While the Patriot Act debate rages in Congress and here at Dkos, I thought I would attempt some context for this debate and characterize that policy simply as fascist and a total abrogation of the Constitution. A slow coup if you will.
I have been criticized, usually by Bush-complicit DLC types, for my use of words like "fascist" and "nazi" when describing Bush and Republicans in general.
Of course, I think they deserve to be called that and worse and that goes for DLC Democrats as well who have taken part in this disgusting descent into oligarchic power centralization almost as much as the despicable Republicans: that characterization of them would be accurate by just by looking at the criminal Holy Drug Inquisition alone which occurred after alcohol Prohibition failed due to a citizen insurgency.
One doesn't even need to discuss the numerous war crimes committed by Bush and his multinationalist shills to deserve much worse characterizations. I think "The Beast" would be gentle for these ilk and Constitution-destroyers.
So why not use words like nazi, oligarchy, autocracy, fascist, whatever to describe what these multinationalist, centralized-business shills commit against America's populace for profit maximization? For political expediency? That's crap.
I say that rhetoric for political expediency is the Democrat rank-and-file's greatest weakness: if you call them as they are and not dilute, regular people will respect you for it if you do. Just look to John Kerry's failed campaign in the face of an idiot president for evidence of the public's annoyance at calculated rhetoric.
So, I address this diary to those who criticize such word usage: please speak up and tell me why plant prohibitions alone, of any kind, except on chemicalized substances maybe, shouldn't be called Nazism or Fascism?
Should political expediency dictate whether this is called a fascist sin against the Constitution as well as against God's law, that man was given EVERY seed-bearing plant?