PDA

View Full Version : Fundamental "Tea Party" Fallacy


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


David Orange
02-06-2010, 09:45 AM
The "Tea Party" movement is a big, fun, nutsy way for white people to get up and show their anger at our first black president.

It may end up sinking the Republican party or it may suck it up and absorb it into some kind of huge right-wing crushing machine that will guarantee a dictatorship in the US in a very few years or it may just fade away into a weird memory that people will look back on and laugh (my bet). Certainly, it seems to have settled on Sarah Palin as its standard of all that is good and right, with no notice at all for how crooked she is or how little she cares about anyone but herself and her family. In other words, once again, people who are highly motivated by an image and a slogan and who lack the ability to notice that the results of the policies established by their standard bearers are exactly opposite the supposed meanings of the image and the slogans, are massing like Wal Mart shoppers on Black Friday morning to push America back to the 1950s, with no idea of the hell they are unleashing on themselves and their children and grandchildren and, just as tragically, on the world.

What is the fundamental fallacy of the "tea party" movement?

It's that all the problems they're shouting about now are the very things I have been shouting about and criticizing for many, many years now: the government is too big and has no ear for the citizens; unchecked spending is destroying our children's opportunities for the future; etc. The ONLY difference is that they are hopping mad about our first black president.

"Tea Party" supporters are the very people who consistently told me I was crazy, especially over the past eight years (the Bush years) when I complained about the things they are complaining about now. (except that we had no black president)

I have left trails of burning invective across the width and depth of the internet, warning of every single thing the Tea Party movement now decries except the black president. I'm sure aikiweb has a full archive of my warnings that Bush would put us into endless war and would drive the country into bankruptcy. And if you look back at all my warnings through those years, you will see many, many people telling me how stupid I was. But if you look at what happened, you will see that I was correct in virtually every detail.

And a little look around today will show you that many of those very people have now woken up to the threats that I described, but they have run back into the burning house and today is the day they sit in self-created hell, having a "tea party" with Sarah Palin as the keynote.

The only difference between the Tea Party's complaints and mine is: we now have a black president.

So now they're going through the roof and foaming at the mouth and bringing guns to Town Hall meetings and crying for Obama's birth certificate, willfully ignoring the fact that no matter where in the world you are born, if ONE of your parents is an American citizen, you are BORN an American citizen. So even if Obama were born in Kenya, he was born an American citizen because his mother was an American citizen.

These are the people who cheered while Bush drove the economy into the toilet and flushed it, and now they're screaming for the jobs the CEOs, coddled by Bush, destroyed in the years leading up to the big bailout of 2008. And they are criticizing Obama vehemently for the things Bush did to us: the things I pointed out and warned about for the full eight years of his "presidency". But the Tea Party tells us that Obama's one year in office has had a more disastrous effect on the nation than Bush's full eight years of behaving like Travis the Killer Chimp. The Constitution came over to help get Bush back into his cage and he tore its face and hands off and ripped out its eyes.

Everything the Tea Party cries about is what I've been warning them about since Reagan took office and made secret deals with the Ayatollahs and helped Saddam Hussein murder his way to power in Iraq. All that is the root of today's economic emergency and the sorry state of American affairs, still bogged down in two wars, everyone broke and afraid to speak up, but ripe for someone like Sarah Barracuda to tell us about how good America is and that it's Obama's fault that things went very bad several years ago. Obama has no choice but to take drastic measures to repair the ungodly damage Bush did to this nation and to the whole world with his unrelenting love of the super wealthy and his utter disdain for common people. The Tea Party is doing everything they can to bring Obama down and force him to fail, without regard for the irreparable damage that would do.

I do believe that the majority of Tea Partyers "mean" well, but just as they did with Reagan and twice with Bushes, they have latched onto an empty slogan and a picture of a woman with an apple pie and declared a big bag of mixed nuts to be the promise for our country. I don't think the majority of Tea Partyers really recognize the fundamental racism of the people behind that movement but the truth is, their only real issue is how to drive that black man out of the "White" house.

So if you support the Tea Party, I'd like to ask "Why didn't you complain about government spending when Bush was pouring $10 billion a month into an unnecessary war that absolutely did not achieve any of its stated goals? Why didn't you worry about jobs and retirements when Bush allowed the CEOs to ship jobs abroad and to renege on retirement agreements people had worked under for thirty or more years, literally robbing them of money they had directly earned with their decades of labor?" And there are many, many more questions that show that you did not complain about these crucial issues when Reagan and the Bushes were so busy praising and rewarding the most extreme forms of greed and the enslavement of American citizens to the CEO class. And now the Tea Partyers complain about the mess as if Obama created it.

Another real, serious problem is the sickening, unconditional love of the Tea Drinkers for Sarah Palin, as if she cares about the common people of this country. It simply never fails to amaze me how the common people can be so easily persuaded to vote so strongly for the people who stab them in the back every single time.

So there you have it. The fundamental fallacy of the tea party movement is that they accepted all the things they hate as long as a White Republican was in office. It's a fundamentally racist movement in which "concern" about the economy and freedom simply mask a basic hatred for having a black leader.

If you don't believe me, print this out and put it in a safe deposit box, sealed for ten years. If the Tea Party succeeds in swindling the American public once more, in ten years you will read my words and cry to think you denied them.

God Save America

David

James Davis
02-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Although I suppose it's possible, I don't think that these people are necessarily racist. I just think they took a little longer to open their eyes and pay attention than some others did.

I was certainly hopeful when President Obama said that transparency and the rule of law would be a hallmark of his administration. When he spoke against earmarks and said that bills would be viewable online a few days before our representatives had the opportunity to sign them, I was overjoyed.

He lied to me.

My dislike of his policy of spending our way out of debt doesn't have anything to do with his skin color. I was angry with Dubya about the war and that prescription drug plan, and that didn't have anything to do with his being white.

It doesn't matter what color they are, you are, or I am. It's so easy to point to a group of people and explain their actions by labeling them racist or evil. I guess that's why so many people do it, and call it "debate".

I can set aside his saying that cops doing their job were "behaving stupidly" without his having any of the facts available to him, only to tell us not to jump to conclusions after a shooting on a military base.

For the moment, I'll set aside his talking about the irresponsible behavior of corporate executives while forking over my money to them; that stuff's happened before.

I laugh out loud when he talks about going after tax cheats, when he should be sending the IRS after most of his cabinet.:rolleyes:

Plenty of previous administrations have piled debt onto my back, just as this one is piling it onto the backs of my children.

Blatant lies are another thing entirely. I'm really sick of giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt. I can't be patient with him and trust him to do the right thing any more than I can with any other politician because his track record, while admittedly very short, speaks volumes.

Just be glad that these people are awake, and don't be so quick to demonize them and set up potentially false premises about what motivates them.

mathewjgano
02-06-2010, 12:55 PM
The "Tea Party" movement is a big, fun, nutsy way for white people to get up and show their anger at our first black president.

So there you have it. The fundamental fallacy of the tea party movement is that they accepted all the things they hate as long as a White Republican was in office. It's a fundamentally racist movement in which "concern" about the economy and freedom simply mask a basic hatred for having a black leader.

I can't say whether or not racism is a motivation here. I'm sure it plays a part since we're still stamping out the instituationalized effects of racism, but I believe it's got less to do with that than the fact that the posterboy for modern conservativism "enjoyed" ridiculous support and then arrogantly stood in front of the world and pissed it away. That one-time face of their party, the former president, is now one of the most ridiculed and criticised American politicians since Nixon. On some level that has to hurt the ego a bit. I think they're desperate for Obama to get mud on his face so their moronic past choice (I'll tell you what I really think in a minute:D ) doesn't look quite so bad.
Beyond that it's politics as usual: decry the other team regardless of what they're doing; and when you do something similar or the same, decry them for getting in the way of "real" progress. And who cares about the truth anyway: it's not how you play the game it's how many people you can get on your side so you can more loudly decry the other guys for not caring about how the game is being played.

David Orange
02-06-2010, 12:57 PM
Although I suppose it's possible, I don't think that these people are necessarily racist. I just think they took a little longer to open their eyes and pay attention than some others did.

I tried to be clear when I said the above that I do NOT think that all the supporters of this movement are racist. BUT the movement, itself, is fundamentally racist. Just as the many German soldiers who fought for Hitler believed that they were doing what was good for Germany and the world, rank-and-file tea partyers are just confused and angry and they have latched onto the rabble rousers (which is all Hitler was until he was duly elected by the German people) and they are serving the racists' purpose.

My dislike of his policy of spending our way out of debt doesn't have anything to do with his skin color. I was angry with Dubya about the war and that prescription drug plan, and that didn't have anything to do with his being white.

But where was the outrage? Bush is the one who destroyed the economy, helped CEOs outsource the jobs, smiled when huge companies walked away from their obligations to their workers. So why was there no Tea Party movement when he was doing all that?

And as for spending our way out of debt? What else can we do? What brought us out of The Great Depression? It was WWII. How did we pay for that??? Deficit spending.

And why no outrage when Bush was spending us INTO debt? Why is it okay to spend us into unbelievable debt that still has not yet been fully accounted--all money that was poured into the pockets of corrupt foreign dictators--but it's wrong to spend on our own people, even if it is in deficit? What other chance do we have?

It doesn't matter what color they are, you are, or I am. It's so easy to point to a group of people and explain their actions by labeling them racist or evil. I guess that's why so many people do it, and call it "debate".

Uh...yeah...that would ring somewhat true if they weren't displaying their racist posters...and if they hadn't smiled and nodded when a white man was doing worse? The ONLY difference is that Obama is black. (and democratic)

Just be glad that these people are awake, and don't be so quick to demonize them and set up potentially false premises about what motivates them.

That's the point: they're not awake. They're still sleepwalking and still following the nightmare honks of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.

The only possible good that can come of this is the final destruction of the Republican party by splitting it into the right wing and the super-racist-FAR-right wing.

David

Kevin Leavitt
02-06-2010, 01:25 PM
When I was a "Drill Instructor" for OCS, I had one candidate that did not do so well, so we paid extra attention to her as all good drill instructors do. She eventually put in her resignation from the program, but before she did...she filed a discrimination complaint against me.

In the investigation they asked me if I singled her out and treated her differently than the other candiates. ABSOULTELY I told them.

They were astounded I'd admitted it. It was my job and she did not represent Army Values.

It had nothing to do with the color of her skin.

The point is, it is easy to label folks and slam down the race card on the table as the reason for friction or conflict.

When in fact, it may not have anything to do with it at all.

Not saying that the actions of the members of the Tea Party are or are not racist. Frankly I do not know or really care as I don't keep up with this stuff enough to speak intelligently on it.

I do know from my own experiences of being labeled "racist" or my behaviors as being "discriminatory" that it is an easy default to go to when you have a disagreement with someone of the opposite race sometimes.

mathewjgano
02-06-2010, 01:48 PM
Although I suppose it's possible, I don't think that these people are necessarily racist. I just think they took a little longer to open their eyes and pay attention than some others did.
Do you think it's more A) suddenly opening their eyes or B) "rallying against a liberal?" I get the impression it's more B than A...or at the very least, the timing surrounding the activity of these "parties" begs the question a little.

I was certainly hopeful when President Obama said that transparency and the rule of law would be a hallmark of his administration. When he spoke against earmarks and said that bills would be viewable online a few days before our representatives had the opportunity to sign them, I was overjoyed.

He lied to me.
I know presidents make all kinds of promises that aren't theirs to make (e.g. "read my lips..."). My question is: who is in charge of making transparency issues into law? My guess is that's a legislative process. If I'm right, I would agree it's silly for him to make promises he shouldn't, but I'm also wondering how much of the problem can be found in the very common act of compromise found in the legislature. Rarely does anything happen without some form of it. Can you be sure it's Obama who is actively preventing this greater transparency from taking place? Or could it be that he's just trying to get something else done and realized that overhauling the political system (something I would agree severely needs doing) might be more trouble than he wants to deal with at the moment? I don't know. I'm hoping he meant it when he said he wanted greater transparency, just as I hoped Bush had more than scary props at his disposal for justifying the start of this trillion dollar war, which was, coincidentally, very lucrative for some...and as an aside, I'd like to add it should be illegal to profit off war. Most, if not all, war-time business transactions should be non-profit. If it's for the sake of national security, profit shouldn't be a mitigating motivation.
:D ...The world according to Matt, anyway. Stick around I'll be here all the week fixing the world's problems.:p

I'm really sick of giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt. I can't be patient with him and trust him to do the right thing any more than I can with any other politician because his track record, while admittedly very short, speaks volumes.
He's a politician: he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. And I don't blame you for disliking what appears to be just throwing money at the situation. It doesn't sound like anything has changed. If I recall correctly, much of the money made back in the financial sector was through higher fees and the like and the fact that some of these guys we bailed out think they deserve bonuses is a little shocking. The south Everett part of me wants to smack 'em around.
Just be glad that these people are awake, and don't be so quick to demonize them and set up potentially false premises about what motivates them.
I'll be glad when I see something that looks different from the standard partisan pack. Calling yourself an independant doesn't mean you actually are.

David Orange
02-06-2010, 04:16 PM
Not saying that the actions of the members of the Tea Party are or are not racist. Frankly I do not know or really care as I don't keep up with this stuff enough to speak intelligently on it.

I do know from my own experiences of being labeled "racist" or my behaviors as being "discriminatory" that it is an easy default to go to when you have a disagreement with someone of the opposite race sometimes.

Yeah, but if you'd had not only that woman but also a white man, and he was worse than she, but you didn't do anything about him, that would surely have been dealt with differently. You would have been busted, I'm sure, if not drummed out.

Or vice versa, a black instructor who discriminates against a white trainee when he has black trainees who are doing worse would have to be considered racist.

Basically, it's just a rejection of Obama on every false ground they can apply to him. Bush sunk our ship and gave away 700 billion to the bankers and mutli-billionaires. Where was the tea party bunch then? All things being equal....except that Obama is black...and anyone should reach the same conclusion if they're playing on a level table.

The biggest point for me is not that the movement is racist but that's it's fundamentally fallacious. None of what they state as their major complaints was any complaint at all when Bush was on his world rampage. Oh, but now it's the end of the world and "death panels".

That's my point.

Best to you.

David

lbb
02-07-2010, 09:02 AM
Red is the new black (http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/voices-red-baiting-and-racism-socialism-as-the-new-black-bogeyman.html).

Edit: and one additional thought: in these sad days, it's considered an unusual level of insight to observe that people from all spots on the political spectrum can be equal in the integrity of their conviction. How we damn ourselves with faint praise. Sincerity cannot ennoble that which was base to begin with.

Aikibu
02-07-2010, 11:29 AM
Red is the new black (http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/voices-red-baiting-and-racism-socialism-as-the-new-black-bogeyman.html).

Edit: and one additional thought: in these sad days, it's considered an unusual level of insight to observe that people from all spots on the political spectrum can be equal in the integrity of their conviction. How we damn ourselves with faint praise. Sincerity cannot ennoble that which was base to begin with.

Thank You Mary! The goal of some conservative movements has always been to distrust and destroy government...From the "Know Nothings" of the 18th Century The John Birch Society through Reagan "The Federalist (!!! LOL) Society until now. And like Thomas Frank points out in his book "The Wrecking Crew" This brand of conservatism has come very close to succeeding...Bush did all he could to run up the debt to 'prove" government does not work... by trying to break it...

I also think Frank Rich's essay in Today's Times also makes David Orange's point rather well...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07rich.html

William Hazen

David Orange
02-07-2010, 11:35 AM
...I believe it's got less to do with (racism) than the fact that the posterboy for modern conservativism "enjoyed" ridiculous support and then arrogantly stood in front of the world and pissed it away. That one-time face of their party, the former president, is now one of the most ridiculed and criticised American politicians since Nixon.

He was that within a very few months of his installation by the corrupt Supreme Court installed by his father. But that Nixon association is really the key to the problem. Republicans have been blood thirsty for revenge ever since Nixon resigned to keep from being convicted of his crimes.

He was a crook, absolutely, but to the republicans, he was their crook and whatever he did was okay with them. Which is how G. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh became so popular and wealthy. They were willing to stab people in the gut and they were willing to be openly cruel on levels that previously were kept hidden from view. These guys were willing to come right out and call a teenaged girl a dog. Limbaugh has been more than willing to talk in the dialect of poor blacks, about "chirruns" for children and such.

Of course, it was really Reagan who lit the match to that powder keg. He made is suave to ridicule your opponent in ways that had always been forbidden in public. No politician would have allowed himself to be quoted saying things such as Reagan did simply because it would have made political negotiation and compromise impossible--as it now has become. But Reagan did it slyly and cleverly and everyone thought it was fine because it was simply "payback" for forcing their crook to resign.

On some level that has to hurt the ego a bit. I think they're desperate for Obama to get mud on his face so their moronic past choice (I'll tell you what I really think in a minute:D ) doesn't look quite so bad.

That's a huge part of it: they just refuse to admit what a stupid and hypocritical mistake they made. They ridiculed Clinton as a dope smoking draft dodger and then they chose a drunkard, dope-smoking, coke-snorting wastrel to lead the "Conservative" movement. And now they're going to choose Sarah Palin! The biggest know-nothing-but-makeup-and-poses dingaling to come down the pike since dingalings were invented. And if they Republicans don't choose her, the Tea Party will (idiots already have) and they will sink whoever the Republicans end up nominating. Therefore, they repubs will undoubtedly choose Sarah Palin.

And what is she going to do? Well, she just suggested that Obama should "play the war card" and declare war on just about anyone. Just kill a whole hell of a lot of people and their children, and you will get the votes of American pro-lifers and Christians.

Of course, that's the tao of anti-christ. But

Beyond that it's politics as usual: decry the other team regardless of what they're doing; and when you do something similar or the same, decry them for getting in the way of "real" progress. And who cares about the truth anyway: it's not how you play the game it's how many people you can get on your side so you can more loudly decry the other guys for not caring about how the game is being played.

I care.

And say what you will about Obama and Democrats in general, regardless of their crimes, look like good Sunday school children, with innocent hearts, compared to the Republicans who will kill anyone and their children to win the pro-life vote.

It isn't about life or goodness or truth for them. Or for the Tea Party. It's just about being the one to control everyone else.

Really sucks to be them.

David

David Orange
02-07-2010, 11:58 AM
Do you think it's more A) suddenly opening their eyes or B) "rallying against a liberal?" I get the impression it's more B than A...or at the very least, the timing surrounding the activity of these "parties" begs the question a little.

Sure. They are eight years off. My whole point. They don't give a doody about massive spending and giving away billions and hundreds of billions of tax dollars from our children and grandchildren to foreign dictators who give tons of it to the very people we're fighting.

But spend money on schools? SOCIALISM!

Spend money on improving all Americans' opportunities to receive decent health care at decent costs? SOCIALISM!

And all the rest.

So it's about half to stir up hate against democrats and half or more to stir up fear of black people.

I know presidents make all kinds of promises that aren't theirs to make (e.g. "read my lips..."). My question is: who is in charge of making transparency issues into law? My guess is that's a legislative process. If I'm right, I would agree it's silly for him to make promises he shouldn't, but I'm also wondering how much of the problem can be found in the very common act of compromise found in the legislature. Rarely does anything happen without some form of it. Can you be sure it's Obama who is actively preventing this greater transparency from taking place? Or could it be that he's just trying to get something else done and realized that overhauling the political system (something I would agree severely needs doing) might be more trouble than he wants to deal with at the moment?

Yeah, with the disasters of the last eight years weighing on him, he's hardly in a position to try to repair the engineered disaster of the past thirty year on top of it. His big problem is that he's trying to herd cats as the leader of the Democratic party. With a super majority in place, they were not able to agree enough and take action enough to pass some simple bills to really serve the people of the United States. They are so divided by pet issues that they wouldn't rally together on major, important problems to help the people.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have one issue only: to serve the super wealthy and to enrich themselves on the backs of the 98% of the people who have been seriously harmed by Republican policies going back at least to Nixon. Probably the last honest republican was Eisenhower, who warned us of exactly what we're living in today. Bush was the loyal servant of the military/industrial cabal that has maimed and murdered living children by the millions since 1960. And somehow, this Satanic force has captured the hearts and minds of the American "pro-life" movement so that the postergirl for pro-life openly champions declaring war on someone and killing their born children and the parents of small children, as the best way possible to win votes and get elected President of the "free world".

And then you have the parade of fools who say you're "blaming America" when you criticize a monster like that. Good God.

I don't know. I'm hoping he meant it when he said he wanted greater transparency, just as I hoped Bush had more than scary props at his disposal for justifying the start of this trillion dollar war, which was, coincidentally, very lucrative for some...and as an aside, I'd like to add it should be illegal to profit off war.

Sadly, Matt, so sadly, the American economy is based entirely on war and war-making. I once knew a multi-millionaire who advised me to read a book called "The Richest Man in Babylon". So I read it. It said to pay yourself first, ten percent of everything you make. Keep it. Save it up. Then loan it to "the king's spear-maker."

So the whole key is "invest in war." Invest in killing and the mutilation of living people and you will prosper.

And where are we now, but Babylon? All our Christian pro-life country, neck-deep in dead children in Babylon. Well, at least they weren't "unborn".

David

David Orange
02-07-2010, 12:29 PM
(Obama's) big problem is that he's trying to herd cats as the leader of the Democratic party. With a super majority in place, they were not able to agree enough and take action enough to pass some simple bills to really serve the people of the United States. They are so divided by pet issues that they wouldn't rally together on major, important problems to help the people....Meanwhile, the Republicans have one issue only: to serve the super wealthy and to enrich themselves on the backs of the 98% of the people who have been seriously harmed by Republican policies going back at least to Nixon.

The Democrats have behaved like Europe facing the Nazi invasion. They have all their little pet plaints and fail to seriously realize that the Nazi horde is UNITED, with only ONE idea, and that is to take POWER over ALL.

The Repugs love to claim that the democrats are naive about the threat from al quaeda (when it was Bush who took a month vacation in his cowboy hat while Mohammed Atta and his friends put the last crucial pieces in place for 9/11--Bush, the ultimate 9/10 mindset).

What the democrats are really naive about is the monolithic Republican Party intent to roll over the people of America with their 700 billion pound steamroller and rule the world. The democrats are much more like the oppostion parties in Germany in the 1920s than anything else. By remaining divided and failing to accomplish anything, they are endangering the US of electing the next Hitler.

Now, I've been cautioned before, by people I really respect, that I should never compare US policies to Nazi policies. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan (and all through the world), I am told, has been nothing like what the Nazis did. And I wish that I could agree.

But Cheney...and Limbaugh...and Rove...and that low-life Rumsfeld...Jesus. Look what they did. It was only the bare restraint of what little justice system we have left (and the fact that Bush is such a bumbling idiot) that they did not go MUCH further than they did. As it was, the nation allowed him to go on for eight years, prosecuting an unjust war against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and putting billions more into that than into the war against the people who really were behind it.

But Palin has already shown that she will not be bounded by by ordinary self-restraint on moral grounds. She will promise war if it will elect her and she will escalate war if it will re-elect her. She is not embarrassed by her ignorance. She is too ignorant for that. And she has found a tribe of equally-ignorant bumpkins who actually admire her and think that she's smart to support her in her limitless ambitions.

Here is the one to fear: her and the deluded crusaders who will proudly put a bullet in the head of an abortion provider and just as proudly call for bullets in the heads of children in foreign country. Of course, certainly, they wouldn't directly advocate shooting these children in the head, but they will gladly support bombing them and blowing them to smithereens.

And if Sarah wins or loses, they may just be emboldened enough by her "rhetoric" (hate speech) to start putting bullets in the heads of any liberal or "socialist" (supporters of the public option for health care) or people with foreign spouses or mixed-race children... or whomever.

The Tea Party is the scum of the far right and the fringe that has no limits of decency, morality, shame or human love.

This is a very dangerous time for America and the danger does not come from Obama. Sarah Palin is the biggest snake in the darkest hole and McCain is the fool who let her use him.

May God have mercy on this nation.

David

mathewjgano
02-07-2010, 02:41 PM
But spend money on schools? SOCIALISM!

Spend money on improving all Americans' opportunities to receive decent health care at decent costs? SOCIALISM!
It's interesting to me that people believe you "must" regulate human behavior in things like marriage, but somehow you "mustn't" for how they conduct business.

And where are we now, but Babylon? All our Christian pro-life country, neck-deep in dead children in Babylon. Well, at least they weren't "unborn".

David
I hear ya. It's disgusting that many conservatives I know (I work in construction) are absolutely pissed off about abortion, but laugh about war. It simply shows their lack of thought.

David Orange
02-07-2010, 03:26 PM
I hear ya. It's disgusting that many conservatives I know (I work in construction) are absolutely pissed off about abortion, but laugh about war. It simply shows their lack of thought.

And the death penalty. They'll gladly spend whatever it takes to keep a man on death row for 20 years (far more than a life sentence costs) and they don't give a rat's behind if he's even guilty. The blood thirst is saddening.

David

HL1978
02-07-2010, 08:30 PM
Sounds like someone read Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall's "Chain Reaction."

I believe the central thesis was that Nixon and Reagan took up the message of low taxes, crime control, and decreased social spending/welfare to mask racism.

Toby Threadgill
02-07-2010, 10:12 PM
It's interesting to me that people believe you "must" regulate human behavior in things like marriage, but somehow you "mustn't" for how they conduct business.


That's neo-conservatism for you. All for small govt...... EXCEPT!

Hypocrisy run amuck.

Toby Threadgill / TSYR

Tim Fong
02-07-2010, 10:28 PM
Sounds like someone read Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall's "Chain Reaction."

I believe the central thesis was that Nixon and Reagan took up the message of low taxes, crime control, and decreased social spending/welfare to mask racism.

Hunter,
The book Nixonland by Rick Perlstein also goes into detail about dog-whistle racism. Among other things, Perlstein examined a box of letters sent to Sen. Paul Douglas by his Illinois constituents. Quoting from one of Perlstein's articles:

They [the letters] comprise an unmatched emotional history on how the white middle class built by the New Deal learned to vote Republican.
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/meaning-box-722


There's an argument that the reason the US did not become a social democratic state after the close of WWII, is because of the multi-ethnic nature of the US population. If we look at social democratic policies, it depends on viewing the nation as a cohesive community. It is pretty clear from the letters that Perlstein reviews in the linked article, that the white majority viewed the black minority as an outgroup. Thus, the majority did not support policies that depended on seeing the all Americans as one group.

However, that was 40 years ago. Although some people seem intent on waving the banner of white nationalism, I think there are also many Americans who recognize that people from many different backgrounds can come together under a common American ideology and live together.

Sarah Palin and her supporters may believe that they represent the so-called "real America" and that the rest of us in evil, tainted multi-ethnic America are the ''fake Americans." That's some strong wishful thinking, considering the fact that those of us in "fake America" are subsidizing the lifestyles of many of Mrs. Palin's supporters.

David Orange
02-07-2010, 10:34 PM
Sounds like someone read Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall's "Chain Reaction."

I believe the central thesis was that Nixon and Reagan took up the message of low taxes, crime control, and decreased social spending/welfare to mask racism.

Don't forget the Drug War. Nixon started it when soldiers were coming back from Viet Nam addicted to heroin. Reagan picked it up with Just Say No and the supply of cocaine went through the roof while the cost went down. And then came Crack.

I'll have to check out that book.

Thanks.

David

David Orange
02-07-2010, 10:35 PM
That's neo-conservatism for you. All for small govt...... EXCEPT!

Hypocrisy run amuck.

Toby Threadgill / TSYR

Yeah. Rahm Emmanuel must resign for saying Retard, but Rush Limbaugh can say it all he wants. What a crock.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
02-07-2010, 10:39 PM
Although some people seem intent on waving the banner of white nationalism, I think there are also many Americans who recognize that people from many different backgrounds can come together under a common American ideology and live together.

Who was it who said, "We must all hang together or we will hang separately."?

Best to you.

David

dalen7
02-08-2010, 01:19 AM
I dont know, I live kind of a closed life living here amongst the Magyars - all the big happenings stateside kind of die off and are no more than what amounts to the power of a gentle breeze on a spring day... the strong hurricane winds of emotion have lost their power and some of the news even gets lost, as it were, unless you dig for it.

Im only aware of the tea party vaguely as people I know are part of it. I once asked what it was all about and never got an answer that really satisfied me... at least didnt convince me it was something that could generate any true change like what the name would suggest. [eliminating taxes like our 'forefathers' who dressed up like Indians, etc. - The first CIA mission, blame the natives! lol]

I dont think its racist as I know the groups involved. [mainly evangelical Christians], but I can see how it can be taken that way.

What you have to realize is that many of these people are stirred up by a few people who are charismatic and in which they have already tailored their belief system to. [Same goes for both sides of the fence really.]

Personally I think that society needs to evolve past all this comical duality issues which constantly plague people as if it were really an issue. Wonder what would happen if there were an attack from aliens from outerspace, would we unite... blah, blah, blah. [Reagan had a point, though I doubt any aliens would actually care much about us as we would be more of a nuisance than anything with our petty squabbling! It would be easier to just get rid of the biological robots and make some new mechanical ones... but maybe that is the issue he saw.] ;)

When you hear about change, whether it be tea party change or Obama change, all you have to do is sit back and see what actually occurs - which is nothing really.

Hungary is a good example that if you cant get past silly stories that no system works. We have had communism, now we have capitalism led by the same socialist who were here in communism... the mess got messier, and when you thought it couldnt sink lower, it does. [The news is a sad irony of what many here even joke about that Hungarians are the worlds pessimist... and there is reason for this, we have some of the worlds greatest talent but some of the worlds worst management of that talent!]

The problems here are the exact same as stateside, but we are smaller so it feels more amplified and you get results from your observations a lot faster. ;)

At this point it would take an awakening, an awakening to a new way of thought all together to get anywhere. The US is divided equally, makes you wonder if they shouldnt just have a North and South... or would it now be Cali with the north and the south with the midwest? [cant keep up with demographics] :)

But if it split, I bet it would be like a cancer and keep splitting... no one would be satisfied. No one gets it that 99% of what we talk about doesnt matter.

So someone doesnt agree with the Christians, let them do their own thing as long as it does not impose on you... Someone doesnt agree with the heathens - who cares as long as they dont turn you into an ape who evolves into a man. lol

Seriously, there is room for people to have completely different views and still get along.
Take me for example, Im not here to convince - nor could I - anyone of anything, Im just here chatting away happily about concepts I find worth chatting about, and whether or not Im 'right' is not even an issue. [truth doesnt need defense, stories we make up are exactly that and we defend them vigorously as it wants to have 'life'] ;)

I see with each day that for the most part people seem not to be open to real solutions. We have become addicted to a certain thought pattern and havent learned any different way.

In that sense our educational system has failed us, but only because those who taught us were not taught, etc.
I can only hope that there is an explosion of the kind of knowledge that the likes of Ram Das, Ekchart Tolle, Jesus, etc have had, and I mean a true owning of the principles and not just making the teachings into another belief to have, etc.

It seems each generation has a prophet that they either stone or crucify and in the next generation turn into an idol - and the majority of people never really get what the heck was being said, and they sit in their mud pits and begin to wrestle and fight with one another again.

Ive seen with movements like the Zeitgeist this problem at work. They use quotes from the likes of Ram Das, but as time goes on, not being anchored in the core concepts the old way comes back and then the system becomes a new model of what they were trying to escape, and sometimes worse. [except they are the new guys in control, etc.]

Who knows, maybe Im being to idealistic, but there is one truth we all know... one day we all die, everyone of us. What is it you spent your time on? Did you use it for hating, feeling hated, etc.
Or did you do like the desert fathers after they crawled out of their rocks to civilization and just go back into hiding and do your own thing and enjoy life. ;)

We take things way to seriously, and all that energy could be used to solve the world hunger problem - which is not as rocket science as industry who burns food would like you to think.

United, we would be like those of Babel who were united under one tongue [love] and we could achieve whatever we wished... wish if its in unity and love cant be that bad can it? [though egoically it can be a nightmare as the bloodshed built up to the goal takes its toll]

These are all pointers, people have to realize to go beyond what mere words say and expand to the possibilities that they point to.
Words cant express anything but only point to a universe of possibilities beyond them.

And this is where our education system needs achieve to get to... a state where people can do critical thinking, but not get lost in that thought, and then enjoy the play of duality, which without we would all go back into the cosmic goo of nothingness. [an oxymoron]

I realize with how I write it may seem irrelevant, but if its change you want, then this is closer to pointing to true change than any political slogan or party promises which only help those who lead the party and play the tune that all who hear follow.

Im all for what it said in the Bible where God said he didnt want Israel to have a king... to me this represents a maturing where we no longer need the structures we have had all our lives which never work... we just keep changing them out as a crutch as we have not learned how to grow.. we have not learned that we stop suffering when we realize we no longer have to suffer. ;)

Peace

dAlen

dalen7
02-08-2010, 01:29 AM
Americans who recognize that people from many different backgrounds can come together under a common American ideology and live together.

What if we dropped the need to identify as Americans, Hungarians, and just were humans? That indeed would be living together.

Any conceptual walls between nations are just that... conceptual.
The greatest divide are the divisions we make with nationalities, etc.

We can still be individuals and work together as a human species to achieve a level 3 society. [ok, jumping ahead, as I know Kaku says we are level 0 the most dangerous society... amen Kaku, I agree!] ;)

Peace

dAlen

David Orange
02-08-2010, 10:42 AM
We take things way to seriously, and all that energy could be used to solve the world hunger problem - which is not as rocket science as industry who burns food would like you to think.

Yes, we could use more energy applied to world hunger and universal health care.

But as for taking things too seriously?

These are monumentally serious times and things must be taken seriously. George Bush became "the leader of the free world" and quite literally the most powerful man on the planet because a lot of people believed it was okay to install an idiot as long as he 1) stood for cutting taxes and 2) claimed to be a Christian. What harm could it do, after all?

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxes and millions of fists and curses raised against America is the result. Christianity has been given a bad name and a black eye and America has sunk to torture as policy.

So it's quite possible to take things not seriously enough.

After all, Sarah Palin has encouraged Obama to declare war on someone in order to get re-elected. Do you think she will hesitate to declare war on someone to get herself re-elected if she ever gets in? THAT we need to be incredibly serious about. War is not a toy or a game. It is the field of life and death for a nation. George Bush wounded our nation very seriously with his misadventure and he's still grinning like a polecat, not even feeling the misery he has caused around the world.

What is Sarah decided to bomb Hungary in her bid for re-election?

Then it would be deadly serious for you, too.

Peace.

David

delliott
02-08-2010, 01:09 PM
As I tend to agree with you on your view of conservative ideas, I know these similar ideas are not limited just to conservatives, but all politicians. Meaning that they look at what makes the most sense to them and their ideology. They will say that their way is the best way for their country to move forward.

It is my experience that tells me, no politician does anything for free. Below is a quote from the website http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm

"The Buddha explained that people live in a sea of suffering because of ignorance and greed. They are ignorant of the law of karma and are greedy for the wrong kind of pleasures. They do things that are harmful to their bodies and peace of mind, so they can not be satisfied or enjoy life."

"For example, once children have had a taste of candy, they want more. When they can't have it, they get upset. Even if children get all the candy they want, they soon get tired of it and want something else. Although, they get a stomach-ache from eating too much candy, they still want more. The things people want most cause them the most suffering. Of course, there are basic things that all people should have, like adequate food, shelter, and clothing. Everyone deserve a good home, loving parents, and good friends. They should enjoy life and cherish their possessions without becoming greedy. "

David Orange
02-08-2010, 03:38 PM
As I tend to agree with you on your view of conservative ideas, I know these similar ideas are not limited just to conservatives, but all politicians. Meaning that they look at what makes the most sense to them and their ideology. They will say that their way is the best way for their country to move forward.

It is my experience that tells me, no politician does anything for free.

I agree with you quite a bit here, though I feel so much better now than I did two years ago at this time--and that was before we knew that the economy was just a thin sheet of ice that was about to crumble.

I had a long talk with an old friend the other day and as I was leaving I said, "Sorry we didn't get to go into the current political situation" because he is very astute and subtle in his understandings of these things. He shrugged and shook his head and said, "It stinks."

We paused and I said, "Well, it's still better than when Bush was in office!"

He laughed and said, "Definitely!"

We do have a chance to really change things for the better now. My fear is that we'll have enough yahoos to vote for Palin that she'll actually get elected and order the deaths of thousands of children in some other country just to get herself re-elected. Such crimes will certainly accrue to all of us in this nation, as they have from Bush's unjust actions. So there are politicians....and then there are political beasts. It's painful to deal with, but if we don't we will pay for a long, long time.

Best to you.

David

dps
02-08-2010, 03:57 PM
"1. Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear--and, behold, do ye now complain that ye lack FREEDOM!

2. Ye have cast out yer brothers for devils and now complain ye, lamenting that ye've been left to fight alone.

3. All Chaos was once yer kingdom; verily, held ye dominion over the entire Pentaverse, but today ye was sore afraid in dark corners, nooks, and sink holes.

4. O how the darknesses do crowd up, one against the other, in ye hearts! What fear ye more that what ye have wroughten?

5. Verily, verily I say unto you, not all the Sinister Ministers of the Bavarian Illuminati, working together in multitudes, could so entwine the land with tribulation as have yer baseless warnings."

Chapter 1, THE EPISTLE TO THE PARANOIDS

--Lord Omar

David

David Orange
02-08-2010, 09:22 PM
I had a long talk with an old friend the other day and as I was leaving I said, "Sorry we didn't get to go into the current political situation" because he is very astute and subtle in his understandings of these things. He shrugged and shook his head and said, "It stinks."

This guy was born in Germany about 1953. His mother had come through the war. His grandfather knew everything that had happened. He saw Hitler when Hitler was nothing more than Sarah Palin is now. But Hitler was already thinking that declaring war on people would be good for his electoral power.

We talked about all that stuff and I asked him about the death camp at Dachau.

"No," he said. "Dachau was not a death camp. It was a labor camp. The death camps were outside Germany. Even the labor camps were far from people's sight so ordinary Germans didn't know what was happening. But if you were a union member or some kind of radical who spoke out too much against the government, they would send you to Dachau and work your ass off for a couple of years. Then they would ask if you were going to be good and if you agreed, they'd let you go back to your business. But if not, you were dead."

He told me about the Potemkin Villages--normal German villages that they emptied of residents and repopulated with Jews in armbands. They photographed these people "living ordinary lives among one another" and told the Germans that these Jews were happy to be "with their own kind," but in fact, of course, the Jews were sent to Treblinka and Auschwitz. Secret prisons? Torture?

It's all too similar to the past eight years.

No, what "we" did didn't rise to the level of what the Nazis did, but we still had some strength in our political and justice systems as far as 2008, so the Bush/Cheney movement was not allowed to go so far. But in spirit, they were no different. If they had had less restraints to hold them back, God only knows what they were willing to do.

When the rabble rousers went to Town Hall meetings with their guns and shouted down non-Bushies who tried to speak, my German friend said, "They're Brown Shirts."

He knows. He's a true realist. He can't stand Palin or her ilk. And if you're a good American, you should fear those people--their ignorance and their pride in their own ignorance--because they are heavily armed and they've been hating a lot of people for decades now.

When I say "We need a revolution," I mean at the ballot box, as when Obama was elected, but also to be followed up with a committed Congress that really moves to achieve things. The democratic congress of the past year has squandered their super majority and achieved less with that than Republicans could with a simple majority: because the Republicans all have the same ambitions, where Democrats are all over the place. The Republicans think only of supporting the corporations and cutting down labor and unions, the poor and all non-whites. It's very easy for them to agree on an agenda. The Democrats fail to take the common good as a common issue because they're so divided into so many interest groups that even with a super majority, they can't stand up to an tiny, impotent minority of defeated right-wingers.

They'd better learn and get some things done soon or the fickle public will again vote their own worst enemies into power.

David

David Orange
02-08-2010, 09:24 PM
.....

Putting you on ignore is one of the best decisions I've made in a while.

Sincerely.

David

dalen7
02-09-2010, 01:54 AM
Yes, we could use more energy applied to world hunger and universal health care.

What is Sarah decided to bomb Hungary in her bid for re-election?

I cant agree more about the issue concerning hunger, housing, etc.
[I won't even get into my thoughts concerning those issues, aside to say that I believe its an issue that can be fixed - albeit doing so may ruin current business models...] ;)

As for Sarah, you mean to tell me she knows Hungary exist??? ;)

Peace

dAlen

David Orange
02-09-2010, 07:01 AM
As for Sarah, you mean to tell me she knows Hungary exist??? ;)

Whoever heard of "Grenada" before Reagan invaded it to make himself look like a "warrior"?

If she needs a vote and someone shows her a map and says "These folks hate America," you'd better cover your head.

Careful out there.

David

Dan O'Day
02-09-2010, 11:02 AM
The great irony of the tea party and the rest of the ultra -conservative groups through the ages, is that the members are seemingly unaware of the basis for the nation they so profusely and profanely wish to protect.

The are also seemingly unaware that it was British Conservatives, against who the newly independant and liberal USA forces defeated in battle to forge the furtherance of Liberal Values and Progressive Change, which were the enemy of freedom.

The United States of America was formulated and founded by Liberals utilizing Liberal ideas. The United States of America has always stood for Liberal Values...at least in theory.

This latest gathering of conservative minded hategroups masquerading as concerned Americans, the Tea Party people, is nothing more and nothing less than an act of domestic terrorism.

It is time for the citizens of the United States of America to either stand up for what this nation has always stood for - again, at least in theory - and in doing so eject these traitorous conservatives from our land, or join the traitors and move to Austria or Somalia or some other ethnocentric and warlord run haven.

America is a Liberal Nation. Period. And it has always been up to the Liberal American Citizenry to win and maintain the freedoms we all enjoy today.

The rights of women to vote. The rights of workers to organize so as to escape the tyranny of corporate bosses backed by govt. guns. The rights of people of all skin colors to have equal protection under the law. The list goes on and on. And guess what? Not one of these basic freedoms was won for Americans by going abroad and killing people. They were all won by Civil Rights Activists defeating the conservative agendas put forth by various conservatives in govt. office at the time.

Remember fellow Americans...we must stay vigilant against all attacks. Especially those from within which are as insidious and dishonorable and demented as hijacking planes and flying them into buildings while thinking some god is on your side.

David Orange
02-09-2010, 11:53 AM
Remember fellow Americans...we must stay vigilant against all attacks. Especially those from within which are as insidious and dishonorable and demented as hijacking planes and flying them into buildings while thinking some god is on your side.

Ever since Reagan and Falwell, American Christianity has taken a marked turn in the direction of Islam. The Christian Coalition had more in common with Mohammed's conversion of Arabia at the sword than it did with the message of Christ, which was liberty.

Jesus was a LIBERAL, through and through.

Best to you.

David

dps
02-09-2010, 12:37 PM
You are not going to stop them.
They will come and go just as Obama is.

Let go of your paranoia.

David

David Orange
02-09-2010, 12:57 PM
Ah! The joy of the IGNORE button.

I used to read every post, no matter what the drivel, no matter what kind of dimwitted drive behind it. And then I realized that some people are always going to be that way and it's best just to let them drivel on in silence!

Mike Sigman
02-09-2010, 05:09 PM
This is a pretty interesting thread to read and I urge the hate to continue until a civil war erupts, but in the meantime let me make a note about history. The Nazis and Fascists and Communists were all branches of socialist groups, not conservative groups. Nazi is a contraction from the name "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the Nazis referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists). The were into organic foods, the "right thing to do" (just like U.S. Progressives), and so on.

"Fascists" took their name from the "fasces" symbol of a bundle of wheat stalks that was the sign of some labor unions (get it?) in Italy. As Roger Griffin comments: "[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism." Any way you look at it, it was a power grab that took over businesses and the economy/banking in the name of saving the country.

Communists' history is pretty well-known. All three of these people had a tendency to change history (sort of like the intellectuals' trend to attribute Nazisim to conservatives when it was in Germany actually selling Progressive politics in order to win over as much support from the "smart people" as possible).

Socialism was the de rigeur trend in Europe in those days and it's made a resurgence nowadays by pretending that it is not what it is or was. Note the levels of anti-Semitism that are now expanding throughout "social-democrat" Europe again. Also note that in France and England prior to WWII, socialism was very trendy as about 90% of Britain thought that England should unilaterally disarm as a way to pacify Hitler.

But carry on. A complete historical misunderstanding of the role socialism actually played shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of True Beliefs. Not much of a job to go from here to thinking that conservatives should be sent to "labor camps", eh? They're already kept out of most teaching positions in liberal universities and law schools, jobs in Hollywood, and so on. Let's purify the nation!

FWIW

Mike Sigman

dps
02-09-2010, 06:27 PM
Ah! The joy of the IGNORE button.

I used to read every post, no matter what the drivel, no matter what kind of dimwitted drive behind it. And then I realized that some people are always going to be that way and it's best just to let them drivel on in silence!

The Tea Party Movement is in response to the Cult of Obama movement that fooled many independents, conservative and moderate Democrats. Now a year later those that were fooled are seeing the truth about what Obama and his supporters are really about. His approval rating is tanking ( only 44%), he is not doing or reversing what he promised he would do.

The supporters of Obama are afraid and paranoid about anything they can not control that may stop the Obama administration. The Tea Party Movement is a prime example.


The ignore feature only works when you log in.
Paranoid people can not stand not knowing what is being said about them. They will eventually look.

David

HL1978
02-09-2010, 07:48 PM
The great irony of the tea party and the rest of the ultra -conservative groups through the ages, is that the members are seemingly unaware of the basis for the nation they so profusely and profanely wish to protect.

The are also seemingly unaware that it was British Conservatives, against who the newly independant and liberal USA forces defeated in battle to forge the furtherance of Liberal Values and Progressive Change, which were the enemy of freedom.

The United States of America was formulated and founded by Liberals utilizing Liberal ideas. The United States of America has always stood for Liberal Values...at least in theory.

This latest gathering of conservative minded hategroups masquerading as concerned Americans, the Tea Party people, is nothing more and nothing less than an act of domestic terrorism.

It is time for the citizens of the United States of America to either stand up for what this nation has always stood for - again, at least in theory - and in doing so eject these traitorous conservatives from our land, or join the traitors and move to Austria or Somalia or some other ethnocentric and warlord run haven.

America is a Liberal Nation. Period. And it has always been up to the Liberal American Citizenry to win and maintain the freedoms we all enjoy today.

The rights of women to vote. The rights of workers to organize so as to escape the tyranny of corporate bosses backed by govt. guns. The rights of people of all skin colors to have equal protection under the law. The list goes on and on. And guess what? Not one of these basic freedoms was won for Americans by going abroad and killing people. They were all won by Civil Rights Activists defeating the conservative agendas put forth by various conservatives in govt. office at the time.

Remember fellow Americans...we must stay vigilant against all attacks. Especially those from within which are as insidious and dishonorable and demented as hijacking planes and flying them into buildings while thinking some god is on your side.

I assume when you refer to the US as a liberal nation, you are referring to classical liberalism?

Toby Threadgill
02-10-2010, 02:16 AM
The Nazis and Fascists and Communists were all branches of socialist groups, not conservative groups.Mike Sigman

Mike,

Are you serious....LOL. Names mean nothing and you know it. Just because the Nazi Party called themselves socialists doesn't make them actual socialist's. The German Democratic Republic was not in fact a republic, or democratic.

Your claim that the Nazi Party was actually socialist and not right wing is rather laughable. The Nazi Party was always associated with Italian style fascism, which sought to combine authoritarian nationalism and corporatism. Hitlers Nazi Party was unflinchingly reactionary in execution and unlike Peronian corporo/fascism, also supremacist. Consequently, political science has always considered Nazism to be on the far far right of the traditional left-right political paradigm. Hitler was very clear about his fashioning Nazism to be the polar opposite of communism. Hitlers fundamental tenet of Nazi fascism hinged on society and its institutions being motivated by nationalistic heroism rather than economics. This is unarguably far right wing stuff that contrasts significantly with the principles of capitalism and socialism.

The growing influence of corporate money and power in our electoral process leads most convincingly towards our country becoming a haven for corporatism rather than European style socialism. Just consider the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. Every citizen and small business was sold out on that day to the big corporations under the guise of free speech. What a crock! No where in the US Constitution is a business entity alluded to have rights approaching or surpassing those of the individual voter. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves!

And don't even get me going on how far the GOP has fallen. From being represented by intellectual giants like Goldwater, Rockefeller and Buckley to mental midgets like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck. The Grand Ol' Party is no longer grand in intellect, but grand in stupidity. I want the old GOP back instead of these posers.

Toby Threadgill

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 08:36 AM
The thesis likely comes from this book, which I believe an astonishing work of propaganda and revisionism:

Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, which the cover jacket describes:

"In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism -- Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left."

Or, as I would call it "History through the looking glass," Alice.

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 08:55 AM
Mike,

Are you serious....LOL. Names mean nothing and you know it. Just because the Nazi Party called themselves socialists doesn't make them actual socialist's. The German Democratic Republic was not in fact a republic, or democratic. Well, I'm not going to start off with asking if you're serious and LOL, since I think it's uncalled for, but I'd suggest that you take a closer reading of what was going on in those times in terms of political beliefs. "Socialism" was in vogue and everyone (seemingly) had their own takes on it, often warring with each other for dominance in who was the most "for the common man", etc. In the U.S., there was strong support among the self-styled intellectuals for various brands of socialism. There was support from many Americans (and Europeans) for Hitler, Mussolini, Uncle Joe Stalin, etc., until it became clearer that they were all out for power and deaths began to rise. You're completely misreading the times if you don't understand that socialism was the vogue.
Your claim that the Nazi Party was actually socialist and not right wing is rather laughable. Yes, well perhaps they didn't understand about socialism (look at the huge number of tracts written all over Europe about socialism at that time), but you do. You're basically quoting to me the revised history in which liberal/progressives tried to distance themselves from the negative aspects socialism after the war.
The Nazi Party was always associated with Italian style fascism, which sought to combine authoritarian nationalism and corporatism. What? Maybe in latter-day history the association of Nazis and Italians in terms of the Axis Powers was stressed, but Italy's scheme of things was somewhat different than Germany's. Read up sometime on the origin of the fascisti's.
Hitlers Nazi Party was unflinchingly reactionary in execution and unlike Peronian corporo/fascism, also supremacist. Consequently, political science has always considered Nazism to be on the far far right of the traditional left-right political paradigm. Hitler was very clear about his fashioning Nazism to be the polar opposite of communism. Hitlers fundamental tenet of Nazi fascism hinged on society and its institutions being motivated by nationalistic heroism rather than economics. This is unarguably far right wing stuff that contrasts significantly with the principles of capitalism and socialism. You've taken to heart too much of revised history from left-wing PoliSci teachers. Besides, although nationalism played a large part in those groups in those times and they all developed along different lines, my comment was about the origin of those groups.

You're trying to argue that after Nazism, Fascism, etc., developed they were something "right-wing". Pooh. They were "totalitarian" and each of their origins was from socialist-area thinking/politics.
The growing influence of corporate money and power in our electoral process leads most convincingly towards our country becoming a haven for corporatism rather than European style socialism. Just consider the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. Every citizen and small business was sold out on that day to the big corporations under the guise of free speech. What a crock! No where in the US Constitution is a business entity alluded to have rights approaching or surpassing those of the individual voter. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves! Er.... businesses tend to give campaign donations roughly 50% Republican and 50% Democrat. Labor Unions give money and services almost exclusively to Democrats. Why doesn't your complain include labor unions? People make up "labor unions", but the leaders at the top of unions (often associated with organized crime, even today) have the power to wield the money. People make up corporations and investors and jobholders.... are you suggesting that they shouldn't be able to express themselves? It sounds like you are. BTW, being "anti-business" and "pro-common-man" was the philosophy found in the origins of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.

And don't even get me going on how far the GOP has fallen. From being represented by intellectual giants like Goldwater, Rockefeller and Buckley to mental midgets like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck. The Grand Ol' Party is no longer grand in intellect, but grand in stupidity. I want the old GOP back instead of these posers.
Why the constant reversion to name-calling?

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 09:25 AM
The thesis likely comes from this book, which I believe an astonishing work of propaganda and revisionism:

Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, which the cover jacket describes:

"In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism -- Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left."

Or, as I would call it "History through the looking glass," Alice.It's a good book, despite your de rigeur trivialization/demonization that no leftist can forego, but you're wrong about my thesis coming from that book. I actually studied European history in college and was astute enough to understand what one of my German-immigrant teachers was saying when he pointed out that "Socialism" is part of the Nazi name and origins. It doesn't take a great mind to see these things, but it certainly takes a large amount of denial to think that somehow "socialism" was a different word back in those days than it is now.

The left-wing has a habit of re-writing history. Note Walter Duranty (New York Times reporter in the 1930's) trying to gloss over the deaths of 5-million Ukrainians because he thought socialism/communism was "the right thing to do". Note how "Global Warming" recently became "Climate Change" when the figures too obviously didn't support the massive proclamations of rising temperatures. Note that "Bush started with a surplus and ended with a debt", when told by the Left, never even mentions the 9/11 attack and subsequent economic collapse anymore... it has disappeared from much of leftwing history. Note that the "Subprime mortgage meltdown" morphed quickly into a "blame Wall Street" history in the leftwing media once they understood that the "give bad loans to the poor who can't pay for them" was actually a Democrat Party initiative. Changing history to suit is fine, but somewhere in there you have to face the logic that an accumulation of facts has built.

Goldberg's book is pretty-well researched and sourced/annotated. If you want to quibble with him about his facts and/or interpretations, maybe you should arm yourself with more than sneers. At the moment, he's engaged and is engaging pretty much anyone who makes reasonable argument and he doesn't appear to be losing. And yes, I know that the leftwing gnashes their teeth and attempts the usual name-calling replacement for cogent argument.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 09:35 AM
The Republican Party still sometimes is called the party of Lincoln, but its been ideologically co-opted since Nixon's "Southern strategy" in a way that has nothing to do with some inherent momentum attributable to its original ideals. (The last time, I believe, the GOP pushed civil rights legislation was in passing the 14th amendment and associated statutes following the civil war).

Similarly, even were it historically true -- its not -- the theory that fascism started out as "socialism" (or "syndicalism") and therefore fascism equals "socialism" is mere talismanic word play.

As history, it's important to note the transformation of the GOP; if one could find credible sources and document a similar transformation in fascism, it would also be historically interesting.

But I doubt the history really is there to see by anyone lacking an ax to grind. Certainly haven't read anything here to the contrary; merely slogans.

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 09:37 AM
. Why the constant reversion to name-calling?

Mike Sigman

Why indeed?

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 09:55 AM
The Republican Party still sometimes is called the party of Lincoln, but its been ideologically co-opted since Nixon's "Southern strategy" in a way that has nothing to do with some inherent momentum attributable to its original ideals. (The last time, I believe, the GOP pushed civil rights legislation was in passing the 14th amendment and associated statutes following the civil war).

Similarly, even were it historically true -- its not -- the theory that fascism started out as "socialism" (or "syndicalism") and therefore fascism equals "socialism" is mere talismanic word play.

As history, it's important to note the transformation of the GOP; if one could find credible sources and document a similar transformation in fascism, it would also be historically interesting.

But I doubt the history really is there to see by anyone lacking an ax to grind. Certainly haven't read anything here to the contrary; merely slogans.I'm not going to bother with that very feeble comparison of the meaning of "Republicanism" (the word and the origin of meaning to the party) with Lincoln, etc. It doesn't make sense and besides, it's irrelevant as a comparison. The rest of your argument seems to be based on your personal assertions, so I'll leave it to you.

Factually, the origins of the Fascist Party from labor-union (quasi-socialist organization) roots is well-established. The "socialism" in the name of the Nazi Party is indisputable and it was supported by much of the initial arguments within the party philosophy; it's on record. If you simply want to argue by assertion that the record doesn't exist, I leave that to you, too.

Mike Sigman

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 10:44 AM
There are good reviews and bad reviews of Goldberg's work, but the bad reviews are not limited to the usual suspects. Wiki-excerpt --

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. ... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue. [23]

According to Goldberg's "taxonomy" of ideas, if the Republican Party ended up a largely regional southern party dominated by white men, then its because abolitionism, the founding impulse of the GOP, invariably led it there. How absurd, yet inescapable. And how ironically Hegelian.

If some fascists were vegetarians, and some progressives are vegetarians, it shows, to Goldberg, a connection.

As to my "Argument by assertion," this is of course one of the debating tactics for which you are well-known. That's fine. I don't mind. I believe, however, that it is your thesis and your burden to persuade the reader. Perhaps your forensic skills suffice. You've certainly introduced no facts of any record to prove anything of substance.

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 11:08 AM
More wiki-stuff:

Position [of fascim] in the political spectrum

Many scholars consider fascism to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[7][8][9][32][10]

Benito Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism regards fascism as right-wing and collectivist, but it also declares that fascism is sympathetic to ameliorating the conditions that brought about the rise of left-wing political movements, such as class conflict socialism and liberal democracy, while simultaneously opposing the egalitarianism associated with the left.[33]

Writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[34] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[7] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[8][9][10]

The historians Eugen Weber,[35] David Renton,[36] and Robert Soucy[37] view fascism as on the ideological right. Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement.[38] Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements[39] Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a "fascist radical right".[40][41]

Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either", but that it "was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right".[42] Payne says "fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center", noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right.[43][44] However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.[45]

The position that fascism is neither right nor left is regarded as credible by a number of contemporary historians and sociologists, including Seymour Martin Lipset[46] and Roger Griffin.[47] Griffin argued, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own "beyond left and right."[48]

On economic issues, fascists reject ideas of class conflict and internationalism, which are commonly held by Marxists and international socialists, in favour of class collaboration and statist nationalism.[49][50] However, Italian fascism also declared its objection to excessive capitalism, which it called supercapitalism.[51] Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism.[52]

A number of fascist movements described themselves as a "third force" that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether.[53] Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism's positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists".[54] Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation."[55] Mussolini described fascism in any language he found useful.[54][56] Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera was critical of both left-wing and right-wing politics, once saying that "basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile".[57]

Roger Eatwell sees terminology associated with the traditional "left-right" political spectrum as failing to fully capture the complex nature of the ideology[58] and many other political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum.[59] In some two dimensional political models, such as the Political Compass (where left and right are described in purely economic terms), fascism is ascribed to the economic centre, with its extremism expressing itself on the authoritarianism axis instead.[60]

Toby Threadgill
02-10-2010, 11:19 AM
Mike,

First of all let me say ideologically I'm closest to an old Rockefeller Republican, not a Liberal Democrat nor a Neo-Conservative. As such, today I find myself a registered independent. I believe in fiscal restraint and social liberty. In the last 30 years, and to my dismay, the Republicans have increased the National Debt 1000% and embraced regressive social policies. All one need do is observe a darling of todays Neocon movement by the name of Glenn Beck to see how far the Republican Party has fallen away from intellectually sound ideals. If you believe identifying Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin as a mental midget is name calling, so be it. I prefer to think of it as simple fact.

Now...accusing the entire political science community of revisionist history while referencing Jonah Goldberg as a source of historical and ideologically grounded insight, is like referencing Saul of Tarsus on women's rights. I could go point by point and tear Jonah a new @$$hole on many of the assertions in his lousy book, but I can't type that long a diatribe. So no, he is not winning the argument. He is just another pitiful Neocon apologist who is trying to put lipstick on the pig that is the Republican Party of the last 30 years.

And BTW, my political science teacher in college was a staunch conservative and personal friend of William F. Buckley. He taught that fascism was politically reactionary and an prime example of the extreme right wing ideology although it almost deserved its own special category divoriced from simple right/left . Sorry Mike, but I'll take the consensus of "intellectuals" like him and the worlwide political science community over the postulations of an unabashed Neocon ideologue like Jonah Goldberg any day.

I don't give credibility to ideologues from either side of the political spectrum, and neither should any American. Ideologues from both parties have an ax to grind that is conveniently divorced from the truth and facts.

Toby Threadgill

Aikibu
02-10-2010, 11:50 AM
This is a pretty interesting thread to read and I urge the hate to continue until a civil war erupts, but in the meantime let me make a note about history. The Nazis and Fascists and Communists were all branches of socialist groups, not conservative groups. Nazi is a contraction from the name "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the Nazis referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists). The were into organic foods, the "right thing to do" (just like U.S. Progressives), and so on.

"Fascists" took their name from the "fasces" symbol of a bundle of wheat stalks that was the sign of some labor unions (get it?) in Italy. As Roger Griffin comments: "[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism." Any way you look at it, it was a power grab that took over businesses and the economy/banking in the name of saving the country.

Communists' history is pretty well-known. All three of these people had a tendency to change history (sort of like the intellectuals' trend to attribute Nazisim to conservatives when it was in Germany actually selling Progressive politics in order to win over as much support from the "smart people" as possible).

Socialism was the de rigeur trend in Europe in those days and it's made a resurgence nowadays by pretending that it is not what it is or was. Note the levels of anti-Semitism that are now expanding throughout "social-democrat" Europe again. Also note that in France and England prior to WWII, socialism was very trendy as about 90% of Britain thought that England should unilaterally disarm as a way to pacify Hitler.

But carry on. A complete historical misunderstanding of the role socialism actually played shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of True Beliefs. Not much of a job to go from here to thinking that conservatives should be sent to "labor camps", eh? They're already kept out of most teaching positions in liberal universities and law schools, jobs in Hollywood, and so on. Let's purify the nation!

FWIW

Mike Sigman

On the contrary...History does not seem to support your version of it.

'Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."
Benito Mussolini

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."
Benito Mussolini

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace."
Benito Mussolini

"I think Obama would win the next election if he invaded Iran." Sarah Palin in a recent interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News

In Germany It was the Military Industrial Complex who gave Hitler his power...They backed his National Socialist Party with tons of money and they got the fat government contracts and the use of slave labor in return. IG Farben Siemans ect ect ect. German Industrialists were pissed off about having the Ruhr taken from them at the end of WW1 and it's production given to the victors for reparations....

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels...

The three biggest lies often repeated as mantra...

"I am not a crook." Richard Nixon up through Tom Delay

"Government is the Problem" Ronald Reagan up through G. W. Bush

"Greed is Good" Gorden Gecko (as played by Micheal Douglas) up through Richard Fuld

Karl Rove Lee Atwater Roger Ailes Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh Dick Army and others have twisted the minds of some folks (who sadly were about as smart as Sarah Palin to begin with) into transposing this BS onto Obama. For 35 years I have heard the same crap...The same lies told over and over again....

Sadly it appears some folks continue to drink the kool aid with gusto.

Thomas Franks Book's "What's the Matter with Kansas." and "The Wrecking Crew" subtitled something like "How the Conservative Movement almost Destroyed Government for fun and profit" are both good reads and will help some folks understand how virulent and dangerous this 'ignorant ideology" can be.

Thank God the Younger Generation for the most part does not continue to buy into all that conservative crap...

William Hazen

Fred Little
02-10-2010, 12:22 PM
Mike,

The relationship between Socialism and National Socialism, or more precisely, between Socialism and Nazism, is roughly the same as the relationship between "food" and "food products," which is to say between "food" and "McDonald's."

Bon appetit!

FL

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 01:01 PM
You've certainly introduced no facts of any record to prove anything of substance.Certainly I did. I produced the fact that even the Nazi name contains the word "socialism". They knew what socialism was in those days, too. I produced the fact that "Fascism" derives from one of the common labor-union symbols and that Fascism derives from those movements. You simply ignore anything you don't want to hear.

I also have twice mentioned that I'm talking about the origins of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism and you seem intent on debating what names the ultimate product was (and there is a lot of politically-biased debate about what the terms ultimately were). If you can't acknowledge that my comments about the origins are correct and then go from there, so be it. I'm not interested in arguments that try to shift the debate.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 01:06 PM
Mike,

The relationship between Socialism and National Socialism, or more precisely, between Socialism and Nazism, is roughly the same as the relationship between "food" and "food products," which is to say between "food" and "McDonald's."

Bon appetit!

FLThanks, Fred. Did you see my arguments about the origins of Nazism and the direct comments about "origins"? People can of course argue what Fascism, Nazism, and Communism finally became and whether that final product was Left or Right or Somewhere Else, but my comment was more along the lines of how "socialism" tends to always wind up in somewhat or in rigorously controlled governments. And of course the reason I made the initial comment was because some posters were trying to equate conservatism with Nazism, etc., without understanding that Nazism *started* with socialist roots, not conservative roots.

And yes, I know that I'm whistling into the wind. ;)

Mike

Scott Harrington
02-10-2010, 01:33 PM
So, on a website about Aikido, a martial art with philosophical overtones of compassion and deflecting an attack without killing the attacker we get the following from Mr. David Orange.

hopping mad about our first black president / but the movement, itself, is fundamentally racist

corrupt Supreme Court / American economy is based entirely on war and war-making

she'll actually get elected and order the deaths of thousands of children in some other country

when Hitler was nothing more than Sarah Palin is now

Republicans think only of supporting the corporations and cutting down labor and unions, the poor and all non-whites

I thought that a civil tongue in matters of politics was the sign of a mature person.

I thought the Republican Party ended slavery. I thought the American economy has fed the world, liberated Europe twice and held back communism throughout the 20th century. I thought America has been a beacon of liberty and freedom, welcoming new legal immigrants to blend into the melting pot of capitalism and representative republic government which has allowed a rising tide that lifts all ships into greater prosperity for all. I thought America was a place where a man or woman's religion could be a private matter, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or none of a thousand others. I thought America was a place where the founders were praised more for their political insight rather than condemned for the color of their skin.

Things that make you go "Uhm."

On the matter of Socialism and Communism that this post drifted to, they are the same -- just different in degree. The differences (as written by Jonah Goldberg) is one of a national character.

Cambodian communism kills 1.5 million and all people with education and glasses; Chinese communism kills 70+ million in failed five year plans; German socialism kills 6 million jews, gypsies, and homosexuals in the name of racial purity; Soviet communism thuggishly starves and kills millions so political criminals can rape and ruin the country; Korean communism kills in the name of racial purity and starves the children so the average height drops 4 inches, Swedish (who are nice people) socialism invites in Muslim workers so they go on welfare and bring in polygamy and further weaken the stressed tax base, Cuban communism kills all proponents of freedom and takes a country leading in exporting sugar and bananas into a basket case rationing electric power and importing sugar and bananas; Japanese fascism with racial purity leads a new developing country into raping Manchuria, raping Korean comfort women, and chopping off heads of captured POW's; Italian fascism leads to grand ideas of a Roman empire and yet have trouble with Ethiopian freedom fighters with spears.

Communism is a method for a criminal elite to take power. Socialism is a method where an educated ‘elite' believe it is better to slowly turn that power over to an exclusive educated elite through excessive taxes and restrictions on speech and thought (Geert Wilder knows something about that).

Communism is an excellent system of government -- for ants. Socialism is when the ants have feelings.

Representative Republic style government is not the best system of government, just better than the rest. Free Market Capitalism is not the best system of production, just better to all than the rest.

Scott Harrington

mathewjgano
02-10-2010, 02:04 PM
...my comment was more along the lines of how "socialism" tends to always wind up in somewhat or in rigorously controlled governments.
So do "democratic" and "republic," and a whole bunch of other popular terms.

And of course the reason I made the initial comment was because some posters were trying to equate conservatism with Nazism, etc., without understanding that Nazism *started* with socialist roots, not conservative roots.

And yes, I know that I'm whistling into the wind. ;)

Mike
I may have missed it, but I thought folks were describing the behavior of some of the folks who identify as conservative now; not describing where conservativism came from.

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 02:07 PM
You asked me to acknowledge two points, Mike:

1. I acknowledge the name "National Socialist" contains the word "Socialist," just as "food product" contains the word "food."

Above, I also quoted the following view:

Payne says "fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center", noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right.[43][44] However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.[45]

My problem isn't with the idea that there were similarities between facsist and Stalinist regimes as totalitarian governments, but with the idea the similarities reflected a common underlying set of "soicalist" ideas that "caused" these governments to be repressive.

2. I also acknowledge that fascists sought to organize and fought for the allegiance of the working class -- against socialists and marxists and other labor unions as well as progressives.

{One of the fundamental decisions the American Labor Union movement made historically was that it would live in the house that capital built, separating it from the main currents of international socialism of that era. Post 1929,FDR provided an alternative to both fascism and communism for the States.}

Okay, so let me ask you something:

You earlier quoted Roger Griffin as saying "[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism."

Do you dispute that Mr. Griffin also stated, as I attributed to him, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right?'"

This second quote doesn't advance your theory, does it? Who else you got?

You finally identify, in your post to Fred Little, your underlying thesis as the posited tendency of socialism to result in repressive regimes -- but the history of socialist parties in modern Europe doesn't support that thesis, irrespective of whether you disagree with their policies.

Moreover, to the extent "national socialism" had from the beginning the kinds of attributes attributed to it by the many scholars whose views are referenced (and footnoted) in my previous post, the unquestionable relationship between fascism and totalitarianism does very little to advance your thesis about socialism, absent the stress on "taxonomy."

Now, if you won't, despite my acknowledgements, address the body of scholarship referenced above that puts your theory into doubt beyond dismissing it via the "left-wing-acedemia" trope, then so be it. I'm not interested in debating someone who won't look at the facts.

Respectfully.

David Orange
02-10-2010, 02:09 PM
So, on a website about Aikido, a martial art with philosophical overtones of compassion and deflecting an attack without killing the attacker we get the following from Mr. David Orange.

hopping mad about our first black president / but the movement, itself, is fundamentally racist

Nice taking out of context, Scott. Tell me where I'm wrong. Are you saying the Tea Party movement and its ilk--people bringing guns to Town Hall meetings is "not" "hopping mad"? Wake up, bud.

As for their racism? Absolutely. Even McCain's daughter agrees wholeheartedly with me.

And what's your point that this is posted on a website about aikido, "a martial art with philosophical overtones of compassion and deflecting an attack without killing the attacker"?

Maybe you think "compassion" really means what George Bush means: that "compassionate conservative" is really a good term for a man who initiated all-out war against a people (and their children) who did not attack us? Maybe you need to look in a dictionary, friend.

corrupt Supreme Court / American economy is based entirely on war and war-making

You're saying the Supreme Court is "not" corrupt? When the majority were appointees of GHW Bush, they supported election results from the key state where GHW's son controlled the polls and produced results in favor of GHW's other son? That's not corrupt? And when they call limits on corporate spending on elections "unconstitutional," allowing a corporation to pour millions or hundreds of millions of dollars into defeating a citizen who runs for election?

Just going that far in your post, I can see you come from pretty shallow waters, so I'll just say good luck to you and ta-ta.

David

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 02:20 PM
You asked me to acknowledge two points, Mike:

1. I acknowledge the name "National Socialist" contains the word "Socialist," just as "food product" contains the word "food."

Above, I also quoted the following view:

Payne says "fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center", noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right.[43][44] However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.[45]

My problem isn't with the idea that there were similarities between facsist and Stalinist regimes as totalitarian governments, but with the idea the similarities reflected a common underlying set of "soicalist" ideas that "caused" these governments to be repressive.

2. I also acknowledge that fascists sought to organize and fought for the allegiance of the working class -- against socialists and marxists and other labor unions as well as progressives.

{One of the fundamental decisions the American Labor Union movement made historically was that it would live in the house that capital built, separating it from the main currents of international socialism of that era. Post 1929,FDR provided an alternative to both fascism and communism for the States.}

Okay, so let me ask you something:

You earlier quoted Roger Griffin as saying "[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism."

Do you dispute that Mr. Griffin also stated, as I attributed to him, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right?'"

This second quote doesn't advance your theory, does it? Who else you got?

You finally identify, in your post to Fred Little, your underlying thesis as the posited tendency of socialism to result in repressive regimes -- but the history of socialist parties in modern Europe doesn't support that thesis, irrespective of whether you disagree with their policies.

Moreover, to the extent "national socialism" had from the beginning the kinds of attributes attributed to it by the many scholars whose views are referenced (and footnoted) in my previous post, the unquestionable relationship between fascism and totalitarianism does very little to advance your thesis about socialism, absent the stress on "taxonomy."

Now, if you won't, despite my acknowledgements, address the body of scholarship referenced above that puts your theory into doubt beyond dismissing it via the "left-wing-acedemia" trope, then so be it. I'm not interested in debating someone who won't look at the facts.

Respectfully.You seem to have missed the comment I made about the origins, David. Perhaps if you did some research on the prevalence of socialist-based thought in Europe in the early 1900's. Oh... and if you don't think that socialist-Democrat governments haven't become more and more restrictive of civil rights in Europe and the UK, you haven't been keeping abreast of developments. But then again, the same thing has gradually taken place here, too. Don't get me wrong, BTW, as I mentioned to David Orange I'm quite happy with the continued open vitriol and bullying from the Left. I think it's the best thing that can happen.

Mike Sigman

Aikibu
02-10-2010, 02:25 PM
Thanks, Fred. Did you see my arguments about the origins of Nazism and the direct comments about "origins"? People can of course argue what Fascism, Nazism, and Communism finally became and whether that final product was Left or Right or Somewhere Else, but my comment was more along the lines of how "socialism" tends to always wind up in somewhat or in rigorously controlled governments. And of course the reason I made the initial comment was because some posters were trying to equate conservatism with Nazism, etc., without understanding that Nazism *started* with socialist roots, not conservative roots.

And yes, I know that I'm whistling into the wind. ;)

Mike

Wrong Again...

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

In Fact the same memes are still in play today...For example...

Right Wing German Conservatives believed Germany was "stabbed in the back" by "Liberal Jews" and could have won World War One

Right Wing American Conservatives believe America was "stabbed in the back" by "Liberals" and could have won the Vietnam War.

In Fact some elements of the Tea Party Movement (not all mind you but hey I hope this movement does not have someone as ruthless as Hitler or smarter than Dick Armey. :) ) remind me of the Voelkisch Movement which nurtured the Nazi Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_movement

YA KNOW Sarah Palin's "Real America"? LOL

With all due respect I could go on....... However one always believes that which one wishes to be true and in my old age all I can muster these days is "Forgive them Lord They know not what they do."

I however would rather whistle in the wind then whistle in the dark. ;)

William Hazen

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 02:29 PM
Okay, Mike, I'll do more research and run to you with more facts for approval and you still won't address my points. Not.

No vitriol here, bud; taking a cue from someone wiser than I -- "Namaste."

David Orange
02-10-2010, 02:37 PM
This is a pretty interesting thread to read and I urge the hate to continue until a civil war erupts...

Why worry? Who has the guns? The Tea Partyers will just mow us down as we speak the truth. So you're safe.

Anyway, it looks to me like the Civil War has already begun. The shooting just hasn't started yet. Sarah Palin has supported secession of Alaska from the Union. So we know which side she and the First Dude are on. Darn good thing they're quitters.

The Nazis and Fascists and Communists were all branches of socialist groups, not conservative groups. Nazi is a contraction from the name "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the Nazis referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists).

Hitler also said that his was a Christian movement. Was that true?

My friend from Germany says that the labor camps like Dachau were for "the real socialists." If the Nazis were such "socialists," why did they put the real socialists, liberals, dissenters, union acitivsts, etc., in labor camps? Because those folks wer actually right wingers? No. The Nazis were as Right Wing as they come.

If anything, they chose "National Socialism" as a name for the same reason "Christian Identity" calls itself "Christian." Or do you think they really are Christians?

And fascism may have had a symbol related to some labor symbol, but others have pointed out the true relation and the fact that it was corporate power supported fully by the State. They stepped on labor and the Nazis used slave labor.

Fool yourself, but don't fool innocent imbeciles who think you're talking sense.

The were into organic foods, the "right thing to do" (just like U.S. Progressives), and so on.

Actually, Hitler, himself, was a vegetarian, but many of his generals were not and Hitler used to berate them at meals for enjoying "animal corpses" while he nibbled on his veggies.

Communists' history is pretty well-known. All three of these people had a tendency to change history (sort of like the intellectuals' trend to attribute Nazisim to conservatives when it was in Germany actually selling Progressive politics in order to win over as much support from the "smart people" as possible).

What the Nazis sold was the same thing the Tea Party is selling: KOOLAID.

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=6&topicid=265

The Nazis sold discontent, victimization and hatred of foreigners and the supremacy of the German people "uber alles". Sarah Palin right now is everything Hitler was in the 1920s (except a war hero).

Socialism was the de rigeur trend in Europe in those days and it's made a resurgence nowadays by pretending that it is not what it is or was. Note the levels of anti-Semitism that are now expanding throughout "social-democrat" Europe again. Also note that in France and England prior to WWII, socialism was very trendy as about 90% of Britain thought that England should unilaterally disarm as a way to pacify Hitler.

Your point being???? Who here is defending socialism?

Oh, right. You are claiming that the Nazis were actual socialists. There you go again. Never mind.

But carry on. A complete historical misunderstanding of the role socialism actually played shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of True Beliefs.

Nor should the truth of socialism and Nazism stand in the way of your distorted claims. Of course, nothing will, but I just thought I'd mention it.

Not much of a job to go from here to thinking that conservatives should be sent to "labor camps", eh?

Thanks for the laugh, Mike. Who ran the most recent secret prisons in the world? Liberals??? Or was it maybe neo-cons?

They're already kept out of most teaching positions in liberal universities and law schools, jobs in Hollywood, and so on. Let's purify the nation!

Like I said, the Right Wingers have the guns and they are more the type to "purify" the nation than the liberals. We're just inches away from Fascism, with the latest Supreme Court ruling. If the Republicans have their way, the vast majority of Americans will be working to support the health insurance companies. So the corporations will get their labor, the insurance companies will get their money and if the Tea Party succeeds, Sarah Palin will get their vote. And then we will have War, glorious War once again, over Iran and Hungary, und der slogan will be America uber alles!!!

Maybe you can be Minister of Propaganda.

David

David Orange
02-10-2010, 02:43 PM
...as I mentioned to David Orange I'm quite happy with the continued open vitriol and bullying from the Left. I think it's the best thing that can happen.

I guess The Turner Diaries is selling like hotcakes at these Tea Party gatherings.

David

David Orange
02-10-2010, 02:45 PM
...one always believes that which one wishes to be true and in my old age all I can muster these days is "Forgive them Lord They know not what they do."

But what of those who know full well what they're doing, calling for bloodshed and War and Civil War, and carefully deluding the ones who really don't know better?

David

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 02:51 PM
Pray for us all, David

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 02:55 PM
Anyway, it looks to me like the Civil War has already begun. The shooting just hasn't started yet. Well, how much violence has been done by the "Tea Party" people? None that I know of. However, we've had actual union thugs from the SEIU attack Tea Partiers and conservatives. It's in the news archives from 2009. So you have Purple-shirted union thugs beating people while you call the people getting beat up "Brown Shirts"? Oh, and I realize that you're happy to have them beat up, David. As you remember that how it started with the Jews.
Oh, right. You are claiming that the Nazis were actual socialists. There you go again. Never mind. Well, I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but I guess it's about as questionable as any given text. This for Fred and others, too, from the Wikipedia article on the Voelkisch movement, which had a lot to do with the Nazi Party origins:


A number of the völkisch-populist movements that had developed during the late 19th century in the German Empire, under the impress of National Romanticism, were reorganized along propagandistic lines after the German defeat in World War I, as the word "the people" (Volk) became increasingly politicized as a flag for new forms of ethnic nationalism.

Yet at the same time, Volk was also used by the international socialist parties in the German lands as a synonym for the proletariat. The Völkisch movement was a force as well in Austria.[5] Indeed the leftist political press popularized folk-culture, such as folk music, black-letter calligraphy, runes, and medieval myths and legends, much in the same way that the American left popularized folk-singing, ballads, and organic farming in the 1960s.

From the left, elements of the folk-culture spread to the parties of the middle-classes.[6] But whereas Volk could mean "proletariat" among the left, it meant more particularly "race" among the center and right. Although the primary interest of the Germanic mystical movement was the revival of native pagan traditions and customs (often set in the context of a quasi-Theosophical esotericism), a marked preoccupation with purity of race came to motivate its more politically oriented offshoots such as the Germanenorden. This latter was a secret society (founded at Berlin in 1912) which required its candidates to prove that they had no "non-Aryan" bloodlines and required from each a promise to maintain purity of his stock in marriage. Local groups of the sect met to celebrate the summer solstice, an important neopagan festivity in völkisch circles and later in Nazi Germany, and more regularly to read the Eddas as well as some of the German mystics [2]. This branch of the völkisch movement quickly developed a hyper-nationalist sentiment and allied itself with anti-semitism, then rising throughout the Western world.

George Mosse[7] identified some of the more "respectable" and centrist channels through which these sensibilities flowed: school texts that transmitted a Romantic view of a "pure" Germanic past, the nature-oriented German Youth Movement, and novels with an ideally ruthless völkisch hero, such as Hermann Löns' Der Wehrwolf (1910).

Another völkisch movement of the same time was the Tatkreis.

Not all folkloric societies with connections to Romantic nationalism were located in Germany. The community of Monte Veritŕ ('Mount Truth') which emerged in 1900 at Ascona, Switzerland, is described by the Swiss art critic Harald Szeemann as "the southernmost outpost of a far-reaching Nordic lifestyle-reform, that is, alternative movement".[8] It embraced a mix of anarchism, libertarian communism and various forms of artistic bohemianism and neopaganism.

[edit] Connection with Nazism
The völkisch ideologies were influential in the development of Nazism. Indeed, Joseph Goebbels publicly asserted in the 1927 Nuremberg rally that if the populist (völkisch) movement had understood power and how to bring thousands out in the streets, it would have gained political power on 9 November 1918 (failed Communist revolution, end of the German monarchy)[3]. Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (My Struggle): "the basic ideas of the National-Socialist movement are populist (völkisch) and the populist (völkisch) ideas are National-Socialist." Nazi racial pseudo-science was couched in Völkisch terms, as when Eugen Fischer stepped into the vacuum, as other scholars withdrew from the University of Berlin in 1933, and delivered his inaugural address as Nazi rector, "The Conception of the Völkisch state in the view of biology" (29 July 1933).[9]

I.e., the borrowings for Nazism were from multiple sources, but the community and socialist ideas were definitely within the inception of Nazism, regardless of what the finished product contained. Regulation of society (toward totalitarianism) is always the drift of socialism. And so much for the idea that Nazism had no relationship with socialism. Anyone reading the ideas of the time cannot miss the popular impact of socialism within Europe.

Mike Sigman

David Orange
02-10-2010, 02:58 PM
Pray for us all, David

Only if you'll pray for me! :)

Thanks!

David

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 03:02 PM
Deal.

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 03:06 PM
Mike,

I wish you'd underlined and addressed this part of the text you quote for support:

But whereas Volk could mean "proletariat" among the left, it meant more particularly "race" among the center and right. Although the primary interest of the Germanic mystical movement was the revival of native pagan traditions and customs (often set in the context of a quasi-Theosophical esotericism), a marked preoccupation with purity of race came to motivate its more politically oriented offshoots

Presumably Hitler was aware of this. BTW "populism" = "socialism?" But isn't the Tea Party movement a populist one?

OMG, they are everywhere....

David Orange
02-10-2010, 03:13 PM
Well, how much violence has been done by the "Tea Party" people?

Intimidation only, so far as I know of. But when you start bringing guns to "bipartisan" meetings and shouting down the speakers, and the leader of the movement calls for declaring war for the purpose of being elected....and you yourself encourage the civil war...how far off can it be?

However, we've had actual union thugs from the SEIU attack Tea Partiers and conservatives. It's in the news archives from 2009.

I did see some little clip about that. But as I recall, the beatees went into the other group and got up in people's faces with cameras. And neither of us knows what really happened because those little clips were bouncy and jerky and didn't show everything by far. If the SEIU guys had shown up with guns, that would have been worth mentioning. And I think that is the only example you can give, isn't it? Hardly representative of the movement.

Oh, and I realize that you're happy to have them beat up, David. As you remember that how it started with the Jews.

You're getting a little out of hand, there, Mike. Who said I was happy to see that? I never did and I never endorsed it. And in fact, I was displeased because it gave the Right Wingers some ammo. Although, from looking at the clips, I'd have to say that they asked for it and they got it: just like that little twerp who punked the ACORN office, soon to be getting punked, himself, in jail, for his little prank in a Senator's office. Stupid is as stupid does.

Oh, and as for the Jews in Germany, I never did hear about them going out and getting into the faces of the brownshirts with cameras. And it was my German friend (American since he was a kid) who called the Town Hall disrupters "brownshirts". But if the shirt fits....

...community and socialist ideas were definitely within the inception of Nazism, regardless of what the finished product contained.

So was Christianity. So are you saying that Christianity inherently produces Totalitarian governments? The Nazis simply used every social sentiment they could lead to draw members into the movement they had in their Right Wing minds.

Regulation of society (toward totalitarianism) is always the drift of socialism.

""I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000"

And he came pretty close to being one.

And so much for the idea that Nazism had no relationship with socialism. Anyone reading the ideas of the time cannot miss the popular impact of socialism within Europe.

And the Nazis simply lead that sentiment along with Christian sentiments and anything else they could use to draw people into what was really a Right Wing anti-Christian movement.

So you still win no points with such specious reasoning.

David

mathewjgano
02-10-2010, 03:21 PM
I thought the American economy has fed the world, liberated Europe twice and held back communism throughout the 20th century.
Not sure what this has to do with politics in America now, but actually we helped liberate some of Europe a few years after both wars started. In fact most of FDR's opponants were pretty against the war if I recall correctly. And frankly i don't care about curbing communism where we simply prop up other tyrants.

I thought America has been a beacon of liberty and freedom, welcoming new legal immigrants to blend into the melting pot of capitalism and representative republic government which has allowed a rising tide that lifts all ships into greater prosperity for all. I thought America was a place where a man or woman's religion could be a private matter, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or none of a thousand others. I thought America was a place where the founders were praised more for their political insight rather than condemned for the color of their skin.

Things that make you go "Uhm."
No, I'm pretty sure our founders were condemned for the color of their skin. If by "founders" you mean the people who founded this nation, actually many were regularly condemned for just that. And those white folks who got to be in charge because they were land owners (isn't that a de facto oligarchy?) rarely praised each other over their political insight...again, if memory serves correctly, and it may well not, to be perfectly honest.

On the matter of Socialism and Communism that this post drifted to, they are the same -- just different in degree. The differences (as written by Jonah Goldberg) is one of a national character.
Character? That sounds like a nice way to sell people on an idea (i.e. pretty rhetoric that means essentially nothing). What constitutes "character" in this use of the term?

Communism is a method for a criminal elite to take power. Socialism is a method where an educated ‘elite' believe it is better to slowly turn that power over to an exclusive educated elite through excessive taxes and restrictions on speech and thought (Geert Wilder knows something about that).
I disagree with regard to socialism. The danger of communism is the secretive nature of its leadership: lack of transparency and access. It's why I disagree with Leninist communism (don't really know other models).
Socialism refers to...advocating common or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]
Like all the other items up for bid they promise equality for the masses based on work put in, and unlike communism (so far as I know), socialism can include representative government...in fact I'm pretty sure most of Europe (plenty of socialism there) is representative to some degree.

Representative Republic style government is not the best system of government, just better than the rest. Free Market Capitalism is not the best system of production, just better to all than the rest.

Scott Harrington

Isn't that, by definition, the best? That still just sounds like a softer/kinder way of saying you think they're the best.

David Orange
02-10-2010, 03:24 PM
But whereas Volk could mean "proletariat" among the left, it meant more particularly "race" among the center and right. Although the primary interest of the Germanic mystical movement was the revival of native pagan traditions and customs (often set in the context of a quasi-Theosophical esotericism), a marked preoccupation with purity of race came to motivate its more politically oriented offshoots


Hitler did invent the Volkwagen, after all: "the people's wagen".

But it's true that Hitler was eaten up with Germanic mystical paganism. He believed himself to be the reincarnation of Odin and that his duty was simply to wreak destruction on the world. Still, he used Christian phaseology and appeals to delude actual Christians (or those who thought they were real Christians) to follow his movement. So he used the same kind of appeals to socialist thinking and labor and Germanic nationalism--anything that would suck in new members.

You'd think people would have recognized this and many did, but those really violent in heart and filled with racial hatred and nationalistic pride were easy prey. Thus the comparison to Palin.

David

Scott Harrington
02-10-2010, 03:28 PM
My personal opinion is more people would be alive today if France had outlawed coffee shops in the 19th century - they were the breeding grounds of the worst malevolent "isms" out of Europe, causing more death than any disease.

Sarah Palin and tea baggers (a nice gay slang derogatory term) represent people who want to pay taxes (a fair amount), have moderate government influence ( protect our rights, not infringe on them), and be proud of the United States of America (a country that despite it's problems has produced more good in the world than bad).

As a paleocon, I find fault with George Bush for not vetoing a single spending bill during his term. With Buckley, I find fault in allowing his son to vote for Obama so he could go to the right parties. With McCain I find fault not understanding what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" means and sponsoring the McCain Feingold Bill, I find fault with Rev. Wright allowed to talk racist hate and given a pass while the Turner Diaries is rightfully chastised for it's racist hate.

And I find fault in those who wish to spend money wastefully that is taxed from the hard work of American Citizens. Government is not supposed to be a profitable business and they are certainly living up to that.

The Tea Party is based on individuals WITH GUNS rebelling against a Government trying to pay off its war debt in a protracted altercation with France by raising taxes (without the people's permission or input) on tea (because the water sucked) and those individuals could find no channel for a redress of grievances.

And those guns have protected our new found rights, whether against good southern democrats during the 1st reconstruction from KKK'ers or the 2nd reconstruction against southern democrats as when Condella Rice's father protected his home and family and Charlton Heston marched with the borderline socialist Martin Luther King to give fruition and meaning to the expression that at least in America, we believe, "All men are created Equal..."

Now tell me why this is on an Aikido website? Time for some ukemi.

Scott Harrington

David Orange
02-10-2010, 03:29 PM
...the community and socialist ideas were definitely within the inception of Nazism, regardless of what the finished product contained. Regulation of society (toward totalitarianism) is always the drift of socialism. And so much for the idea that Nazism had no relationship with socialism. Anyone reading the ideas of the time cannot miss the popular impact of socialism within Europe.

I guess that explains why such American industrialists as Henry Ford and Prescott Bush loved the Nazis, too, huh? They were closet socialists?

Look who really supported the Nazis here in the US at that time and I think your theories will be exposed as mere fantasy. Or would they really be deliberate propaganda?

I guess fifty or sixty years from now, someone will be quoting Mike Sigman to support the claim that the Tea Party movement was really started by liberal socialists seeking a totalitarian state.

Get real.

David

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 03:39 PM
Intimidation only, so far as I know of. But when you start bringing guns to "bipartisan" meetings and shouting down the speakers, and the leader of the movement calls for declaring war for the purpose of being elected....and you yourself encourage the civil war...how far off can it be? Nope. The thugs from SEIU (a main supporter of Obama) deliberately beat up a small and sickly black conservative:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiggovernment.com%2Fcapitolconfidential%2F2009%2F11%2F09%2Fexcl usive-police-report-on-gladney-beating-by-seiu-thugs%2F&rct=j&q=seiu+st.+louis+beating&ei=5yRzS-P4OIfasQPf2YiRBQ&usg=AFQjCNGbojfzCg62KPw30E9dueBw_tmX3g

In other words, you're one of the Far Left that deliberately propagates untruths, David. It's the way the Left works. Constant attacks and repeated untruths. Notice how many on the Left still publicly proclaim that Gore won in Florida, even after two leftist newspapers counted the votes themselves (NYTimes and Miami Herald) and admitted that Bush would have won anyway. Notice how it was Gore and the Left that tried blocking write-in votes from the military because the military votes mainly Republican... the same Left that moans about everyone's vote counting.

But hey.... isn't this thread about tearing down the very Tea Partiers that goons from the Left attacked at least twice? It's the same way that Hitler constantly talked about the bad deeds the Jews had done.:cool:

M.

David Orange
02-10-2010, 03:49 PM
I thought America has been a beacon of liberty and freedom, welcoming new legal immigrants to blend into the melting pot of capitalism and representative republic government which has allowed a rising tide that lifts all ships into greater prosperity for all. I thought America was a place where a man or woman's religion could be a private matter, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or none of a thousand others.

Wow. I didn't even read that far in your post. It got worse as you went!

how's that rise-y tide-y thing workin' out for ya? Certainly the tide rose in America for the richest two percent from 2000 to the present. The super-wealthy are still getting their multi-million dollar bonuses, but for most people these years have been flat or declining.

And you still think America is a place where one's religion is a private matter????

The right wing has made Christianity (or at least loud public proclamations of it) almost de rigueur to serve in political office.

I mean, who has been calling Obama a muslim for the past three years? Is that the America you mean? That's the Tea Pary America, pal. Wake up.

David

David Orange
02-10-2010, 04:00 PM
Sarah Palin and tea baggers (a nice gay slang derogatory term) represent people who want to pay taxes (a fair amount), have moderate government influence ( protect our rights, not infringe on them), and be proud of the United States of America (a country that despite it's problems has produced more good in the world than bad).

Well, that's everyone. But it's very popular to claim that people who criticize Sarah are "blaming America". We're not. We're blaming Right Wing bigots. We blame George Bush for what he did--we don't blame America. But all Americans will bear some guilt for what we allowed him to do, just as the Germans and Japanese bear suffering for what their leaders did in WWII, even if the people did not support the leadership.

And "tea bagger" is the term that movement chose for itself. I got suspended from this forum last time I used it, not realizing they had quit using it. Now it's just a symbol of how ignorant that bunch is to call themselves something so derogatory without even realizing it. I mean, I didn't know the term existed, but then I never used it before they did...

And just because America has produced more good than bad isn't like some kind of cap and trade thing that allows us now to go and do a hell of a lot of Bushian evil. That really takes away from our value and promise to the world.

As a paleocon, I find fault with George Bush for not vetoing a single spending bill during his term.

That's it, huh? You "find fault" with him? And just over his spending???? I guess you probably found fault with Hitler over his fashion sense?

David Orange
02-10-2010, 04:05 PM
Nope. The thugs from SEIU (a main supporter of Obama) deliberately beat up a small and sickly black conservative:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiggovernment.com%2Fcapitolconfidential%2F2009%2F11%2F09%2Fexcl usive-police-report-on-gladney-beating-by-seiu-thugs%2F&rct=j&q=seiu+st.+louis+beating&ei=5yRzS-P4OIfasQPf2YiRBQ&usg=AFQjCNGbojfzCg62KPw30E9dueBw_tmX3g

In other words, you're one of the Far Left that deliberately propagates untruths, David.

I only commented on the video I saw. The two right wingers crossed the street and got into the opposing lines and stuck cameras in people's faces. If that's where Gladney was beaten, then he walked over and started it. Sure, he didn't throw the first punch, but he went over and "pulled on the dog's ears".

But maybe you're talking about some different incident? Maybe you should post the clip and show how it really happened. Otherwise, just more right wing propaganda, backed up by a right wing website. SSDD.

Go ahead and prove the truth by posting your clip and show what really happened.

David

mathewjgano
02-10-2010, 04:06 PM
With Buckley, I find fault in allowing his son to vote for Obama so he could go to the right parties.
"Allowing?"

And I find fault in those who wish to spend money wastefully that is taxed from the hard work of American Citizens. Government is not supposed to be a profitable business and they are certainly living up to that.
Do you mean "not" living up to that?

The Tea Party is based on individuals WITH GUNS rebelling against a Government trying to pay off its war debt in a protracted altercation with France by raising taxes (without the people's permission or input) on tea (because the water sucked) and those individuals could find no channel for a redress of grievances.
I would say the key difference is that the modern day Tea Partiers actually have representation.

Now tell me why this is on an Aikido website? Time for some ukemi.

Scott Harrington

I've actually got that one! Because some aikidoists enjoy their politics and there happens to be an "open discussion" board for non-Aikido topics.

Aikibu
02-10-2010, 04:50 PM
Well, how much violence has been done by the "Tea Party" people? None that I know of. However, we've had actual union thugs from the SEIU attack Tea Partiers and conservatives. It's in the news archives from 2009. So you have Purple-shirted union thugs beating people while you call the people getting beat up "Brown Shirts"? Oh, and I realize that you're happy to have them beat up, David. As you remember that how it started with the Jews. Well, I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but I guess it's about as questionable as any given text. This for Fred and others, too, from the Wikipedia article on the Voelkisch movement, which had a lot to do with the Nazi Party origins:

I.e., the borrowings for Nazism were from multiple sources, but the community and socialist ideas were definitely within the inception of Nazism, regardless of what the finished product contained. Regulation of society (toward totalitarianism) is always the drift of socialism. And so much for the idea that Nazism had no relationship with socialism. Anyone reading the ideas of the time cannot miss the popular impact of socialism within Europe.

Mike Sigman

Siiiiiigh......No point discussing facts with you...First you discount Wikipedia as a source then....You use the very same source as a basis for your semantic gymnastics regarding the difference between the word "socialism" and the ideology of "socialism."

I have nothing but empathy for you...How hard it must be knowing that history as you understand it is not a tool to learn from... but as a means to justify irrational behavior of certain elements of the far right over political discourse.

Defending everything gains a man nothing in the end.

William Hazen

C. David Henderson
02-10-2010, 05:10 PM
From Wikipedia on Italian Fascism, aside from nationalist anger at the way Italy was "shorted" following WWI,

The other source for the power of the Fascists was labor unrest in the countryside and peasant opposition to international socialism. Mussolini had been a socialist and knew how to inspire workers. Even so, in an afternoon speech given by Mussolini in 1919, he declared that "We declare war on socialism, not because it is socialist, but because it has opposed nationalism...." Between 1920 and 1921, fascists began to appeal both to Italian industrialists and landowners in the countryside. Both groups were opposed to efforts of socialist workers to gain power by strikes in the factories and countryside. Charles F. Delzell writes:

At first, the Fascists were concentrated in Milan and a few other cities. They gained ground quite slowly between 1919 and 1920; not until after the scare brought about by the workers "occupation of the factories" in the late summer of 1920 did fascism become really widespread. The industrialists began to throw their financial support to it. Moreover, toward the end of 1920, fascism began to spread into the countryside, bidding for the support of large landowners, particularly in the area between Bologna and Ferrara, a traditional stronghold of the left and scene of frequent violence. Socialist and Catholic organizer of farm hands in that region, Venezia Giulia, Tuscany, and even distant Apulia were soon attacked by squads of Fascists, armed with castor oil, blackjacks, and more lethal weapons. The era of Squadrismo and nightly expeditions to burn Socialist and Catholic labor headquarters had begun.


****
The Italian model of fascism was influential outside of Italy in the inter-war period and a number of groups and thinkers looked directly to Italy for their inspiration rather than developing an indigenous form of the ideology. Groups that sought to copy the Italian model of fascism included the Russian Fascist Organization, the Romanian National Fascist Movement (an amalgam of the National Romanian Fascia and the National Italo-Romanian Cultural and Economic Movement) and the Dutch group based around the Verbond van Actualisten journal of H. A. Sinclair de Rochemont and Alfred Haighton and Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. One of the earliest fascist states was founded by the Sammarinese Fascist Party in San Marino. Their ideology was virtually identical to Italian Fascism and made no innovations or contributions of their own.

In Switzerland Colonel Arthur Fonjallaz, who had previously been associated with the more pro-Nazi National Front, became an ardent admirer of Mussolini after visiting Italy in 1932. He came to advocate the annexation of Switzerland by his idol, whilst also receiving some financial aid from the Italian leader.[47] The country also hosted the International Centre for Fascist Studies (CINEF) and the 1934 congress of the Action Committee for the Universality of Rome (CAUR), two Italian-led initiatives.[48]

In Spain early fascist writer Ernesto Giménez Caballero called for Italy to annex Spain in his 1932 book Genio de Espańa, with Mussolini at the head of an international Latin Roman Catholic empire. He would later become more closely associated with Falangism, leading to his ideas of Italian annexation being put aside.[49]


FWIW

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 05:10 PM
I only commented on the video I saw. The two right wingers crossed the street and got into the opposing lines and stuck cameras in people's faces. Oh... there was a reason for beating them up, according to you? If that's where Gladney was beaten, then he walked over and started it. Sure, he didn't throw the first punch, but he went over and "pulled on the dog's ears". Unreal.
But maybe you're talking about some different incident? Maybe you should post the clip and show how it really happened. Otherwise, just more right wing propaganda, backed up by a right wing website. SSDD. Here's the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdbTVUeay8&feature=related

And David.... stop with the "right wing propaganda" BS.

Let me say this. No right wing organization or Republican party supporters would get away with sending thugs out to intimidate. There'd be an uprising and I'd be part of it. You Lefties didn't protest one bit about the SEIU putting a guy in the hospital. Fine. Don't protest when someone gets put in the hospital.

Mike Sigman

David Orange
02-10-2010, 06:19 PM
Oh... there was a reason for beating them up, according to you?

If you consider gravity the "reason" a guy hits the ground when he steps off the third floor roof. Very simply predictable cause and effect. I would expect the same or a shooting if the SEIU folks had crossed the street and gotten up in the tea partyers' faces. It wouldn't be a reason for me to jump on anyone but you do something really stupid and you bear the consequences.

Unreal.

No. Absolutely real.

And David.... stop with the "right wing propaganda" BS.

Well, you are the one who considers Nazis "liberal". So you stop with the left wing BS and we'll have a deal.

Let me say this. No right wing organization or Republican party supporters would get away with sending thugs out to intimidate.

Baloney. They sent intimidators into the town hall meetings and gun-toting intimidators to the spaces around the meetings. My friend from Germany called them "Brownshirts."

There'd be an uprising and I'd be part of it.

Well that's clearly untrue because you never protested when they did it and only protest when people call them on it. In fact, the Tea Party was probably stirred up by Republican forces and supporters and it will disappear before the next election, leaving only right wing Republicans when it's time to vote.

You Lefties didn't protest one bit about the SEIU putting a guy in the hospital. Fine. Don't protest when someone gets put in the hospital.

I'll protest how stupid he was to go get up in their faces. Mind you, I haven't watched your clip yet. I'm still referring only to the clips I've seen, which were as I described them. I can hardly protest about some dummy getting the fruits of his arrogance.

If, as you describe it, the guy was just walking down the street and these SEIU guys just suddenly rushed up and beat up this one sick little guy, that's another story. But I seriously doubt it. I'll watch the clip and comment again.

David Orange
02-10-2010, 06:53 PM
Here's the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdbTVUeay8&feature=related



You've got to be kidding. That doesn't show anything. Nothing at all. There's not even a punch thrown. There's no way to see from that anything useful. That's taken after whatever happened happened.

What did you post that for?

Mike Sigman
02-10-2010, 07:17 PM
You've got to be kidding. That doesn't show anything. Nothing at all. There's not even a punch thrown. There's no way to see from that anything useful. That's taken after whatever happened happened.

What did you post that for?Did you even bother to read the police report, Orange? Hey, I realize that as a Left-winger you don't care who gets hurt that is in the "Opposition". I think that's a fair enough strategy. As long as you quit caterwauling about what might happen to the Left. ;) I want to see you post your venom against the Right and then say, "Bring it on!", now this dissimulation you tend to do.

And don't get me wrong. You and I are far more different than you think. If there were Right Wing people in charge of the government trying to tell me how to think or tell me that abortions are wrong or that Creationism must be taught in school, I'd be loudly protesting and getting ready to act. You, on the other hand, only complain about people who aren't of the same political persuasion as you.

Mike Sigman

Dan O'Day
02-10-2010, 09:43 PM
The meanings of terms often morph through generational use. People can igmore this and get all caught up in using out of date comparisons to justify whatever thought they wish to assert.

But I don't care about any of that. It's all meaningless and quite frankly I believe it to be cowardly and self effacing. See...folks sometimes wish to appear as if they are invested in society and not just another proverbial couch potato who is part of the problem. So those folks will cite chapter and verse of this that and the other thing to "prove" some point or another. But really all they are doing is engaging in an elaborate self deluding game of avoidance.

Me? I will tell you right out what I believe "liberalism" is. It means to support the efforts to create equitable living conditions and standards for all human beings.

RepubliKKKans hate this. They want more and more and more and wish to justify it all through some ladida "right" of the "by gawd American", etc.

Little do they know they are just puppets of the Machine and that all of their philosophies are continuations of the early 19th century Manifest Destiny Doctrine which "justified" the massacre of the Indians and the following land theft.

My family has been here since the 1600's. They never got it...never figured it out. Just take and take and kill and kill and take some more. But I figured it out. It's real simple.

As long as anyone lives in poverty then all of us are living in poverty.

But hey...the Machine is strong. It is soulless. It is not a political thing, though many think it is. Nope. It's Capitalism. It's an out of control machine. It's built for one thing and one thing only. More. More. More.

And quite frankly it's taken pretty much what it can from the USA - for now- and that's why it's so present in India and China. And all your RepubliKKKan leaders are nothing but tools of the Machine. Most of those tools aren't even owned by America anymore. Nope. Multi-national companies which could care less for America but who are headquartered here and who affect legislation here and who most importantly get to operate safely as "American" behind the most powerful military in the world.

It's all way out of control and these tea party traitors and their incredibly and embarassingly ignorant sara palin...who was it...who was it who said to the crazed Joe McCarthy, "Have you no decency, Sir?" We need that voice today.

But no more...nope. The Machine has eaten up free press so we don't get to hear our heroes speak unless you listen to obscure radio and tv programs hidden behind the blaring sirens and blinding lights of what passes for information put forth by the Machine media.

Cheney...the guy committed treason. He outed a CIA agent named Valerie Plame as an act of personal vendetta resulting when her husband, an American Ambassador, cast doubts on the reports of yellow cake uranium being sold to Iraq from Nigeria. That got in the way of cheney starting his war and causing the deaths of a million people and then bankrupting the USA.

And these tea party people...they not only let that one go, they cheer the traitor cheney on to this day. Nope. Not Americans. Nothing but traitors are those people. And Palin? Taking money from and supporting the AIP. The AIP's founder publicly proclaimed his hatred for America. See...the conservatives have always hated America but we liberals have let them have a voice. I'm thinking it's time that the First Amendment no longer be a shield for treason.

David Orange
02-10-2010, 09:54 PM
Did you even bother to read the police report, Orange? Hey, I realize that as a Left-winger you don't care who gets hurt that is in the "Opposition".

No, I didn't read anything on that right wing site. The police report is too small for me to try to dig something out of. Why don't you abstract it and post it with the page number or something.

I said I'd knock of the right wing propaganda if you'd knock of the leftie talk, but it looks like you don't really want that after all.

Whatever. So you just put out these wacky videos where no one can tell anything that happens and insist that it proves some SEIU "thugs" beat up somebody. The first thing I see is a guy in a purple shirt (SEIU) on the ground with another guy who looks like he's stomping on him. And the SEIU "thugs"???? These elephanitine people who walk like Jello bags, hobbling along?

I don't care who gets hurt as long as they're the opposition???

What garbage, Mike.

I don't want people to get hurt, but when they do something really stupid, what can anyone expect? Why would I have sympathy for a guy who says "Hold my beer and watch this!"? That's the problem with most of the Tea Partyers. They think they can play with fire and not get burned. They think they can support Hitler and not end up in Auschwitz. They think they can champion the corporations and the corporations will do what's good for them. They think because they're happy with their health insurance they can block other people's attempts to get decent coverage: in other words, they steal food from people's mouths then get up in their faces and taunt them.

The election of 2008 was the real punch in the nose they deserved.

Should I cry for McCain because he was so stupid the chose Sarah Palin as his running mate and she stabbed him in the back? Everyone who ever helped her has come to regret it. The only ones who support her are the people who just haven't recognized who she really is. Am I going to cry when she stabs them in the back, too? It's like that dummy who put a rattlesnake's head in his mouth and almost died when it bit his tongue. I mean, is that to cry about, or to laugh?

I think that's a fair enough strategy [not to care when the opposition gets hurt]. As long as you quit caterwauling about what might happen to the Left.

It's not just the Left that will get hurt when the Right goes full-out Nazi. How long do you think this country will last with Palin as President or if we'd even had four more years of Bush?

I don't bemoan people becoming Nazis only because they hurt other people: most of the Nazis were punished very severely before it was over. And ALL of Germany suffered because in Christian motivation they elected an anti-Christ to lead them. I feel for the German soldiers who committed crimes against humanity because they believed they were fighting for the betterment of all the world. Many Japanese supported Tojo believing they would unite all of Asia against the Western forces that wanted to rule them by keeping the Asian nations divided. But they were serving a fool.

So I don't just care about the Left, pal. I also hate to see a well-meaning dumbass turn Nazi as much as I hate to see a party-girl turn on to crack.

I want to see you post your venom against the Right and then say, "Bring it on!", now this dissimulation you tend to do.

I'll say "Bring on the truth!" I know Right Wingers will shoot, skin, hang, burn and choke anyone that gets in their way. I don't know any Democrats or Obama supporters who will do that. The modern Republicans and Tea Party supporters down here are the same ones who beat the Freedom Riders and conducted hundreds of lynchings. Not that they're the literal same people, but it's the very same spirit among them. That's their motivation. No one has to tell them to bring it on. They've been brining it for generations. My message to them is not "bring it on" (last spoken by a true fool, concerning the Iraqi insurgency), but "Get lost, losers."

And don't get me wrong. You and I are far more different than you think.

How much more different can we be, Mike?

If there were Right Wing people in charge of the government trying to tell me how to think or tell me that abortions are wrong or that Creationism must be taught in school, I'd be loudly protesting and getting ready to act.

?????

Supporting Palin and the Tea Party, you will bring that to be. Why would you then protest something you helped to create?

Why would you protest people who are of the same political persuasion as yourself?

I've criticized the democrats here for their lack of ability to put aside their pet issues and work together to put down this nonsense by getting the important legislation passed instead of holding it up to wheedle in little deals for their pet causes. The Republicans get a lot more done with a much smaller majority than the democrats have had simply because they all serve one master: the Corporate cause and the benefit of the super wealthy.

I don't want to destroy the super wealthy or ruin them in any way. I just want to break their strangle-hold on the rest of America and I want to stop them from using our military power to destroy our American reputation as a land of liberty and a beacon to the world. Why would I protest anyone who supports those ideals?

David

akiy
02-10-2010, 09:57 PM
I don't see this thread going anywhere positive. Thread closed.

-- Jun