"Softer fascism" illustrated.
Posted on 12/23/2007 6:44:53 PM PST by AmericanMade1776
White House hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Sunday that the U.S. is moving toward fascism, stating that corporations are increasingly “running the show” and citizens are being deprived of their liberties.
Paul clarified that he did not refer to the type of fascism that Adolf Hitler practiced in Germany. “We’re not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we’re moving toward a softer fascism,” Paul said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business.”
The lawmaker said the U.S. is moving toward “corporatism.” He also lashed out at a system in which those are criticized as unpatriotic who do not support the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Sometimes this is called projection.
No... the Jury is in, and Ron Paul is a NUT.
President Paul
President Paul
Sorry, that’s a glib thought, not an accurate one.
School choice - freedom from failing schools
Lower Taxes - freedom to make own economic decisions
Foreign policy - freed Eastern Europe from Communism - freed Afghans from oppressive islamo-fascim - freed Iraqis from murderous thug government.
And the other party? What do they do that enhances liberty? When was the last time you even heard a Democrat talk about Freedom? Half of them worship freedom’s enemies - the Castros, the Chavez’s, Putin KGB-thug-of-the-year.
A jury of one is probably something the founding fathers did not have in mind.
You make a lot of loud comments and insults, but don’t seem to actually debate in intelligent terms any of the points made on this thread. Can you?
Describe the technical definition of fascism. Has the US moved in this direction or away from in in the last 20 or 10 years? If the US more resembles this model now than 20 years ago, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Corporatism - do you feel the FDA has become more or less friendly to major pharmaceutical companies over the last 10 years? Take into consideration the number of drugs fast-tracked, and the number of products made over-the-counter.
That’s what I said.
I forgot to ask you about the elephant in the living room of corporatism - our trade policy with china, supported by both parties (both presumably awash in chinese money, given republican apparent refusal to pursue the matter in the Cox Report or even now with the Hsu event).
Technically, fascism is a form of government in which the means of production are regulated and directed by government agencies. In essence, fascism is the modern successor to mercantilism, wherein kings granted special monopolies to the enterprises of their friends and supporters. Some American colonials were especially angered by such arrangements and after victory sought to prevent the development of a strong central government which would have power to grant boons and banes. These were the anti-federalists. Federalists, like Hamilton, wanted a strong central government and a central bank to favor and protect their business interests.
Today, both major parties are composed largely of those who would use the government to support their financial interests. Thus, the friendly revolving door between lobbying firms and congressional offices. We have developed permanent public-private partnerships or in the older term, industrial-state committees.
That we don't have an especially heavy-handed police state makes for a certain "softness".
"Softer fascism" illustrated.
But he has gotten donations from neo-nazis.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Isn’t there a corollary of Godwin’s Law that applies here?
I suspect that Paul’s philosophy is that people can believe whatever they want as long as they don’t break the law, and anyone can contribute to him who is legally eligible to.
To a great degree I agree with him here. The internationalist globalist network of corporate interests has goals antithetical to the best interests of America.
But on foreign military policy he is too isolationist.
He really seems to believe that if America just withdraws from the Middle East, the Islamic nut-jobs will leave us alone. That displays a naivete and ignorance of history which is difficult to understand in a man of his stature.
$cienPaulogy
“But on foreign military policy he is too isolationist.”
In an imaginary world where Paul is elected, obviously there would be no overnight withdrawal from the world stage, there is simply too much inertia, legal restrictions, congressional votes, etc. But to play with the idea...
The US is at this moment a tremendous world power and creating a power vacumn would not be a good thing, short or long-term. China and Russia would be happy to fill some of it, and numerous despotic regimes that are very friendly to us might end up being toppled (Egypt, for one), which would certainly hurt US interests as well.
Iran could end up with much more influence in Iraq than they are going to get anyway, which would further alter the equation. Our presence in Asia being removed from Japan, ROK, and other locations would be a sea-change event as well.
...into consideration the number of drugs fast-tracked......
So the FDA is in the tank for the pharma companies? Of course the counter-argument is that for decades the FDA has caused needless death through an over cautious bureaucratic approach to drug approval. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n2c.html
It also makes development of drugs more expensive that it would have to be.
........number of products made over-the-counter......
And if I as a consumer, don’t have the governement forcing me to engage the service of a physician to get a drug that cannot harm me, isnt that expanding my freedom?
And others can draw the conclusion from this nexus of neo-nazis and truthers that a candidate presents a danger to the centrist, freeom-loving, body politic.
http://townhall.com/blog/g/daee4a40-84ee-4c50-b1bc-98604e232cc0
“So the FDA is in the tank for the pharma companies? Of course the counter-argument is that for decades the FDA has caused needless death through an over cautious bureaucratic approach to drug approval.”
Agreed, but my question was to compare the FDA of 20 years ago to the FDA today? Are they more responsive to market needs of Pharmaceutical companies?
The number of OTC drugs has certainly been convenient. Has it helped the pharma companies as well?
Please don’t get the impression I am partial to either the FDA or the related multinational corporations. The original question dealt with corporatism, and I was addressing that aspect.
BTW, thanks for answering my posts to americanmade1776, who doesn’t seem to respond in any rational way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.