United States of the American Dictatorship?

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 04:07

Recent events beg the question: How close is America to becoming a dictatorship?

monkspider · December 20, 2002, 04:22

USA is certainly on the road to what can be objectively seen as a dictatorship, that is, if it can't be considered one now. The USA is a much more sophisticated brand of dictatorship than the world has seen in epochs past, and it brings with it a more sophisticated brand of imperialism. But regardless of any modern sophistication that it may posess, the USA will bring about what all old-tyme dictatorships have always brought about, the suffering of the masses.
But as the quote goes, "Today's Empires are tommorrow's ashes". The karmic retribution awaiting the USA will one day catch up with it, make no mistake. We can only hope that the USA will be the last such hegemon we must face before the world can finally unite in brotherhood.

Asher · December 20, 2002, 04:32

If you think the US is a dictatorship, try Canada.

At least you have a choice in your elections.

Shi Huangdi · December 20, 2002, 04:33

It's people still elect the leaders and the executive does not have supreme power, so no.

monkspider · December 20, 2002, 04:34

Not really Asher, either Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum....

Do you guys really have it worse than us?

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
USA is certainly on the road to what can be objectively seen as a dictatorship, that is, if it can't be considered one now.

I believe that while the US is not quite yet dictatorial enough to be considered an actual dictatorship, it is "disturbingly" close.

Quote:

the suffering of the masses.

Unfortunately the American masses are largely ignorant and can and are easily hypnotized by the sound of Bush beating that war drum.

Quote:

karmic retribution

If you believe in karma, then the USA will fall quite hard...

Quote:

We can only hope that the USA will be the last such hegemon we must face before the world can finally unite in brotherhood.

Unfortunately, the possibilty of a United Earth after the US falls is very unlikely and in fact will probalby be even more divided then before.

Quote:

executive does not have supreme power,

Dicipline is always a good thing....sometimes

Ming · December 20, 2002, 04:35

Nothing to see here... just another anti american troll...

.0000000000000000001/100

monkspider · December 20, 2002, 04:37

Take a chill pill Mingster.

You have been more cranky than usual, is there frustrating stuff going on in the non-Apoly life?

Asher · December 20, 2002, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Not really Asher, either Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum....

Do you guys really have it worse than us?

The power Bush has over the country is a tiny fraction of the power Chretien has over Canada. Canada has two effective branches: The Executive (PM) and the House of Commons. Whoever has a majority in the house of commons forms the executive branch. So the PM orders his party around in both branches, it's effectively a one man show with puppets.

Now maybe Tass meant more along the lines of "invasion of privacy", but keep in mind Canada keeps passing laws like forcing ISPs to keep 6 month logs of every website every user visits.

Ming · December 20, 2002, 04:38

Like this thread isn't just another troll... Oh please...

Let me know when a real dictatorship takes over in the US... Until then, just a troll...

Shi Huangdi · December 20, 2002, 04:46

Good Call Ming. This Idiotic Crap of a troll falls below even their low left-wing troll standards. If these fools want to believe the US is any way a dictatorship let them live in their own little deluded world.

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 04:48

Mings comments are so devoid of any logic (Instead of actually debating the subject, he dismisses it as "just a troll". Reminds me of something I once saw on Fox...A democrat was debating when suddenly the republican just began to yell "YADA YADA YADA!!!" to drown out the sound

) that I will not even bother to mount any sort of serious response.

Anyway....Canada may be a dictatorship, but were talking about good ol Mewica here

Try to stay on THAT subject

monkspider · December 20, 2002, 04:48

This isn't a troll, but a genuine attempt at fostering frank and honest discussion. Referring to it as a troll, however, is trolling.

Ming · December 20, 2002, 04:53

First... it isn't even an original troll. This is what, the 10th or so thread that wants to call America a Dictatorship.

There is nothing really to discuss... we have an elected government... we have rights... we can vote... the government has to respond to the people... But you just want to ignore that...

So where is this Dictatorship. Go back to school and learn the the meaning of the word.

Just another and not very original silly troll.

Shi Huangdi · December 20, 2002, 04:57

"This isn't a troll, but a genuine attempt at fostering frank and honest discussion. Referring to it as a troll, however, is trolling."

Frank and Honest discussion over whether the USA is a dictatorship is better suited to a special ed classroom. If you seriously think whether we are a dictatorship is a valid topic I suggest you check into one of those.

Ming · December 20, 2002, 05:01

Yeah.. this coming from a guy whose country actually was a dictatorship, and is far closer to it now then we will ever be...

But let them waste their time thinking this is a real issue and that the only people that care about this are the typical anti american crowd... Blah blah blah...
Can't you come up with something more original to bash the USA with...

Have fun discussing it to your hearts content. Each post you make just proves you have no real idea of what a dictatorship really is...

If you want a real discussion... post about a real topic.

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
First... it isn't even an original troll. This is what, the 10th or so thread that wants to call America a Dictatorship.

There is nothing really to discuss... we have an elected government... we have rights... we can vote... the government has to respond to the people... But you just want to ignore that...

So where is this Dictatorship. Go back to school and learn the the meaning of the word.

Just another and not very original silly troll.

First off, your hunting for a response (eg Trolling) by doing this. Don't accuse and condemn me for something YOU YOURSELF are doing.

Second....

Quote:

dic·ta·tor·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dk-ttr-shp, dkt-)
n.
The office or tenure of a dictator.
A state or government under dictatorial rule.
Absolute or despotic control or power.

If your not intelligent enough to comprehend such a thing, then I will clarify: That is the meaning of dictatorship. The question I proposed is if America is becoming or IS a dictatorship. My opinion is that it is coming CLOSE to becoming a dictatorship (Note that the grammatical structure of the words indicates that I do not believe it IS a dictatorship as of yet)

Giving the power to declare war to ONE person, suddenly having one party control the ENTIRE government, rounding up thousands of people of a certain group and sending them to jail, lying to the people...And slowly but surely its getting worse. Therefore IMO, it is becoming a dictatorship.

Now instead of crying "TROLL!", putting your fingers in your ears, and simply repeating one word...JOIN THE DEBATE. Prove me wrong, agree with me, agree with someone else....Or just stop posting. Because what you are posting is spam and a troll. Don't try to kill the thread right after it begins. Only someone who knows theyre wrong would try to do such a thing

------EDIT-------

Quote:

Frank and Honest discussion over whether the USA is a dictatorship is better suited to a special ed classroom. If you seriously think whether we are a dictatorship is a valid topic I suggest you check into one of those.

Oh please. If one refuses to even discuss a topic....Thats a very dangerous sign.

Quote:

Yeah.. this coming from a guy whose country actually was a dictatorship,

What does that have to do with anything? If anything it would mean I know what a dictatorship actually is and could see the "signs" in a country....

Quote:

Have fun discussing it to your hearts content. Each post you make just proves you have no real idea of what a dictatorship really is...

Ming, thats stupid and we both know it. If you can't even respond to the original subject then again: DONT RESPOND AT ALL. As you tell others:

STOP SPAMMING

monkspider · December 20, 2002, 05:06

If you want to be serious about it, It all depends on your definition of dicatorship. The USA doesn't fit the classical model of a dicatorship. A powerful arguement could be made, however, that the USA is a new, sophisticated type of dictatorship, A dictatorship of monied intrerests. While various democratic forums and so forth do exist, the range of public debate is that is fed through the mass-media, which are organs of these powerful interests, is remarkably limited. There is also a great deal of manufacturing of consent that goes on to ensure that the masses follow the whims of these powerful individuals and so on and so forth. I could go on and on, but the basic point is that the USA is a new type of dictatorship, featuring larger cages and longer chains.

Shi Huangdi · December 20, 2002, 05:08

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/chechnya0322.htm

Quote:

New Killings and "Disappearances" in Chechnya

(New York, March 23, 2002) Russian forces on sweep operations in Chechnya continue to commit serious violations, Human Rights Watch said today. Fourteen witnesses have told Human Rights Watch researchers in the field about torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearances, and the discovery of the corpses and burned remains of nine people that took place during the March 6-11 sweep operation in Staryi Atagi, 25 miles south of Grozny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Material

U.N. Commission Urged to Act on Chechnya
HRW Press Release, March 14, 2002

Questions and Answers on the U.N. Human Rights Commission
HRW Q&A, March 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They lined us up [the men], and took our passports. They gave everyone's passport back except Amir's. Then they came and said Amir had to come with them. They said that they would bring him back."
Male relative of Amir Pokaev (disappeared March 6).
Human Rights Watch interview
March 2002

"The Russians have a lot of explaining to do," said Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia division. "The government says it has taken measures to improve the conduct of forces on sweep operations, but they're not working and the situation is deteriorating. The U.N. commission should adopt a resolution on Chechnya that makes this clear."

In a sweep operation, Russian forces typically seal off a village and conduct house-to-house searches, ostensibly to detain suspected fighters or their supporters. At least two prior sweep operations have taken place in Staryi Atagi since January 2002. Federal authorities claim Staryi Atagi harbors rebel fighters.

At least ten men "disappeared" in the Staryi Atagi operation; the corpses or burned remains of nine people were found, raising fears that they were extrajudicially executed. So far, the remains of only one of the "disappeared," 26-year old Imran Kuntaev, detained on March 6, were found the next day in a house that had just been burned. A witness told Human Rights Watch that on the morning of March 6, uniformed troops detained Imran Kuntaev in his home. On March 7, 2002, a fire burned down an abandoned house on Nagornaia Street, which Russian troops had been blocking off. When the fire was extinguished, four bodies were found in the smoldering remains. Imran Kunatev's relatives identified him by his teeth, four of which were gold. Villagers believe that the remains of two more persons were burnt to coals.

On March 9, three additional bodies-all unidentified-were found in a burned-out vehicle at the edge the village. The car reportedly had been confiscated on March 7 from a shop where it was under repair.

Under the much-lauded Decree No. 46 of the procuracy general, adopted after notoriously harsh sweeps in June and July 2001, officials on sweep operations are supposed to compile a comprehensive list of all detainees. This list would indicate the grounds for detention, and information about who took the individual into custody and where the detainee was taken. It further required officials to inform relatives of the detainees of their whereabouts. While such a list exists, the ten "disappeared" detainees are not on it. Among them was 30-year-old Adlan Baisarov, who subsequently "disappeared." His cousin told Human Rights Watch: "The [soldiers] come practically every day to check [our passports], and he never had any problems before. I asked why they took him, if they had found anything. They said that they weren't taking him, and they were just going to talk." The cousin received information from a local official that all of the Staryi Atagi detainees had been transferred to the district Federal Security Service in Tolstoy-Yurt, but when she went there officials denied holding Baisarov. Adlan Baisarov, who has two small children, suffers from rheumatism and a liver condition.

Amir Pokaev, 20, also "disappeared" on March 6. A male relative told Human Rights Watch that when Russian forces arrived at the home, "They lined us up [the men], and took our passports. They gave everyone's passport back except Amir's. Then they came and said Amir had to come with them. They said that they would bring him back." That was last time any relatives saw Pokaev. The local military commander told the relative that no one by Pokaev's name had been detained. Relatives have inquired to the procuracy, local detention centers, and other places about his whereabouts but have received no answers.

"Decree 46 was a welcome step, but it clearly isn't being fully implemented to prevent forced disappearances," said Andersen. "Nor is it fully preventing mistreatment of detainees."

Some of the detainees were taken to a nearby poultry farm that had previously also been used as a short-term detention facility, and there they were mistreated. Among the detainees was a seventeen-year old who told Human Rights Watch that Russian soldiers at the poultry farm tried to coerce him into giving information on the whereabouts of rebel fighters. The soldiers pinched and twisted the skin on his chest, arms and legs with medical tweezers; they then shoved the tweezers up his nose and then into his mouth, threatening to take out his teeth. He also said that he had seen other detainees being beaten.

Some villagers report that Russian soldiers tried to extort money and valuables from them in exchange for not taking their sons. After detaining him outside, soldiers brought Aslan Akhmadov to his home, where they demanded that his family pay 10,000 rubles (about U.S. $300) for his release. His mother, Arzu Akhmadova, told Human Rights Watch that Akhmadov was bloody, apparently from having been beaten. Akhmadova said soldiers took about $200 and a pair of gold earrings-all the family could gather-and promised to release Akhmadov after checking his documents. Arzu Akhmadov has not been able to get any information about her son since that time.

Only after residents held a mass protest on March 12 in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, did the office of the prosecutor (the procuracy) open criminal investigations into the Staryi Atagi sweep. Russian authorities at first tried to dismiss the need for an investigation, by implying that the individuals whose remains were found were linked with Zelimkhan Sadayev, a Chechen fighter who was killed during the sweep operation. They also tried to persuade residents to bury the bodies immediately, which would have precluded a forensic examination.

The village elders have been told that basic identification to ascertain blood type, height, and stomach contents of those killed would be given to them by the end of March, and the bodies would be returned for burial shortly thereafter. There are no indications, however, that the Russian authorities intend to use other forensic methods or DNA technology to match the remains to the missing.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that given Russia's past record on accountability, the investigation into the Staryi Atagi killings would not bring those responsible to justice. Hundreds of cases have been opened, but many have been suspended and very few have led to prosecutions.

"Russia has a sorry record on accountability for abuse in Chechnya," said Andersen. "And meanwhile, there is no official record of the atrocities that are being perpetrated. The U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva must prevail upon Russia to invite special U.N. investigators on extrajudicial executions and torture. They can establish an official record of these abuses."

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 05:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/chechnya0322.htm

Classic red herring debate fallacy....

But anyway, I don't deny that Russia is beginning to slip into despotism under Putin. I don't deny that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. And I'm not proud of it, but I do wish that one day Russia will be a full-fledged democracy and I believe that day will come.

But thats not the issue and you know it

Ming · December 20, 2002, 05:11

Oh good... you know what a dictionary is, and you even learned how to cut and paste... I'm impressed.

Next time, learn to actually understand what you copied.

Our government doesn't even come close to what you posted. While some things are changing, the majority of the people actually want them... so the government is responding to the people, not ignoring them.

And even with one party in control... that doesn't mean dictatorship... You are assuming that they are all robots and vote along party lines because somebody is holding a gun to their head. And in Two years, it could very well change when WE VOTE AGAIN. The people that are in office were put there by the people. One party is in office for the moment because that was the wish of the people voting.

So next time, try to comprehend what you just cut and paste... It makes for better arguments... but that doesn't really matter to you, because you are only trolling anyway.

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 05:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Oh good... you know what a dictionary is, and you even learned how to cut and paste... I'm impressed.

Cut with all this bull, ming. It's unbecoming of you.

Quote:

so the government is responding to the people, not ignoring them.

So? People have "elected" dictatorships before.

Quote:

And even with one party in control... that doesn't mean dictatorship... You are assuming that they are all robots and vote along party lines because somebody is holding a gun to their head.

So far the Republican party (with the exception of Lott) has shown remarkable party dicipline...And considering most of them agree on most issues, I think its pretty safe to assume they'll all vote in unity.

If not, then the party in majority wouldn't really matter at all

Quote:

And in Two years, it could very well change when WE VOTE AGAIN. The people that are in office were put there by the people. One party is in office for the moment because that was the wish of the people voting.

So? Again, dictatorships have been elected before. Remember: In order to beat the system you have to use the system.

Quote:

So next time, try to comprehend what you just cut and paste...

I recommend you do the same. And next time, cut with the Ad Hominems.

Ming · December 20, 2002, 05:19

Yawn... again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word dictatorship... which is strange, because you have first hand experience with one. sad...

Your argument is based on incorrect assumptions... so obviously your conclusions are just as incorrect.

Enough with your silly troll... again, try to be original next time...

Shi Huangdi · December 20, 2002, 05:20

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
If you want to be serious about it, It all depends on your definition of dicatorship. The USA doesn't fit the classical model of a dicatorship. A powerful arguement could be made, however, that the USA is a new, sophisticated type of dictatorship, A dictatorship of monied intrerests. While various democratic forums and so forth do exist, the range of public debate is that is fed through the mass-media, which are organs of these powerful interests, is remarkably limited. There is also a great deal of manufacturing of consent that goes on to ensure that the masses follow the whims of these powerful individuals and so on and so forth. I could go on and on, but the basic point is that the USA is a new type of dictatorship, featuring larger cages and longer chains.

This marxist view of government is bullshit. If the rich rule the country, why do they pay such a highger % in taxes then everyone else does. Why did the government just pass a new mandate for more education funding(No CHild left behind act?). How is that a recent pro-corporate bankruptcy reform bill was killed after Conservative Christians objected to a provision that would have harmful to the rights of abortion protestors? Why do we have an EPA? Clearly, the government does plenty of things that are against corporate interests. This is because there are powerful anti-corporate groups in this country, say on education the Teachers Unions, along with popular demand for more education funding and more government spending on it. There are too many examples of the government acting against corporate interests to say that we are ruled by monied interests.

But even if the government was a slave to big money, it still wouldn't be a dictatorship. The people could have elected Ralph Nader had they so chose. In 2 years from now if they are upset about things GWB has done, they could elect a liberal President or even the Green party candidate if they so chose. The fact that we have that option, combined with Congress having power independent of the President, means we aren't a dictatorship.

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 05:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yawn... again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word dictatorship... which is strange, because you have first hand experience with one. sad...

Your argument is based on incorrect assumptions... so obviously your conclusions are just as incorrect.

Enough with your silly troll... again, try to be original next time...

Saddam may be addicted to WoMD, but you seem addicted to Ad Hominems

Continuing the original intent of the thread....

HershOstropoler · December 20, 2002, 05:22

Dictatorship is the wrong term. But it's on track for a sort of authoritarian plutocracy while maintaining a democratic facade. The question is whether this trend will be reversed or not; I'm pessimistic about that, but often I'm too pessimistic....

Ming · December 20, 2002, 05:24

Let's see... using your logic... Most European countries are also dictatorships. When they form a government, they must have a majority. And they were elected too..

See... dictatorships everywhere. While you may claim that those governments can call a vote of no confidence... we have the same... they just happen on a regular schedule, they are called elections.

So please don't base your argument that since one party has a majority, we are a dictatorship... The Euros do exactly that by joining forces with other parties to get a majority.

Shi Huangdi · December 20, 2002, 05:25

"Cut with all this bull, ming. It's unbecoming of you."

I would say this crap is unbecoming of you, but I don't expect anything better from the likes of you.

"So? People have "elected" dictatorships before."

Elections are still scheduled, and we could vote in a different government in two years should we choose.

"So far the Republican party (with the exception of Lott) has shown remarkable party dicipline...And considering most of them agree on most issues, I think its pretty safe to assume they'll all vote in unity. "

The GOP does not have 60 Senate seats, meaning the Democrats can still filibuster legislation.

Even still, one party being in power does not a dictatorship make. If it did, then Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, etc. would all be dictatorships.

"I recommend you do the same. And next time, cut with the Ad Hominems. "

You deserve the Ad Hominems given the complete stupidity of your assertations.

Nubclear · December 20, 2002, 05:29

Quote:

So please don't base your argument that since one party has a majority, we are a dictatorship... The Euros do exactly that by joining forces with other parties to get a majority.

(Also, ming read the posts. Thats not the SOLE reason...)

Quote:

but I don't expect anything better from the likes of you.

Guilt by association debate fallacy? Yep...

Quote:

Elections are still scheduled, and we could vote in a different government in two years should we choose.

Thats irrelevant. Dictatorships can still be voted in.

Quote:

The GOP does not have 60 Senate seats, meaning the Democrats can still filibuster legislation.

The democrats aren't all there, you and I know that completly

They tend to jump ship when its politically in the favor of jumping ship.

Quote:

You deserve the Ad Hominems given the complete stupidity of your assertations.

So if someone disagrees with you, the debate deserves to be completly corrupted by fallacious arguements? Wow....

Shi Huangdi · December 20, 2002, 05:39

"

(Also, ming read the posts. Thats not the SOLE reason...)"

It's not a valid reason at all.

"Thats irrelevant. Dictatorships can still be voted in."

Correct, but a dictatorship can not be voted out. We can still throw out our leaders if we don't like them.

"The democrats aren't all there, you and I know that completly

They tend to jump ship when its politically in the favor of jumping ship."

Right, when the people want them to cooperate they tend to. But the Dems held up plenty of legislation and judicial appointments when they held power over the Senate. They still have power with the filibuster to oppose the President's goals, thus another way showing how GWB is not absolute.

"So if someone disagrees with you, the debate deserves to be completly corrupted by fallacious arguements? Wow...."

No. If the person who disagrees with you is being reasonable and bringing up valid points, civility is owned. If it someone who makes a rediculous thread like you have, you deserve what you get.

I logged on because I couldn't fall asleep, it's 4:40 AM so I am going to try to crash again....... Ming if you feel like wasting even more time trying to talk sense to this bozo have fun..........