How close to being a fascist nation is the USA?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Considering the sheer size and social penetration of its police and imprisonment apparatus, the United States is not only a police state, but the biggest police state in the world, by far: the police state against whose dimensions all other police systems on Earth must be measured.

I think the last interaction I had with a police officer was in early 2007. Definitely the police state of all time...

As for China....you might have glossed over their tendency towards quick executions.

[SkydiveJonathan 0]

China is 87th in the world in the proportion of its people who are imprisoned. China is a billion people bigger than the United States – more than four times the population – yet U.S. prisons house in excess of 600,000 more people than China does. The Chinese prison population is just 70 percent of the American Gulag. That’s quite interesting because, non-whites make up about 70 percent of U.S. prisons. That means, the Black, brown, yellow and red populations of U.S. prisons number roughly the same as all of China’s incarcerated persons. Let me emphasize that: The American People of Color Gulag is as large as the entire prison population of China, a country of nearly 1.4 billion people.

[Andy9o8 2]

Plagiarist (aside from your Tourette's).

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&cp=78&gs_id=8&xhr=t&q=China+is+87th+in+the+world+in+the+proportion+of+its+people+who+are+imprisoned.&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=China+is+87th+in+the+world+in+the+proportion+of+its+people+who+are+imprisoned.&gs_l=&pbx=1&changed_loc=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=bf6e48daa2067ce4&biw=1024&bih=565

[SkydiveJonathan 0]

That's a pretty impressive police state you've got there.

[champu 1]

Quote

How close to being a fascist nation is the USA?

My problem with people trying to argue that something is accurately described by a succinct but overly general pejorative (in your case you even went on to list 14 largely unrelated things attributed to fascists) is that the writer usually wants to change something to address a very specific interpretation of the word. If he or she is successful in convincing people that the epithet is appropriate in some interpretation, they go on to argue their suggestion for change is suitable, regardless of whether that change has anything to do with the original discussion.

So, who cares if we're "fascists" any more than if we're "meanie doo-doo heads?" If you want to argue that unions need more power because people wave flags too much then just own that shitty argument.

[Skyrad 0]

If I did I would. You may have missed the question mark in the thread title.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[champu 1]

Quote

If I did I would. You may have missed the question mark in the thread title.

I don't mean to suggest you've made or would make that particular argument, or even that they're aren't good arguments to be made, I'm just skeptical of ill or broadly defined labels for things. I'm just posing the, "so what / who cares / what are you really asking?" question.