Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul: US inching toward 'soft fascism'
PressTV ^

Posted on 01/08/2008 10:10:56 AM PST by mnehring

"We're not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism," said the 10-term Texas congressman Sunday.

Speaking on PBS Sunday, the presidential candidate affirmed that the American people are giving up their rights and privacy, 'all in the name of safety and security'.

"Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business," said Paul of the downhill situation that awaits Americans.

"So you have the military-industrial complex, you have the medical-industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. That's where the control is," the libertarian-leaning politician explained.

The Texan concluded that what is happening will be very 'dangerous' as the situation is getting to a point that 'is hard to reverse'.

Paul, who ended up fifth in the Iowa caucus last week with 10 percent of the votes, is becoming immensely popularity among the American youth as well as the educated elite.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008election; election2008; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last
To: Jokelahoma
“Typical Paul. He takes a good point, and proceeds to wrap it in a shroud of lunacy, paranoia, and conspiracy theory. We are inching toward a soft fascism, in which states can send SWAT teams to break in your door to force you to take your child to the hospital, or in which holding an opinion that illegal immigration is wrong gets you branded as a racist. But to blame the military industrial complex? The communications industry? The financial industry? Geez.”

Excellent post.

81 posted on 01/08/2008 11:32:27 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

Dwight was a good man, but was wrong on the military industrial complex deal. He was also wrong on how he dealt with Patton and didn’t even attend his funeral. Overall, I still think he was a good man, but good thing for the USA that Roosevelt and especially Churchill liked Patton. They knew what a good asskicker looked like and knew that the Nazi leadership was afraid of him. :)


82 posted on 01/08/2008 11:33:34 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Paul should be far more concerned with socialism than with fascism. ...at least as far as our current situation is concerned. Then again he knows where he’s getting the majority of his financial support, and it’s from the side of the political spectrum that screams “fascism” in knee-jerk fashion at anything resembling national defense.


83 posted on 01/08/2008 11:34:24 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Inching toward, I thought we were there, the government having been hijacked by neocons and all. Neocons get no credit here.

I'll post the link if I can find it, but in an interview at a marginal site, Paul advocated the solution for this problem of business domination of government. As President, he plans to cancel the dollar, replacing it with gold, certificates I presume, at the current market price of gold. I haven't any idea what sort of depreciation that involves, probably 80% or 90% on stock market capitalization alone, then throw in the money supply. Not worth figuring out, but 10 cents on the dollar is probably generous. Unless he plans on imposing currency controls and martial law, might need that anyway, you won't have to worry much about American business. They'll be Canadian business', and Chinese business', and Mexican business', et al. We can buy their products. Nothing like a good financial collapse.

84 posted on 01/08/2008 11:34:43 AM PST by SJackson (If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling


Speaking on PBS Sunday, the presidential candidate affirmed that the American people are giving up their rights and privacy, 'all in the name of safety and security.' Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business," said Paul of the downhill situation that awaits Americans.

Does this mean the ordinary leftwingers won't be able to call up al Qaeda operatives to hatch sinister plots to blow up American targets? How fascist of us!

.

85 posted on 01/08/2008 11:38:21 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
It would be interesting to search old archives of National Review and Human Events from that time, or the reactions of such conservatives as Barry Goldwater or William Knowland to that portion of Eisenhower’s address.

Barry Goldwater, Jr., who was very close to his father (politically and otherwise) is an outspoke Ron Paul supporter.

86 posted on 01/08/2008 11:38:50 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

You sir are right on the money about Ike! My family has been associated with the so-called military industrial since the 60s. The fact is, the defense industry makes things easier (and safer in many cases) for our soliders. It also saves money as it is much easier to fire an employee for a private company who is not doing the job than an incompetent Government employee.


87 posted on 01/08/2008 11:40:28 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Your name-calling causes me to discount your ideas.


88 posted on 01/08/2008 11:41:22 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Funny how Dr. Paul doesn’t make mention of the loss of liberties stemming from the Legal-Industry Complex, the Union-Leadership Complex or Education-Government Complex.

These are all the darlings of the left. Why doesn’t he demonize them in the same breath?

I don’t care if you’re a supporter of Dr. Paul or not...these are signs that he is pandering to the left.


89 posted on 01/08/2008 11:58:25 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

“We’re the freest people in the history of the planet”

Drive with no seatbelt.
Smoke in a restaurant.
Sell unpasturized milk.
Give your 19 year old son a beer after a hard day baling hay.


90 posted on 01/08/2008 12:07:20 PM PST by live+let_live
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

I call em as I see em.


91 posted on 01/08/2008 12:09:34 PM PST by lormand (Ron Paul 08' - Cult of the Insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

“Paul should be far more concerned with socialism than with fascism”

Is there a difference between socialism and fascism? I don’t think so. You cannot have socialism without fascism to enforce it.


92 posted on 01/08/2008 12:14:30 PM PST by live+let_live
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ravinson

Another interesting fact is that the senior Goldwater was strongly opposed to the rise of the Christian Right in the 1980s. Paul, though being a Christian and strongly pro-life, has never made his religious beliefs a part of his program. In Iowa, he actually did better in Catholic dominated counties in the eastern part of the state than in the more evangelical ones in the northwest and south. Huckabee appeals to the same constituency that Robertson did in 1988. The libertarian voters are a different sort than the Christian Right and are uncomfortable with them. It is thus not surprising that the younger Goldwater would align with Paul, even though his father was on foreign policy matters far more hawkish than Paul.


93 posted on 01/08/2008 12:25:08 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; George W. Bush; NapkinUser; DreamsofPolycarp; The_Eaglet; Irontank; ...

ping


94 posted on 01/08/2008 12:48:26 PM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

Truer words were never spoken.


95 posted on 01/08/2008 1:25:25 PM PST by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

” * The government would determine your job based on the good of the state.”

Affirmative action and other preferential hiring.

” * The government would control industry, not the other way around.”

They do, through regulatory fiat. I take it you’re not an entrepreneur.

” * Your political party affiliation would be mandated.
* Media would be a single outlet controlled by the government.”

Government regulation of broadcast media and ownershiop rules allowed for a small number of media gatekeepers. The dems want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and some on the right want to limit what blogs etc can say about candidates. Then there’s ‘campaign finance reform.’

” * All citizens would be categorized into boxes based on some factor, be it race, family ties, beliefs, whatever, and your job, your salary, where you live, what school you go to, and your rights would be based on that ‘box’.”

Thanks to affirmative action some of these things are already true.

” * Private schools would not be allowed to exist.”

The ‘education complex’ is trying to ban home schooling. Even if you send your kid to private school, you have to pay taxes for public school.

Government schools are indoctrination centers. The government mandates what can and can’t be taught at private schools.

” * Only one, government mandated religion would exist and that religion would be controlled by the government.”

The government is hostile to religion. Atheism is the official religion of the government.

” * Military service would be mandatory.”

People on both sides have proposed mandatory national service - aka - slave labor.

” * Police would be a branch of the military and would regulate law based on martial law rule.”

No-knock warrants. Police as paramilitary organizations. The federalization of many issues such as a the ‘war on drugs’ through the abuse of the commerce clause.

” * Travel would 100% regulated.”

No-fly lists that are impossible to get off of.

” * All speech would be licensed and subject to regulation.”

So-called ‘hate speech’ laws. We’re getting there.

” * Blogs would not exist.
* YouTube would not exist.
* FreeRepublic would not exist.”

Campaign finance reform isn’t far from this. It’s been discussed that a supporting blog is an ‘in kind contribution.’

” * No person would be free to make a speech decrying if the government is fascist, communist, or whatever.”

Our government has been socialist for a long time.

” * Failure to comply with politically correct speech or correct thinking would subject you to imprisonment or worse.”

Hate speech laws. Thought crime laws. Not an inch of difference between them.


Add to that abuse of eminent domain laws and gun control, abortion, and mandating homosexual indoctrination, and what do we get? (another day older and deeper in debt)


96 posted on 01/08/2008 1:25:30 PM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (The GOP is "Whig"ing out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Don't forget, the fascist nations of Europe were uber-socialists. Heck, the Nazis were "national socialists."

And Americans, especially Republicans are flaming socialists. This is what so profoundly offends the Rockfellers about Paul.

97 posted on 01/08/2008 1:27:41 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

“Americans, especially Republicans are flaming socialists”

While I think there is some truth to your comment, I don’t think you’re allowed to say that out loud.


98 posted on 01/08/2008 1:43:43 PM PST by live+let_live
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Jokelahoma

The SWAT teams are local.


Nope. Federally funded. That’s why every town of more than a 40,000 or so has a SWAT team, even though the townspeople never voted to fund them.

Your federal taxes paid for all those jackboots.


99 posted on 01/08/2008 2:43:13 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
[And Americans, especially Republicans are flaming socialists.]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LOL.

(ALL) Americans are flaming socialists?

Are you an American?

Maybe you needed to add “some”, “many”, “too many”, etc.?

Because if not, and if you are an American, you just labeled yourself as a flaming socialist.

Now, if you’re not an American, well ......

100 posted on 01/08/2008 2:59:01 PM PST by Col Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson