined for crossing the line of decency when children could be watching or listening.

Personally, I think it is pretty much bullshit. They should be legislating against bad parents rather than some radio DJ. The parents should be enforcing what their child can listen to or not listen to. The FCC is trying to make a statement and put a slowdown to what was going to grow into a problem.

As people get immune to hearing and seeing certain things, the media pushes the envelope further and further to get their ratings. At some point someone has to put some limits down....and I think the FCC is really just putting the brakes to it now before things get a little too far out of control. But limiting your freedom to express an opinion......simply not happening.

If the "limits" are being pushed to far as people are becomming "immune" to certain things, then the american people are the only ones who have the right (in a free society) to put "brackets" on what they consider to be
"pushing the limit", not the government

If something comes out that the american people are truly offended by, then they have the right to protest it, effectivly by not watching or listening to the program, hence the corperation that owns the program begins to loose money, so they dont air it anymore.
If someone wants to "protect" there child over a program on television or the radio specificly designed for adults, then they have a right to not turn on the radio in there car, not to buy a television, buy parental controls, tell there child not to watch certain programs, or countless other solutions.

I will be the first to admit our society and our media is fucked up. We can show mass violence on TV, have television shows aimed towards little kids that involve war, hatred and killing, YET when we see something as natural, innocent and harmless as a nipple on TV the government, or the FCC goes into a huge fascist crusade to end all sexual "indecency".

people dont give a shit about violence, or propaganda and lies our president is spewing about a war that has cost over 800 american lives overseas, yet fucking nudity or programs with some sexually explicit content are being banned due to "indecency".

While this administration is not fascist, they certainly have the most similar philosophy to that of a fascist one when compared to any other administration in modern american history.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 1, 2004, 9:30 pm

Dictionary.com said

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

fascism

n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

Little less bias for ya

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » June 1, 2004, 11:54 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Free speech is definitely not something that is regressing. Because the FCC's on some little crusade to cut back on some of the "obscenity", does not mean that you do not have the right to free speech. ... But limiting your freedom to express an opinion......simply not happening.

The FCC shenanigans in the wake of the boobie incident don't really bug me. They're silly and reactionary, but - as you said - they really don't abridge any of our freedom of speech.

But I have to correct you and point out that our freedom of speech *is* under attack on other fronts. Look up "free speech zones" for an example.

At many college campuses across the nation, students have for a couple of years now only been able to publically voice their opinion on small stages - usually having to book the time in advance. Any public oration or demonstration outside the 10'x10' bounds of the pavillion at the pre-ordained time will result in disciplinary action.

Recently, this insidious idea has spread to larger municipalities. Cities now are setting up "free speech areas." To demonstrate outside this planned area is an arrestable offense.

I'm very sorry - but "freedom of speech" is not the same as "freedom of speech in a certain spot where you're quietly out of the way and nobody will notice."

Wonko Wenusberg · Post by **Wonko Wenusberg** » June 2, 2004, 6:13 am

I'm going to spank you with my fasce

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 2, 2004, 10:50 am

Arundel....that is not the government infringing on your speech. It is the university (or business) that is putting limits on it. Huge difference.

Businesses can and will restrict certain things...simply because they have to. I work inside P&G plants with access to restricted information. I would not be permitted to go stand on a street corner and spout off anything that I felt like about that info. Likewise, if I worked in a Republican capaing organization, I would not be permitted to hammer Bush for stupid things he has done.

The bottom line is....in those same universities where you have to reserve your time for public speeches, the students still have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and to whoever they want. They are just not permitted to gather large crowds without permission. Structure is much much different than being imprisoned because you said something derogatory about the government.

And Xzion....I said this before but you ignored it. The FCC did not remove Howard Stern from the air. They FINED him for some things he said on the air. Clear Channel is who removed him from the air. If you want to complain about someone infringing on free speech it is Clear Channel. However, they have the right to put on whoever they feel like.

Also, the FCC had something like 100,000 complaints this year about radio broadcasts. That is not just for Stern...but the previous years they only had something like 200 a year. It was a huge increase and much of it is because of Janet/Justin being retards....and organizations are providing people with form letters to e-mail complaints now.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » June 2, 2004, 12:57 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Arundel....that is not the government infringing on your speech. It is the university (or business) that is putting limits on it. Huge difference.

And do Universities get funding from the Government?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 2, 2004, 1:13 pm

I am certainly concerned with the size and scope of our government. There are, as always, many liberties that are threatened as well as many that have been already reduced. that being said, trying to say the U.S. is a fascist state I don't think is true. The linked article's 14 points are generally broad and most of them, to some degree, are probably applicable to nearly every government ever created. For all its faults, we still enjoy a lot of freedom in this country.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 2, 2004, 1:43 pm

I always wonder about the American hatred for government having too much control over things. I know most of you would probably try to throw yourself on a knife if your government had the level of control the Canadian government does, but personally I like it. I guess it has to do with the nature of the government. For the most part Canadians trust politicians, although right now that's a pretty laughable statement. I don't get the impression that the average American would trust their politicians to save their spot in line.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 2, 2004, 2:47 pm

From City Councilman, to Mayor, to Governor, to Congressman and Representative to Federal there is not a single human being in my political leadership of either party who has done anything constructive to ever improve my life. Corruption, lack of caring or being straight out purchased as my governor was, leads me to mistrust them all. My mayor being an exfelon cannot even vote for himself (Might I add Democrat exfelon heh, not that anyone stops being a felon, they just do not get caught as often)

All they have done is overtax me

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » June 2, 2004, 3:41 pm

Toshira wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Arundel....that is not the government infringing on your speech. It is the university (or business) that is putting limits on it. Huge difference.
And do Universities get funding from the Government?

Why yes... most of them do.

edit:

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Arundel....that is not the government infringing on your speech. It is the university (or business) that is putting limits on it. Huge difference.

Businesses can and will restrict certain things...simply because they have to. I work inside P&G plants with access to restricted information.

Kilmoll - see above. Public universities recieve aid from both federal and state governments. They are not private businesses. Private universities can do whatever the hell they want, though, you are correct. Most campuses in the US are public, however.

Also...I used to do some contract work for P&G, too...they're insanely tight with info. heh.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » June 2, 2004, 7:39 pm

Yeah, I actually had the same reaction as Kilmoll for a second. My question was rhetorical. Freedom of Speech with regard to the First Amendment only applies when the government is involved, but public funding of institututions sure murkies the waters quick

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 2, 2004, 7:47 pm

Designated free speech zones are actually invented by and requested by the Bush administration when he visits an area. It's usually a fenced in place a mile or two away from anywhere he'll be on his tour.

Although I don't see why anyone is surprised, since the bush admin regards your consitution on about the same level they regard a piece of toilet paper.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » June 2, 2004, 7:54 pm

Would that be the stuff that chafes or the fluffy-soft kind?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 2, 2004, 10:50 pm

Most definitely chaffes.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 3, 2004, 1:00 am

Dregor Thule wrote:the average American would trust their politicians to save their spot in line.

I wouldn't trust em' to spare a square in a bathroom.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » June 3, 2004, 1:12 am

MooZilla wrote:Hmmm....

Well I think im moving to Canada if Bush gets re-elected.

Better get those bags packed. I'm sure Kooky won't mind houseguests for the next 4 years.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » June 3, 2004, 8:17 am

Though I think we exemplify traits of many different systems, I wouldn't say we are heading toward fascism. The only real reason the president has the power he does, is due to the War Powers Act (which is the most absurd thing our government has come up with in its lifetime).

The founding fathers knew that one single person can never be entrusted with that power, which is why Congress is "supposed" to be the only authority in declaring war. If you remove that power, the president has little or no resemblance to a dictator, which is at the very heart of Fascism.

If I had to label us, I would say "Republic with delusions of Empire".

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 3, 2004, 12:40 pm

I don't see America sliding in to a facist state anytime soon. I agree it might seem like we are to some, and I also agree that we have had rights taken from us the past 20 years. However there are fundamental differences between our present government and a facist state...

One the governement does not employ people on a mass scale to build up the military like Italy or Germany in the early 20th century. The fact that they promised people jobs for this while the world was in a depression helped them out politicaly. It is also one of the primary principles of the theory of facism.

Two, most of the politicians in both political parties in the US have never served in the military and do not prance around in crazy uniforms.

Thrid we still have freedom of the press, actually much more than we did during the 1940's.

With the communication levels and education that we have today I do not see ourselves sliding into a neo Nazi Germany or 1930's Italy. However I do see us sliding into a revolution sooner or later. Most of the conditions are already there (by theory) for this to happen. Don't confuse those signs with facism the two are totally different.

Tomas Carlye is a good read if you want to know more about facsim either that or study the rise of Mussolini. Germany was a corrupted form of the theory.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 3, 2004, 2:15 pm

Arundel Pajo wrote:
Toshira wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Arundel....that is not the government infringing on your speech. It is the university (or business) that is putting limits on it. Huge difference.
And do Universities get funding from the Government?
Why yes... most of them do.

I am not getting my complete point across here. Those universities are not telling you that you cannot say what you want to say. They are telling you that you are not allowed to attempt to gather a crowd without advanced notice and without being in a certain location on campus.

It would be the same as a rock band strolling up to a spot and gathering people there at any time they wanted. It could just cause problems for the university.

They are not restricting WHAT you can say....just restricting what could cause a large crowd to gather and cause problems.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 3, 2004, 2:35 pm

Killmoll, please stop using common sense. Expressing a simple common sense view of a situation will only get you in trouble on these boards.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 3, 2004, 2:42 pm

From what I see here all the Liberals want is the right for free speech anytime anyplace!! Right?

So your saying becuase of what you want My son or daughter at school can be subjected to White power propaganda,Kill Whitie propaganda?

You guys are whacked

VeeshanVault

The United States is a Fascist Nation

The United States is a Fascist Nation

Re: The United States is a Fascist Nation