If you could outlaw the Republican Party, as the German Nazis, would you?

[benburch]

Poll question: If you could outlaw the Republican Party, as the German Nazis, would you?

After WW-II the Nazi Party and all of its symbols and uniforms were outlawed in Germany.

Once we have taken back the United States from these traitors, and tried and punished their leaders, should the GOP be similarly outlawed?

[DanCa]

1. The religious right as a lobby group perhaps(nt)

[stevietheman]

2. I voted Other. If Bush attacks Iran (unjustifiably), then the GOP...

crosses the line to becoming a NeoNazi party. Then, at that point, I will agree it should be outlawed.

[Acebass]

3. A balance of power is needed and all sides must be heard...

The current administration is more related to the old whig party as conservative Republican...
Wew need a balance in our congress. Our problems now stem from one party rule...

[BlueCollar]

4. yes

the republican party and their supporters are bigots and hypocrites.

If it were within my power, I would call them to task and make them pay for what they have done...

[Union Thug]

5. I voted Other...

Because while I don't think any political party should be banned, I do believe that we should legislate the separation of speech and capital. I suppose the death of this key artery of the American system could potentially destroy the Republican party (and components of the Democratic party as well), but then let them die. It's quite a different thing to 'ban' a party.

[Touchdown]

6. They'll just make a new party.

There is no escaping those who think they're better than everybody else, and they will never stop trying to impose that belief.

It'd be useless.

[Bobbieo]

7. Outlaw the Republican Party?

No, I favor a strong 2 party system for checks and balances in government. Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel that it is the way it used to be before Dubya came on the scene.

[Roland99]

19. I'd prefer a Parliamentary style gov't first. Otherwise, ban the neocons

they are the true dangers.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. I would, but I'm not sure it would help

The fact is ther's too many mean-spirited shitheels in the US. They'll just join another party-maybe it'll be the dog-kicker party or the kitten-torturer party or the wife-beater party, but unfortunately they won't go away.

[Poiuyt]

9. No. One party rule leads to corruption

[benburch]

13. Assume for the moment that the Libertarians take over the opposition.

I'm not advocating either position, BTW, I am just curious how people think about this issue.

[Selatius]

17. Then Big Business will buy out Libertarians like they did Republicans

Your problem stems not from the Republican Party itself but from Big Business. All you've done is burn the flag of the Republicans. You addressed a symptom, not the problem itself. When you want to start addressing the problem itself, then you are getting into a tricky position because you are messing with powerful people. You're messing with the captains of industry. When you say you have a problem with these people, what you're really saying is you have a problem with corporate capitalism.

[benburch]

23. Perhaps eventually.

But the LP members I know seem to be dead set on certain things like no corporate welfare that Big Biz would HATE.

[C_U_L8R]

10. Lobbying and Corruption

Our representives need to be beholden to the people. Period.
If business benefits .. then great. But right now ...Washington
is so bought and paid for by corporate patrons that NO ONE's
best interest is served. Cut the corruption... jail the offenders.

[Selatius]

11. No. Freedom of speech prevents such an abolition.

The Bill of Rights is what prevented the government in the US from outlawing, of all things, the Nazi salute. In Germany, they did outlaw it. I may not agree with Republicans, Communists, members of the National Socialist Party, and so on and so forth, but I would defend their right to express themselves.

If we ban everything relating to the Republicans, what's to say in 60 more years another authoritarian Democrat like Woodrow Wilson comes to power? Are you going to ban the Democratic Party too? What's to stop Republicans from simply changing their names and keeping all the same old ideas from before?

[benburch]

15. We did it to the officers of the Confederacy.

And that passed Constitutional muster at the time.

(I tend to agree with you though.)

[tom_paine]

44. I agree and I voted NO

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

If America finishes losing it's freedom, then it's because we collectively deserved it for any number of reasons I won't go into here.

By using the Bushevik (and worse) mechanisms of tyranny to advance freedom, we would be killing off what we are trying to save.

[rzemanfl]

12. They can be Republicans, but each one has to have a probation

officer until 2050.

[Canuckistanian]

14. No. But these aren't your father's Republicans

They've been hijacked by the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid, racist, xenophobic, misogynist wing of the party.

And the old guard are quietly fuming.

I think that an opposition view is healthy for democracy.

But not this.

[Erika]

16. A party that undermines the Constitution, does away with civil

rights of Americans while bankrupting the country through imperialism should forfeit their right to be recognized as a legal party.

This is today's republican party.

[brentspeak]

18. Uh, ever heard of something called the "First Amendment"???

and the term, "freedom of assembly"?

The First Amendment also gives you the right to criticize the Republican Party to your heart's content. In fact, I take advantage of that right as much as I can.

However, if you feel it's better to repeal the First Amendment...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[benburch]

21. Again, not advocating it...

Just asking.

But how did putting bans on the Officers of The Confederacy as we did under Reconstruction jibe with the First Amendment? Seems it did somehow.

[brentspeak]

27. I don't know how Constitutional it was

It might have been justified on the grounds that, by nature, the Officers of The Confederacy was opposed to the existing U.S. Constitution. A party that explicitly claims it's non-allegiance to the United States of America might be considered to be outside Constitution protection because of its avowed, self-declared treason.

The Republicans may nowadays behave in a way that undermines our nation, but as long as they don't make a promise to overthrow the United States and usurp its Constitution, they are always protected under the First Amendment.

[brentspeak]

29. In addition...

and more to the point -- the banning of the Officers of the Confederacy might not have been much of a Constitutional crisis after all, because the First Amendment protects Americans' right of peaceful assembly, not proven, violent assembly.

[Charlie Brown]

41. I believe those were conditions for re-admission to the Union

many in Congress viewed the South as conquered territories, and its citizens surrogate people who were not subject to Constitutional Protections (and of course, there was no Fourteenth Amendment at this time). Most Southern States (excluding Tennessee, Andrew Johnson's home) were not readmitted until 1868-1870, at which time the "purging" of Confederates was supposed to have been completed.

It didn't work. Confederate Officers remained in positions of power, some by collaborating with Union forces (like Longstreet), and some by receiveing "pardons" from President Johnson, who as a Southerner, had a certain amount of sympathy.

In any case, the Confederacy was not a political party, it was an illegitimate government that tried to make war on the US. If anything, the Democrats were the party most-closely affiliated with Confederates, and I think we're all glad Congress (mostly Republican at this time) did not ban the Democratic Party.

[CTLawGuy]

50. Do you know what case that was?

that upheld the "banning" of Confederate officers. I'd like to read it.

Thanks :)

[unblock]

20. other: shut it down with rico, but permit a conservative party to re-form.

the existing power structure should be investigated and, if a legal case can be made that it's a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (which i believe it to be), then those responsible should be put in jail. at that point the name "republican" would become toxic.

those who aren't thrown in jail would be free to form a new party. quite frankly, this would probably be doing the republicans a huge favor in the long run.

one party rule is a recipe for disaster, we need AT LEAST two parties. however, there's no good reason that the banana republican party needs to be one of them.

[benburch]

22. RICO. Interesting idea.

There already is another conservative party to fill the vacuum, though.

[unblock]

36. i don't mind a honest conservative party

i would love it if we could have actual debate on left-right, conservative-liberal, business-consumer-worker politics.

there used to be people like that in the republican party, but ever since reagan & gingrich, it became a cult of loyalty and personality. or in shrub's case, loyalty and a lack or personality. :evilgrin:

[stepnw1f]

32. Definitely

The political body is held accountable, yet constructively.

[Zorra]

24. Republicans are, essentially, terrorists. They are an organized,

ongoing threat to our democracy, our civil liberties, and our national security. I would say that they are just as much a threat to the people of the US as the Nazis were to the German people in the 1930's.

Rather than outlaw the party, it would be best to bring to justice all those republicans that have been instrumental in giving control of our government over to private interests, instrumental in subverting our voting process, have engaged in election fraud, have engaged in corrupt practices for political and monetary gain, and have orchestrated the war in Iraq. (Not to mention those that have conspired to leak sensitive classified information for political gain).

All political and judicial appointments made by republicans, including Supreme Court appointments, would have to be declared moot by an act of Congress, and by Presidential decree based on the fact that they are a part of, and the product of, a terrorist organization.

At that point, I would hope that the republican party would attain pariah status, somewhere between the American Nazi party and the KKK, and would remain an insignificant force far into the future.

[Erika]

26. Republicans should be held responsible for backing W

who clearly is decimating America from constitutional rights to women's rights, mismanaging the deficit, and involving our troops in immoral and unjustified wars.

Why should they be allowed to exist as a party?

[Zorra]

34. Is there any party or organization that is outlawed in the US?

The KKK and the American Nazi Party are not illegal. I'm not even sure if al Qaeda is illegal.

Outlawing a party smacks of despotism to me. It does not jive with my democratic idea of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

In my previous post I believe I expressed my belief that the republican criminals should be held accountable for their actions. I believe that the party will cease to exist, for all practical purposes, if the full scope of republican terrorism is brought to light in a Nuremberg type of tribunal.

Then again, you may be right. Republicans are, in reality, an imminent threat and a clear and present danger not only to the US, but to everything that lives on this plasnet

[Warren DeMontague]

25. No. That's how they operate, not us. All we need is our voices to be heard

our votes to be counted, and our leaders to have the guts to take REAL stands--- and we'll win at least MOST of the time.

What we need is not to silence anyone, our "outlaw" anything- rather, we need to bring back the fairness doctrine and the rules regarding media ownership that were eviscerated during the Reagan years, so that there can be a REAL adversarial press again in this country (oh, I know, there is one- when a Democrat gets a blow job) ... our ideas are better, our positions on the issues match those of a majority of Americans (most Americans are pro-choice, for instance, but you wouldn't know that from watching FOX News) and our people, for the most part, are more dedicated, more honest, smarter, and more capable. The only reason the other guys are in charge is because they've stolen the votes of half the country and brainwashed the other half.

People who have broken the law should, clearly, be punished- but the best antidote to this current darkness is sunshine- and lots of it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. HELL YES. Keep the 2 party system...Democratic and Green

works for me.

Just tonight, I watched the movie "Downfall" which is about the last 10 days of Hitler's Regime (EXCELLENT FILM!) and the parallels between Hitler's regime and Bush's regime, are STARK! Watch the movie. The 2 are so much alike it's frightening. I kept thinking, "Are we really letting this happen again AFTER we've been warned by the German people?" We've all seen the 14 points of Fascism...we're there.

The repukes have chosen to destroy the Constitution, start illegal wars, to spy on American citizens and murder innocent people. They had a choice to live by the laws of the land and chose instead to support a fascist regime. I see them as traitors for voting repuke. The repuke party should be outlawed....NEVER to exist again.

[Erika]

30. Bush supporters are traitors

or very dumb Americans. Either way, the Republicans should not be considered as a loyal party. They've enabled the dismantling of our very constitution.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Absolutely not...

even though the present Republican Party has been hijacked by neocons, theocrats and other crazies, it still doesn't come close to what the Nazis were.

We don't outlaw political parties here-- we outlaw those who use the parties to commit crimes.

[LostInAnomie]

33. The bigots and religious fanatics would just find another party...

... to go join.

The GOP is just the banner they are under for the time being.

[Ignacio Upton]

35. No

As much as I hate the GOP, I believe in right of association. I won't violate the First Amendment like they have.

[PatrioticLeftie]

37. I would not

Because that would mean one party. And history has taught us time and time again that one party governments are not the ideal. They have a nasty habit of garnering too much power, much like today.

[Speck Tater]

38. Ever see a bird try to soar with no right wing?

It's the dynamic tension, the give and take, the balance that keeps our country vital and healthy. When one side, either side, gets too much power, as the Repubs now have, it all goes to pot.

My worst nightmare is a one-party Republican nation.
My second worst nightmare is a one-party Democratic nation.

[LearnedHand]

39. No. They have every right to exist and be heard.

But I'd SURE as hell enforce tax laws for churches that are involved in ANY politicking for candidates..

[Charlie Brown]

40. Certainly not

Liberals do not support banning opposition parties in a democracy.

Unless you want the "liberal" parties to be banned when conservatives are in power, this is not something anyone on our side should be pondering.

Freedom of speech and association, means freedom for EVERYONE.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

42. Eliminate corporate "personhood"

Via constitutional amendment.

Down with the rule of the immortals!




Conversation Radio With A Southern Exposure
www.whiterosesociety.org/Kincaid.html
www.headonradio.com
M-F, 7-10 p.m., EDT

[benburch]

45. Absolutely.

And that includes RELIGIONS.

[jmowreader]

43. Yes, definitely.

I think a conservative party is a good thing.

I think THIS conservative party is an abomination. Their leadership is, at this very instant, discussing the option of beginning a war in Iran with nuclear weapons.

Abolish this Republican Party. Bar its leadership from any future participation in politics.

A conservative party will eventually form. It just can't have any remnants of the current one.

[RDU Socialist]

46. No, because that's what authoritarian regimes do

and I believe that people have a right to form whatever party they want to, whether it's the American Communist Party, the American National Socialist Party, or (because they're actually two different parties) the American Nazi Party. You can outlaw party affiliation and political ideology as well as you can outlaw whether someone is anti-semitic or someone is anti-national healthcare.

The Republican Party's history is much less bad however than the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was the party which seceeded from the Union, started the Civil War, and executed Abraham Lincoln. The Republicans could have, and would have had a lot of support, outlawed the Democrats. They didn't, and slowly the roles have changed from the GOP being the party of the people, to the Democrats taking up that mantle.

Questions such as these make people on the left look as bad as the tyrants who run China, Cuba, Spain under Franco, Chile under Pinochet, and what America could have looked like if Joe McCarthy had achieved any kind of lasting power.

[brentspeak]

51. "The Democratic Party was that party which..executed Abraham Lincoln"????

And the party which "seceeded from the Union, started the Civil War.."?

Er, what's your source for all this? "The History of The United States", by Newt Gingrich? Pravda? The Cartoon Network?

:freak:

[RDU Socialist]

56. John Wilkes Booth was a democrat

Which party did John Calhoun belong to? Not the Whigs, they were abolitionist. He was a democrat advocating Secession for years before the Civil War.

What was the party affiliation of Jefferson Davis? Democrat.

The South was known as the "solid south" for Democrats for years because the Democratic Party was the one which, in the south, held onto the Civil War belief of the south being subjugated by the "awful" North. Harry Byrd (Democratic VA senator), Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were both Democrats before the Republican Party decided to make itself more friendly towards racists, and the list goes on and on. Learn some US History, Jesus.

[brentspeak]

60. Wow, that was very convincing

"John Wilkes Booth was a democrat". Where'd that come from? The Limbaugh Letter? Where's John Wilkes Booth's registration information, identifying him as a "Democrat"? Which Democratic candidates did he work for or pubicly endorse? What offices did this actor-turned-assassin run for?


:freak:

"What was the party affiliation of Jefferson Davis? Democrat"

So therefore, the Democrats started the Civil War. Makes sense to me. Although Sen. Stephen A. Douglass, leader of the anti-slavery Democrats, would probably be wondering what it was you're smoking.


"Which party did John Calhoun belong to? Not the Whigs, they were abolitionist. He was a democrat advocating Secession for years before the Civil War.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

James Calhoun was a Whig. He was notable in his time because was elected as a Whig in the mostly Democratic DeKalb County in Georgia. And the Whigs as a party were not abolitionist! (Where are you pulling this stuff from? Wait...I don't want to know.) They were split between anti-slavery and pro-slavery factions, and that destroyed their party. You didn't know that the last Whig president, Millard Fillmore, supported the continuation of slavery in the South?

[JohnKleeb]

61. John C. Calhoun not James Calhoun dude

John C. Calhoun was Andrew Jackson's biggest rival in the democratic party who supported nullification.By the way he was from South Carolina not Georgia. Don't take people's words out of context on purpose like that. The Whig Party was different from the newly formed Republican Party of 1856. Douglas wasn't anti slavery as a whole and definely not an aboltionist. He is the one who supported popular sovereignty. Let's be honest here and I say this as a person whose family roots in the Democratic Party go back to this time in US History all of the people who supported secession were either Conservative Whigs or Democrats. I don't have proof of Calhoun's political party identifcation but I assure you he was no Lincoln Republic. Did you knwo that the last two Democratic presidents before the war, Pierece and Bucahanan basically let the south secede by doing nothing about it. The whigs were as a party split on the slavery issue and the party died because of people like Lincoln, John C. Fremont who opposed any expansion of slavery. RDU Socialist knows more abotu this history than you do.

[brentspeak]

64. Who are you, his tag-team partner in posting?

"Don't take people's words out of context on purpose like that."

You think I got the first name wrong on purpose? Thanks for pointing out my mistake re. Calhoun. I admit, that was a big oversight on my part. John Calhoun was from S.Carolina, yes -- but we already know I misread and was talking about James Calhoun, so what's the "by the way" for?

But as far as this conversation is concerned, it's not really important because, as you admit, it's hard to say what political affiliation (if any) John C. Calhoun really was. He ran on both the Democratic-Republican ticket and the Democratic ticket, and wasn't really involved deeply in either party.

"Douglas wasn't abolitionist as a whole"

So, therefore, that supports the notion that it was the Democrats who started the Civil War.

:crazy:

Was he or was he not the leader of the anti-slavery Democrats? Yes or no? Lincoln himself wasn't abolitionist until it was clear that no compromise could be reached between the north and the south. He was pushing for the Corwin Amendment, which would have allowed slavery to continue in those states that already had it -- and this was after he was elected President. I assume you knew that...

"The whigs were as a party split on the slavery issue and the party died because of people like Lincoln, John C. Fremont who opposed any expansion of slavery. RDU Socialist knows more abotu this history than you do."

No, RDU Socialist didn't say that the whigs were split on the slavery issue -- I was the one who said that. He said they were "abolitionist". (But then you said he "knows more about this history than you do.")

"Let's be honest here and I say this as a person whose family roots in the Democratic Party go back to this time in US History all of the people who supported secession were either Conservative Whigs or Democrats."

Ah, well then maybe you can verify that John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat! You can't? Well, then why do you say RDU Socialist knows more about this history than I do?

[JohnKleeb]

65. tag team? no he's my friend I defend friends

The Democratic-Republican Party became pretty much obselte by the end of Jackson's day. The Democratic Party was offically formed in 1832 and thats when they had their first convention. I don't deny Lincoln wasn't abolitionist but he unlike Douglas was against the expansion of slavery to the territories. Douglas was yes personally anti slavery perhaps but he supported expanding it to the terrotories as long as the people there voted for it. You're right I have no proof that Booth was a Democrat but I'll ask you this, what proof do you have that he wasn't. I think it's funny you think he got his facts from Newt Gingrich because he criticized the right wing icon McCarthy and hero Pinochet in his original statement.

[brentspeak]

66. ???

"You're right I have no proof that Booth was a Democrat but I'll ask you this, what proof do you have that he wasn't."


:wow:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RDU Socialist]

68. JOHN Calhoun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun

posting this again without insulting the person (I'm assuming that's why this was deleted)

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

He was the DEMOCRAT Governor of South Carolina when it decided to secede (he also supported seceding during the nullification crisis in the 1830s).

Stop trying to make it seem like the OLD Democrats had nothing to do with secession, attacking Fort Sumter, or any of the atrocities that led to the Civil War.

[Neil Lisst]

47. No. That's wrong way thinking, IMHO.

[markus]

48. No. Instead prosecute its leadership under RICO

and confiscate their ill-gotten wealth. I would include just about any substantial contributor in that net.

[LoZoccolo]

49. How would you?

It's like trying to outlaw greed. The real problems here are things which can't be directly seen.

[Kellanved]

52. Which will do... what ?

American politics are even more about people than European politics. Banning a party does just about nothing, as the people stay around.

For that matter: so did the nazis in post war Germany. In the first Bundestag, the Nazis had an absolute majority of seats. But the Nazis sat there on conservative and liberal (!= American liberal) tickets.

[Slit Skirt]

53. well....at least ban the neocons

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

54. No.

[hedgehog]

55. Right now I wish there WAS a Republican Party!

I don't think there's much left of the party as it stood pre-Goldwater except for some Congressmen from Up-state New York and New England; old style Main Street Republicans. I'd never vote for them, but at least I respect them and know that they are honest and willing to listen and to compromise with the Democratic Congressmen to develop policies for the benefit of the entire country. .

[Cocoa]

57. hunt them down

I want to see Russ Feingold preside over a bloody reign of terror.

[arcos]

58. Wow... I wonder if DUers know what DEMOCRATIC means? nt

[mitchum]

59. Hell, I'm in favor of practicing Soviet style denazification on them

they richly deserve it

[Initech]

62. I'd just make it illegal for anyone with the name Bush from holding office

[Fountain79]

67. The fact that this is even a question....

Is just sad.