Dictatorship Anyone?

[Iaintliein]

The pattern becomes clearer every week.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...s-preparedness

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The pattern becomes clearer every week.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...s-preparedness

Hitler became a dictator partly because the Reichstag fire was used to give him the ability to rule by decree. I'm not sure where we are on the slippery slope to fascism, but I'm sure Obama would like nothing better than to use a national security threat to suspend elections and rule by decree (or executive order) like Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

[WTF]

All rulers would like to rule how they see fit. What is yalls point? That Obama is Hitler? Some thought Georgie boy was acting like Hitler....just depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on I suppose

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by WTF

All rulers would like to rule how they see fit. What is yalls point? That Obama is Hitler? Some thought Georgie boy was acting like Hitler....just depends on what side of the fince you are sitting on I suppose

What were the most invasive, anti-personal freedom laws past in recent US history? Oh, that's right, the Patiot Act. Who was president then? Remind me.

Some day it will come to light what earlier proposed recommended statutes in the PA looked like--as proposed by the Chaney/Rove White House. Then some people should be seriously scared.

Almost any politician rides a thin line between despotic thoughts and trying to do what they actually believe is right. It isn't a trait exclusive to any party, any country, or any ideology.

[JD Barleycorn]

Let me respond to the foolish words of WTF; the reason that the name Hitler comes up in political discussions is NOT because anyone is accusing someone of being Hitler it is because of all the despots in that era (Stalin, Franco, Hirohito, and Mussolini being the most notable) only Hitler was elected to power. That is the huge question for historians and political science people. How did that man get to be head of the same democratic nation that birthed Beethoven, Kant, Martin Luther, and Weber. The name is Hitler is invoked in these discussions because he manipulated a dignified, intelligent population into letting him drag all the countries into war killing millions. That is why so many books have been written on the man. Trying to explain is the reason.

The question is about a dictatorship in the United States. Could it happen? Would we let it happen? Could we be manipulated into allowing it to happen incrementally? I think it could happen if we are not careful. In 1931 William Randolph Hearst helped produce a movie called "Gabriel Over the Whitehouse". In the depths of the Great Depression people felt helpless. The movie depicts a playboy, a party man, a corrupt man who becomes president by promising good times for everyone. He is fatally injured on inaugeration night in a car wreck in which he was driving. At the hospital where he lay dying a breeze blows the curtain aside. Suddenly the president is stronger, more alert, and getting out of his death bed. He casts aside all of his corrupt advisors, pushes his mistress aside, and begins recruiting incorruptable men. As president he announces that he WILL fix the problems of the country. He goes into the street and meets with the unemployed men picketing the White House. These thousands of man he recruits into a an army of the unemployed. They will work for the government and draw military wages for doing their jobs. The president declares war on organized crime blaming them for much of the nation's ills. This war means firepower, a federal military war on organized crime members. This war was brought about a gangster's attempted assassination plot. The president goes to Congress and demands that they give him the power of a dictator. In 1931 the word dictator was not such a bad word. He gave the Congress a choice; legally give him the sole power in the US or he would declare martial law and send them packing anyway. The same went for the Supreme Court. He got what he wanted. Criminals were executed after a military trial. Companies were forced to hire at a loss. High wages were pushed down to a "fair" level so more could be hired. On foreign policy the president called all the leaders of the major nations together in Washington DC. He told them that they owed the US money from World War I and they would now repay that money by either gold or resources. They balked. The president order them to watch the bay and a battleship at anchor. Planes came over and sank the ship very quickly. The president said that would rebuild the US military around air power and any country that would declare war on their neighbors would feel the brunt of that air power(think drones). The president also said that these countries would now start paying their debts or else. In fear the other leaders decided to sign a treaty agreeing to no more war and the US as the universal world sheriff. After the signing the president died with his job complete.

The important take away from this is that the country was not opposed to a dictator if they thought he would solve all the problems. So, could this country accept a dictator? Yes, I think many would if they thought they would profit from it or get a pay back from it.

As for Old T's comments; Cheney is spelled Cheney, Rove was a political guy and not a policy guy. The Patriot Act was passed with bipartisan support twice but the first time it was proposed was in 1995 by Joe Biden when Bill Clinton was the president. Does that make you happy knowing that it was a democrat behind the Patriot Act? Joe Biden took credit for act when passed in 2001.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Let me respond to the foolish words of WTF; .

.

Foolish to a fool...

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The name is Hitler is invoked in these discussions because he manipulated a dignified, intelligent population into letting him drag all the countries into war killing millions. That is why so many books have been written on the man. Trying to explain is the reason.

.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As for Old T's comments; Cheney is spelled Cheney, Ah, +1 for you. I will indeed lose a spelling contest with almost anyone over the age of 5. And to many under 5 as well. A known flaw. Rove was a political guy and not a policy guy. You, sir, clearly never spent a lot of time behind the curtains in DC. He was not an "official" policy guy, but his foul hands touched many, many things. He is probably the sleaziest politically related person I have seen up close in four decades of people watching in DC. I actually didn't think GWBush was a bad person, just a weak one who allowed Cheney, Rove, and a few others to usurp his presidency. And I actually admire Bush #1. The Patriot Act was passed with bipartisan support twice but the first time it was proposed was in 1995 by Joe Biden when Bill Clinton was the president. Does that make you happy knowing that it was a democrat behind the Patriot Act? I have never been a Democrat, and the version of the law passed post 9/11 was not the same law proposed in the mid 90s. Some aspects were the same, many were not. I truly don't give a damn about REP vs DEM, and if you read most my political posts I wish for a plague on both their houses. My point was not anti-REP for I don't consider them as a group to be any better or worse than the DEMs--but on this board the large majority are very pro-REP so I tend to be a contrarian and point out that both parties have their rotten apples.

.

[JD Barleycorn]

Ummm, I think you kind of made my point even if it was a bit off topic. The population can be manipulated by charlatans. Maybe I should say "bamboozzled".

Here is what worries me about Obama (and you can call them parallels); people who support Obama tend to ignore all of his shortcomings (don't tell me that he doesn't have any), they tend to nearly deify him, they swear their alligence to him (like the SS did to Hitler), they have put his face on a US flag which is more alligence swearing. (remember the video of a Kansas City high school class marching in uniform and they did swear alligence to Barack Obama), Obama escapes any and all blame by blaming someone else. I would hope that we elect men (and women someday) who are real people that make mistakes (hopefully few) and take the heat for those mistakes (like Harry Truman).

You posted when I was writing this; I never called you a democrat, I asked if you were happy. As for slimey, you've never met James Carville, I have. That is a slimey dude.

[CuteOldGuy]

Well said, Old-T.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Ummm, I think you kind of made my point even if it was a bit off topic. The population can be manipulated by charlatans. Maybe I should say "bamboozzled".
Agree. And charlatans come in all flavors of the political spectrum. A sad but humerous read is the alcohol induced bamboozzeling in the davie Crocket stuming for Congress in the early 1800s. Not saying he did worse than others (he didn't), but the norm was "We vote for the guy who gives us the most free whiskey, and we're too sloshed to know whathe really said." At least bambozzling was more up front back then!

You posted when I was writing this; I never called you a democrat, I asked if you were happy. As for slimey, you've never met James Carville, I have. That is a slimey dude.
Met him; don't know him well at all, but I'd agree with your assessment. Tough choice between two bad options. But Rove (maybe because I saw more of him) would come out a little father down on the whale dung scale for me.

.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Let me respond to the foolish words of WTF; the reason that the name Hitler comes up in political discussions is NOT because anyone is accusing someone of being Hitler it is because of all the despots in that era (Stalin, Franco, Hirohito, and Mussolini being the most notable) only Hitler was elected to power. That is the huge question for historians and political science people. How did that man get to be head of the same democratic nation that birthed Beethoven, Kant, Martin Luther, and Weber. The name is Hitler is invoked in these discussions because he manipulated a dignified, intelligent population into letting him drag all the countries into war killing millions. That is why so many books have been written on the man. Trying to explain is the reason.

The question is about a dictatorship in the United States. Could it happen? Would we let it happen? Could we be manipulated into allowing it to happen incrementally? I think it could happen if we are not careful. In 1931 William Randolph Hearst helped produce a movie called "Gabriel Over the Whitehouse". In the depths of the Great Depression people felt helpless. The movie depicts a playboy, a party man, a corrupt man who becomes president by promising good times for everyone. He is fatally injured on inaugeration night in a car wreck in which he was driving. At the hospital where he lay dying a breeze blows the curtain aside. Suddenly the president is stronger, more alert, and getting out of his death bed. He casts aside all of his corrupt advisors, pushes his mistress aside, and begins recruiting incorruptable men. As president he announces that he WILL fix the problems of the country. He goes into the street and meets with the unemployed men picketing the White House. These thousands of man he recruits into a an army of the unemployed. They will work for the government and draw military wages for doing their jobs. The president declares war on organized crime blaming them for much of the nation's ills. This war means firepower, a federal military war on organized crime members. This war was brought about a gangster's attempted assassination plot. The president goes to Congress and demands that they give him the power of a dictator. In 1931 the word dictator was not such a bad word. He gave the Congress a choice; legally give him the sole power in the US or he would declare martial law and send them packing anyway. The same went for the Supreme Court. He got what he wanted. Criminals were executed after a military trial. Companies were forced to hire at a loss. High wages were pushed down to a "fair" level so more could be hired. On foreign policy the president called all the leaders of the major nations together in Washington DC. He told them that they owed the US money from World War I and they would now repay that money by either gold or resources. They balked. The president order them to watch the bay and a battleship at anchor. Planes came over and sank the ship very quickly. The president said that would rebuild the US military around air power and any country that would declare war on their neighbors would feel the brunt of that air power(think drones). The president also said that these countries would now start paying their debts or else. In fear the other leaders decided to sign a treaty agreeing to no more war and the US as the universal world sheriff. After the signing the president died with his job complete.

The important take away from this is that the country was not opposed to a dictator if they thought he would solve all the problems. So, could this country accept a dictator? Yes, I think many would if they thought they would profit from it or get a pay back from it.

As for Old T's comments; Cheney is spelled Cheney, Rove was a political guy and not a policy guy. The Patriot Act was passed with bipartisan support twice but the first time it was proposed was in 1995 by Joe Biden when Bill Clinton was the president. Does that make you happy knowing that it was a democrat behind the Patriot Act? Joe Biden took credit for act when passed in 2001.

The left loves dictators as long as they're left wing dictators. Before WWII Mussolini (a life long socialist) was loved by the left in America. He was viewed as a great leader that could get things done. Cole Porter wrote a popular song called "You're the Top" which celebrated Mussolini.

You’re the top! You’re the Great Houdini!
You’re the top! You are Mussolini.

The lyrics were rewritten, removing the Mussolini line, a few years later when we went to war against the axis powers.

The American left is still in love with leftist dictators, for instance Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez. So why not an American leftist dictator? Why would we assume that the left in America would find that unacceptable? I don't assume it at all.


http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/ar...WY3Mjk3NzUwMDc=

[joseph033]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Let me respond to the foolish words of WTF; the reason that the name Hitler comes up in political discussions is NOT because anyone is accusing someone of being Hitler it is because of all the despots in that era (Stalin, Franco, Hirohito, and Mussolini being the most notable) only Hitler was elected to power. That is the huge question for historians and political science people. How did that man get to be head of the same democratic nation that birthed Beethoven, Kant, Martin Luther, and Weber. The name is Hitler is invoked in these discussions because he manipulated a dignified, intelligent population into letting him drag all the countries into war killing millions. That is why so many books have been written on the man. Trying to explain is the reason.

The question is about a dictatorship in the United States. Could it happen? Would we let it happen? Could we be manipulated into allowing it to happen incrementally? I think it could happen if we are not careful. In 1931 William Randolph Hearst helped produce a movie called "Gabriel Over the Whitehouse". In the depths of the Great Depression people felt helpless. The movie depicts a playboy, a party man, a corrupt man who becomes president by promising good times for everyone. He is fatally injured on inaugeration night in a car wreck in which he was driving. At the hospital where he lay dying a breeze blows the curtain aside. Suddenly the president is stronger, more alert, and getting out of his death bed. He casts aside all of his corrupt advisors, pushes his mistress aside, and begins recruiting incorruptable men. As president he announces that he WILL fix the problems of the country. He goes into the street and meets with the unemployed men picketing the White House. These thousands of man he recruits into a an army of the unemployed. They will work for the government and draw military wages for doing their jobs. The president declares war on organized crime blaming them for much of the nation's ills. This war means firepower, a federal military war on organized crime members. This war was brought about a gangster's attempted assassination plot. The president goes to Congress and demands that they give him the power of a dictator. In 1931 the word dictator was not such a bad word. He gave the Congress a choice; legally give him the sole power in the US or he would declare martial law and send them packing anyway. The same went for the Supreme Court. He got what he wanted. Criminals were executed after a military trial. Companies were forced to hire at a loss. High wages were pushed down to a "fair" level so more could be hired. On foreign policy the president called all the leaders of the major nations together in Washington DC. He told them that they owed the US money from World War I and they would now repay that money by either gold or resources. They balked. The president order them to watch the bay and a battleship at anchor. Planes came over and sank the ship very quickly. The president said that would rebuild the US military around air power and any country that would declare war on their neighbors would feel the brunt of that air power(think drones). The president also said that these countries would now start paying their debts or else. In fear the other leaders decided to sign a treaty agreeing to no more war and the US as the universal world sheriff. After the signing the president died with his job complete.

The important take away from this is that the country was not opposed to a dictator if they thought he would solve all the problems. So, could this country accept a dictator? Yes, I think many would if they thought they would profit from it or get a pay back from it.

As for Old T's comments; Cheney is spelled Cheney, Rove was a political guy and not a policy guy. The Patriot Act was passed with bipartisan support twice but the first time it was proposed was in 1995 by Joe Biden when Bill Clinton was the president. Does that make you happy knowing that it was a democrat behind the Patriot Act? Joe Biden took credit for act when passed in 2001.

Just a minor correction is needed here. Hitler was never elected to anything. Due to the nature of the electoral process in the Reichstag the Nazis were able to gain sufficient numbers in the legislative body to prevent any action. They never won a majority, but they did win high enough numbers to gum up the works. In the Weimar Republic you didn't vote for candidates, you voted for lists of candidates put forth by the various political parties, the National Socialist German Workers' Party was one of these. The percentage of the vote that a particular list received in the election was the percentage of candidates from that list who received seats in the Reichstag. Right now I can't find the exact numbers, but the Nazis won around a quarter of the total seats in the Reichstag, enough to prevent any legislation. They agreed to end the deadlock if President Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor. He then received plenary powers when the Enabling Act was passed following the Reichstag Fire in 1933. So the Nazis won several elections to obtain a plurality in the Reichstag, but Hitler himself never won any elective office. In fact, Hitler did run against Hindenburg for President in 1932 and lost, only obtaining 37% of the vote to Hindenburg's 53%. Hitler's Thirty Days To Power by Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. is a wonderful history of Hitler's rise to power for any who are interested.

[JD Barleycorn]

Okay, I stand corrected. It is true that the parliamentary system put Hitler in office including the acquiescence of President Hindenberg. Normally laymen are not aware of this so have learned to compress things into something easier to understand but technically inaccurate. As I said in another post a day ago in a thread about parliaments versus republics, Hitler put together a collection of factions that allowed him to be selected (elected) as Chancellor by the members of the Reichstag. He went to Paul Von Hinderberg (as does the winner of the #10 Downing lottery) and submitted his request to be Chancellor. It is a formally usually but in this case some thought had to be given considering what Hitler represented. Those in authority were of the opinion that this "Bohemian Corporal" could be controlled with parliamentary rules. The Reichstag fire changed everything. Think US Capital building. It gets burned to the ground and they find a radical militia member (right wing in this case) who confesses to the crime and implies more is coming. Hitler demanded that they grant him the power to deal with this terrible situation. Ten to fifteen years earlier the "Freikorps" roamed Germany brutually enforcing their rules on the population and the Weimar Republic was pretty much powerless to stop them. The Freikorps consisted of ex-soldiers, criminals, and thugs were in some ways like minor warlords. They could occupy a town or area and take what they wanted. Hitler appealed to the people that this was about to come back unless he had the power to stop the communists whom the blamed the Reichstag fire on. Once the Reichstag gave Hitler what he wanted there was little to stop him as they did not have a powerful constitution limiting government.
Still, it begs the question...how did someone like Hitler assume power in accordance with the rules right up to the point of becoming the Hitler we all learned about. Even Mussolino by-passed the representative process by marching on Rome and asking for King Victor Emmanuel III to give him the power taken from the rightful prime minister Luigi Facta. So Hitler followed the rules which makes him an interesting study.

[joseph033]

Hitler's rise to power is indeed a fascinating area of study, and volumes have been written to explain it. I'm not at all familiar with Mussolini, but I can say that an argument can be made that Stalin's rise to power was also in accordance with the rules. We must remember that Stalin never held a government post. He was made General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party by Lenin in 1922. This was strictly a party post and nothing to do with the Soviet government other than the fact that the Bolsheviks had outlawed other parties and intensely loyal members of the communist party held government positions at every level in overwhelming majorities, so when the party leadership directed, the government acted, and they acted precisely as directed. But General Secretary was not really a position of leadership within the party's power structure, it was really just a glorified secretary or bookkeeper. This is why Lenin put him in this position; he didn't trust Stalin and therefore did not put him in a position of power. After Lenin's death Stalin pitted opponents against each other, e.g. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, et. al. and seemingly from the sidelines removed all opposition, leaving himself as the most powerful person within the party. Of course the Great Purge also further removed opposition, but this was after he had consolidated his power. In this way the office of General Secretary became what is was, the de facto leader of the Soviet Union, but the de jure leader of the country was always the various pieces of the government apparatus. Please forgive me for the long windedness here, but I also find the rise of power for the CPSU to be a fascinating field of study. Please also forgive me for more book recommendations, but A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End by Peter Kenez is excellent.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

.
Still, it begs the question...how did someone like Hitler assume power in accordance with the rules right up to the point of becoming the Hitler we all learned about. Even Mussolino by-passed the representative process by marching on Rome and asking for King Victor Emmanuel III to give him the power taken from the rightful prime minister Luigi Facta. So Hitler followed the rules which makes him an interesting study.

This is how they do it:

Originally Posted by WTF

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Same way our vast industrial military complex can get you to support spending what the rest of the world does combined on Defense.


Right now our present boogie man is Iran. McCain wants to go at a proxy war with them in Syria.

People like you bitch and moan about spending, yet mention cutting Defense and you righties/Tea Party cry foul!

It is the damnest thing I have ever seen.