>>> Do we really need the Hitler analogies? What's wrong
>>> with these people?
>
>> Leigh:
>> Nothing.
>
> fascism analogies do not help, especially because there are a lot of
> things that distinguish Bushism from fascism (not to mention Nazism).
> And there are a lof of people (like those my parents' age) who think
> they know what fascism was. And they'll tell you Bushism isn't it...
>
> why not stick with the specifics of what Bushism entails -- and let
> people draw their own conclusions?
>
> here are the top definitions that a web-search produces for the word
> "fascism" (from
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&oi=defmore&q=define:Fascism):
>
Yes, perhaps it is counterproductive to use loaded terms like fascist, ... but there's still nothing wrong with the people who claim it's true ;>
[Old slogan: If you aren't enraged, you aren't paying attention...]
Calling them fascists is a reasonable fascimile of "showing rage".
Personally, I'm not sure that attempting to specify *exactly* what to call the bush admin's brand of... not-fascism is, but I suspect that calling them "Pinochetinistas" or some such would just add further to the confusion... and they(the bush admin) thrive on confusion... Nay! They depend on it.
So let's just call a spade a spade, and let the cards fall where they may.
Leigh www.leighm.net