democrats are not freedom lovers. far from it.
republicans are not freedom lovers. far from it.
Agreed; I posted some Republican jabs simply to highlight that fact, since the Democrats were under fire (deservedly), but under the claim that flip side were saints (false).
You are correct sir, but remember that I was responding to Bill's assertion that Democrats could not be fascist because fascism is violent.
Yeah, Bill was off on that. Then again, so is any attempt to paint only Democrats as "fascists" (implying Republicans are defenders against fascism) which is counterproductive and downright goading.
|
frankly, the discussion between you two highlights why i cant stand EITHER major party. right now, neither one cares about what is best for this nation, they both only care about the power of their party and the subjugation of the american people to their worldviews.
I am afraid that I must disagree with you on this sir. I firmly believe that both sides have the best interest of the country as their driving goal, we just disagree how to reach it and what it is. The whole purpose of politics is to decide who gets what, when, and how much. Furthermore, everyone from liberitarian to liberal, conservative to communist is interested in the "subjugation" of the American political system. The whole reason that a person enters politics is because you think you have the best ideas for the country or community. Just because you disagree with one party or another doesn't mean that they aren't just as interested in the peace, prosperity, and freedom of this country as you are.
|
Are you seriously applying some kind of wide altruism brush to political figures?
I could agree that some get into it because of their desire for something greater for the country (or whatever political division they represent) but I also think the unfortunate reality these days is that as many get in for personal gain as for any other reason.
Furthermore, everyone from liberitarian to liberal, conservative to communist is interested in the "subjugation" of the American political system. The whole reason that a person enters politics is because you think you have the best ideas for the country or community. Just because you disagree with one party or another doesn't mean that they aren't just as interested in the peace, prosperity, and freedom of this country as you are.
Well said. Probably everyone wants what's best, but unfortunately everyone thinks that they alone know what that is. I'm ususally happiest when the President is of a different party from the majority in Congress; then they're stuck dealing with each other, like it or not. It forces a broader perspective, which is a plus in governing a large, heterogeneous nation.
|
Agreed; I posted some Republican jabs simply to highlight that fact, since the Democrats were under fire (deservedly), but under the claim that flip side were saints (false).democrats are not freedom lovers. far from it.
republicans are not freedom lovers. far from it.
well, sometimes even i take the opposite side (in a devil's advocate sort of way) to highlight the fallacy of assuming either side has our interests at heart. the only two presidents in my lifetime whom i've felt were effective were reagan and clinton. reagan because, for better or worse, he had a clear vision of how to bring america back from the brink of the disaster that was the 70s, and clinton because he was smart enough to read what the american people wanted, policy-wise, and adapt. of the two, i think reagan had more sincerity in his stance, but clinton had more ability to play the ends against the middle and keep the growth reagan started going in the right direction.
point is, if i were a democrat, i'd have to demonize reagan for being an "uber-capitalist pig", "lover of the rich" and "belligerent cold-war monger" who refused to budge, and if i were a republican i'd have to demonize clinton as a "womanizing pig", "wet finger in the air political opportunist who coopted the contract with america for his own purposes" and a "scumbag (or whatever they were saying).
instead, i choose to admire both men for giving this nation 20 years of prosperity, stability and opportunity for more americans than at any point previous in our 200+ year history...
instead, i choose to admire both men for giving this nation 20 years of prosperity, stability and opportunity for more americans than at any point previous in our 200+ year history...
I'm with you on that! I kinda liked Bush, Sr. as well.
|
|
I am afraid that I must disagree with you on this sir. I firmly believe that both sides have the best interest of the country as their driving goal, we just disagree how to reach it and what it is. The whole purpose of politics is to decide who gets what, when, and how much. Furthermore, everyone from liberitarian to liberal, conservative to communist is interested in the "subjugation" of the American political system. The whole reason that a person enters politics is because you think you have the best ideas for the country or community. Just because you disagree with one party or another doesn't mean that they aren't just as interested in the peace, prosperity, and freedom of this country as you are.frankly, the discussion between you two highlights why i cant stand EITHER major party. right now, neither one cares about what is best for this nation, they both only care about the power of their party and the subjugation of the american people to their worldviews.
i, too, have to disagree. all i have seen from congress is a bunch of criminals lining their own pockets, comporting themselves like drnk fratboys (and sorority girls), passing legislation based on overreacting to whatever the "panic du jour" propegated by the press is in the news that week, funneling tax dollars into the pockets of cronies and political donators, continually allowing bureaucracy to chew up 80% to 90% of tax dollars before they get to the recipients the program was supposed to help, continually granting police more and more power to combat "the war on drugs" or "the war on terror" or "the war on whatever else will get us votes". i don't see a whole lot of giving a rat's a** about the american people going on.
sorry, i just see things through a different lens i guess.
|
|
instead, i choose to admire both men for giving this nation 20 years of prosperity, stability and opportunity for more americans than at any point previous in our 200+ year history...I'm with you on that! I kinda liked Bush, Sr. as well.
bush 41 didn't have enough backbone, imo. he wasn't bad, but he didn't stand up to congress enough (and when he signed the tax raise, doomed himself to "one term" status for two reasons: a) he went back on a campaign promise, and b) the mini-recession started right after the tax increase (as it usually happens, investment tends to slow until people figure out the new loopholes in a different tax structure)).
|
|
instead, i choose to admire both men for giving this nation 20 years of prosperity, stability and opportunity for more americans than at any point previous in our 200+ year history...I'm with you on that! I kinda liked Bush, Sr. as well.
Bush Sr., IMO, was too smart to be President. We the people don't like a smart President. We want a politician with popular appeal and an 'honest face,' whatever the heck that means (and, all-too often, it means a lying con-man).
His son certainly seems to have fallen far from the tree.
|
|
instead, i choose to admire both men for giving this nation 20 years of prosperity, stability and opportunity for more americans than at any point previous in our 200+ year history...I'm with you on that! I kinda liked Bush, Sr. as well.Bush Sr., IMO, was too smart to be President. We the people don't like a smart President. We want a politician with popular appeal and an 'honest face,' whatever the heck that means (and, all-too often, it means a lying con-man).
His son certainly seems to have fallen far from the tree.
they should have run jeb...
they should have run jeb...
<<shudder>>
|
The Democrats could best be described as "soft fascists." I would recommend the book Liberal Fascism for an excellent discussion of how the modern leftist movement bears many of the same hallmarks of early fascists, and how the same fascists felt about the founding fathers of the modern liberal movement FDR and Woodrow Wilson.
Ah, Liberal Fascism.
Goldberg's argument is roughly as follows:
* Bismarck created the welfare state.
* Hitler was (sorta) German.
* Thus, Bismarck was a proto-fascist, and the welfare state is a Fascist construct.
* Woodrow Wilson, due to his expansion of government power during WW1 was "the twentieth century's first fascist dictator."
* FDR admired Wilson and was thus a Fascist. Furthermore, "it seems impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic."
* Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) admire FDR. Thus, they are Fascists.
But what is Fascism? Apparently, it has nothing to do with politics. Instead, it is a belief "in the primacy of emotion and the supremacy of [one's] own intellect" (this is Goldberg's way of classifying Bill Clinton as a Fascist - he was a know-it-all). Also, what is the connection between today's liberalism and 'classic' Nazism? The connection might be unclear to sane observers, but Goldberg finds it nonetheless. You see, modern liberalism, he argues, is linked to Nazism because both contain a cult of the organic (after all, Hitler was a vegetarian) and both embrace sexual freedom (remember that Himmler ordered his men "to father as many children as possible without marrying" in order to achieve the Aryan ideal).
So how do Republicans fare? Goldberg finds one fascistic trend in the current administration. No, it is not warrantless wiretapping, Gitmo or the Patriot Act. Instead, it is the expansion of Medicare coverage...
|
|
Keeping the government from sanctioning marriage is completely impractical. There are too many legal issues tied up in the issue ranging from power of attorney, child custody, property inheritance, and so on. Personally, I'd rather keep religion out of it or at least keep the two ideas of legal marriage vs religious marriage entirely separate.
Marriage was first and formost a religious institution before it became a government one, so I wouod say that taking religion out of marriage would neither be practical or constitutional. The whole free exercise clause and all. Most of those issues are a mess whether marriage is involved or not and the government seems to work them out just fine when couple aren't married at all without our system breaking down. It's called common law marriage. I would rather see a civil union program for all couples, straight or gay, that would cover all of the govermental aspects of marriage, and let the churches sort out the rest. This would also benefit couples like my friend's brother and his girlfriend who both had broken families growing up and so dislike the idea of marriage, but still want to be together as a family.
|
|
Keeping the government from sanctioning marriage is completely impractical. There are too many legal issues tied up in the issue ranging from power of attorney, child custody, property inheritance, and so on. Personally, I'd rather keep religion out of it or at least keep the two ideas of legal marriage vs religious marriage entirely separate.
Marriage was first and formost a religious institution before it became a government one, so I wouod say that taking religion out of marriage would neither be practical or constitutional. The whole free exercise clause and all. Most of those issues are a mess whether marriage is involved or not and the government seems to work them out just fine when couple aren't married at all without our system breaking down. It's called common law marriage. I would rather see a civil union program for all couples, straight or gay, that would cover all of the govermental aspects of marriage, and let the churches sort out the rest. This would also benefit couples like my friend's brother and his girlfriend who both had broken families growing up and so dislike the idea of marriage, but still want to be together as a family.
I agree!!! Civil Unions are the way to go. Let the Churches decide whether or not they want to marry same-sex couples and lets keep our separation of Church and State!
I would rather see a civil union program for all couples, straight or gay, that would cover all of the govermental aspects of marriage, and let the churches sort out the rest. This would also benefit couples like my friend's brother and his girlfriend who both had broken families growing up and so dislike the idea of marriage, but still want to be together as a family.
If everyone needed the civil union for legal benefits, and everyone's civil unions were the same, so that the church's marriage would be purely religious, I'd be totally on board -- this makes perfect sense. Some people would get only the civil union (gays, atheists, etc.); some would get only the religious one (people who wanted to be "married" but preferred to be single for tax purposes); and most people would probably go ahead and get both. I really like that idea.
|
|
yep, i'm 100% behind this. addresses the legalities, preserves the freedoms of both the church and individuals to conduct their faith and lives as they see fit, without government interference. sounds like a "win" to me.
now, if there was just any way to convince the politians who would rather posture than promote sensible solutions...
|
|
Marriage was first and formost a religious institution before it became a government one, so I wouod say that taking religion out of marriage would neither be practical or constitutional. The whole free exercise clause and all. Most of those issues are a mess whether marriage is involved or not and the government seems to work them out just fine when couple aren't married at all without our system breaking down. It's called common law marriage. I would rather see a civil union program for all couples, straight or gay, that would cover all of the govermental aspects of marriage, and let the churches sort out the rest. This would also benefit couples like my friend's brother and his girlfriend who both had broken families growing up and so dislike the idea of marriage, but still want to be together as a family.
Indeed, Biblically, a 'traditional' marriage is one between a man and one or *several* women, and, 'traditionally,' mistresses were allowed, although the man was discouraged from having sons with his mistresses, as it messed up lines of inheritance. Daughters were fine. The Bible even gave examples of acceptable ways to dispose of excess daughters, such as leaving them at a crossroads, or grabbing them by the heel and dashing their heads against a stone. [God killed Solomon's first bastard son by his mistress, but they continued knocking boots with no censure, because sleeping with women who weren't your wife was totally allowed.] It was however forbidden to sleep with a woman-not-your-wife in your consecrated marriage bed. Or a man. Or a goat, presumably. Or to have any sort of sex that wasn't intended to produce children. If they had television, watching TV in bed probably would have been specifically prohibited as well, as the marriage bed was for making sons and sleeping, no exceptions.
Oral sex on the floor next to the marriage bed? Go for it. Taking a goat over the counter? Enjoy! Just not on the marriage bed, because it would 'ritually defile it' and require you to call a priest to re-bless it, or God wouldn't grant you any more sons. Presumably, it would be embarassing and you'd get a stern talking-to as well, but the shaming was a free service that came with the re-consecration (which cost money, obviously).
Every time I hear 'traditional marriage is between one man and one woman' coming from someone who touts 'Biblical values,' I smile. 'Biblical values' are *nothing* like most modern interpretations.
Nor are these value, or any distorted interpretations thereof, any basis for a legal system that is meant to shelter and provide for the common welfare of men *and* women (who certainly had no rights under 'traditional values') of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem, Pagan, Deist, Agnostic or Atheistic beliefs.
|
|
But seriously, the only "Nazis" I see and hear are on Conservative Talk Radio.
Then you sir, do not understand what a Nazi actually is. A Nazi was a member of the National Socialist Workers Party. The ideas that they embraced included the abolition of private property ownership, the nationalization of all industry, the creation of a national health care system, and that the state was responsible for providing everyone with a job, and a place to live. They demanded a windfall profits tax. They demanded a living wage and a vast expansion of old age pensions aka Social Security. They demanded that free public education be the only option avalible to parents. They supported a wealth distribution program where money would be taken from the wealthy and redistrubuted to the poor and middle class. They also demanded that any religious voice deemed harmful to the state.
In fact, in the beginning the only people who knew about Hitler's anti-semitic views were the top leaders. Many of the mid-level Nazis of the early party had Jewish backgrounds. Even at the heart of Nazi power, only about 25% actually supported the "Final Solution."
It seems to me that your definition of "nazi" is anyone who disagrees with you politically. My guess is that the biggest issue that causes you to call conservative talk radio hosts "nazis" is their opposition to illegal immigration. If this is an inncorect assumption, please feel free to correct me. If you want to know more about what Nazi's supported you can find their manifesto here. I doubt you would find much there that American conservatives would agree with.
... They demanded a windfall profits tax. ... They supported a wealth distribution program where money would be taken from the wealthy and redistrubuted to the poor and middle class. ...
Isn't Obama suggesting giving another set of rebate checks to folks, and the money is suppose to come from increase taxing energy companies' profits? Not saying Obama is a Nazi, just a little bit socialist.
|
|
I agree!!! Civil Unions are the way to go. Let the Churches decide whether or not they want to marry same-sex couples and lets keep our separation of Church and State!
See, if we just put our heads together we can find common solutions that make everyone happy. That is what politics is all about. It doesn't have to be my way or the highway. There are some place where, by nesessity we must draw a line in the sand like you are either against terrorists or you support them, but on most issue that is not the case. There is enough pie for everyone, name-calling doesn't help.
|
|
See, if we just put our heads together we can find common solutions that make everyone happy. That is what politics is all about. It doesn't have to be my way or the highway. There are some place where, by nesessity we must draw a line in the sand like you are either against terrorists or you support them, but on most issue that is not the case. There is enough pie for everyone, name-calling doesn't help.
I agree!!! Civil Unions are the way to go. Let the Churches decide whether or not they want to marry same-sex couples and lets keep our separation of Church and State!
Actually, it doesn't take much...just common-sense people working for the same goal. Both parties can get along...the extreme leadership (or members) for both sides just don't want to.
|
|
... They demanded a windfall profits tax. ... They supported a wealth distribution program where money would be taken from the wealthy and redistrubuted to the poor and middle class. ...Isn't Obama suggesting giving another set of rebate checks to folks, and the money is suppose to come from increase taxing energy companies' profits? Not saying Obama is a Nazi, just a little bit socialist.
calling obama "a little bit socialist" is like calling W "a little bit speech impeded"...
|
|
calling obama "a little bit socialist" is like calling W "a little bit speech impeded"...
LOL
Even as a Democrat...that is funny...
But seriously, something has to be done about these energy prices. Gas at 4.00 a gallon I can deal with, I drive a small car, but my heating bill was well over a $100 all winter (I live in MI)...meh.
|
|
Actually, I do know what a "Nazi" is having to have read Mein Kampf (?) for a Government Class Report when I was in High School, extentive studying while I was in college, been to MANY white power rallys (On the other side, calling them rednecks and any other insults I can think of.) and hating the idiots that scream "White Power" when they think of Barack Obama.
I listen to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage on a pretty regular basis, and the "Only Nazis I see and hear are on Conservative Talk Radio" was meant as SARCASM.
Thats the BIGGEST problem this country has right now...people get so offended so F*N quickly that you can't talk to ANYONE (Both sides, Republican AND Democrat) without fear that they are going to go off. If we want to fix this country, we're going to have to learn to GET ALONG AND TAKE A F*N JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
first point: when i was in prison, the rednecks and the aryan brotherhood types didn't get along. at all. please don't lump "good old boys" in with the neo-nazi skinhead types.
second point: with the tone of the discussion to this point, most comments are being taken at face value, and sarcasm and humor don't translate well into pure text without either an intimate knowledge of the poster's wit and style or a visual clue that the post is meant in a facetious manner.
so, please don't get angry if someone takes your post the wrong way, just be kind and explain what you meant. makes for a nicer experience, imo.
|
|
Actually, I do know what a "Nazi" is having to have read Mein Kampf (?) for a Government Class Report when I was in High School, extentive studying while I was in college, been to MANY white power rallys (On the other side, calling them rednecks and any other insults I can think of.) and hating the idiots that scream "White Power" when they think of Barack Obama.
I listen to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage on a pretty regular basis, and the "Only Nazis I see and hear are on Conservative Talk Radio" was meant as SARCASM.
Thats the BIGGEST problem this country has right now...people get so offended so F*N quickly that you can't talk to ANYONE (Both sides, Republican AND Democrat) without fear that they are going to go off. If we want to fix this country, we're going to have to learn to GET ALONG AND TAKE A F*N JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You misunderstand me sir, and resorting to profanity, even implied profanity, will not help emphasize your point any better. As Ben Franklin once said, "swearing is a sign a person cannot think of something intelligent to say." I was not offended by your statement, as a teacher, I saw a chance to educate. It seems that you were the on offended by my reply.
To tell the truth, the white power movement has as much to do with real Naziism as Mountain Dew: Code Red has to do with real Mountain Dew. They may use some of the same symbols and may use some of the same ingrediants, but they simply are not the same. I apologize to any Code Red drinkers out there for comparing them to Nazis.
Certainly you may have intended it as sarcasm, but it did not come off that way. There may have been many people out there who were offended by your comments, and certainly many who have been serious in expressing similar sentiments. This is particularly true in the wake of last weeks church shooting which was motivated by the suspects "hatred of liberals." I apologize for misconstruing you comment and for offending you. Let us please try and have a civil discourse.
|
|
calling obama "a little bit socialist" is like calling W "a little bit speech impeded"...
LOL
Even as a Democrat...that is funny...But seriously, something has to be done about these energy prices. Gas at 4.00 a gallon I can deal with, I drive a small car, but my heating bill was well over a $100 all winter (I live in MI)...meh.
unfortunately, there is no quick fix, and, in a capitalist (tempered with mild socialist) system like the one we have, change comes somewhat slowly unless there is a clear profit incentive. government should focus on giving private enterprise an incentive (tax breaks, fast track patent approval, stuff like that) to develope alternate energy solutions (hydrogen powered vehicles, electric, maybe ease barriers to new nuclear plants - they work well and cleanly in france, after all), instead of focusing on economically damaging "solutions" like ethanol (higher food costs, no real energy savings in production, lower fuel efficiency compared to pure petroleum based fuels), "windfall profits" taxes, blocking domestic production, etc.
however, as i pointed out before, politicians are more interested in posturing than proposing real solutions...
|
|
Then you sir, do not understand what a Nazi actually is. A Nazi was a member of the National Socialist Workers Party. The ideas that they embraced included the abolition of private property ownership, the nationalization of all industry, the creation of a national health care system, and that the state was responsible for providing everyone with a job, and a place to live. They demanded a windfall profits tax. They demanded a living wage and a vast expansion of old age pensions aka Social Security. They demanded that free public education be the only option avalible to parents. They supported a wealth distribution program where money would be taken from the wealthy and redistrubuted to the poor and middle class. They also demanded that any religious voice deemed harmful to the state.
In fact, in the beginning the only people who knew about Hitler's anti-semitic views were the top leaders. Many of the mid-level Nazis of the early party had Jewish backgrounds. Even at the heart of Nazi power, only about 25% actually supported the "Final Solution."
This is true if you give any weight to programs and declarations. The Nazis did almost nothing of what you listed above - they did not abolish private property, they did not nationalise all industry and they did not provide everyone with a job and a place to live. If your idea of a "windfall profits tax" is synonymous with steeply rising progressive taxation, they did do that. They did not implement a living wage, nor did they expand of old age pensions. Also, Hitler's anti-Semitism was clear to see for anyone from day one; however, it was shared by enough people, be they Germans, Europeans or Americans, that it served as no great impediment.
One of the reasons that so many political movements call each other "fascists" is that the term is so nebulous. Reading manifestos to see what a political movement is "about" is worthless. Communism is about unversal equality, just as capitalism is about the free market; neither has come close to realising this. The NSDAP was neither "Socialist" or for "Workers". The operational definition of Nazism is national community based on mystical qualities inherent in one's blood, while Italian-style Fascism bases itself on community created through social and political ties (Mussolini was a rabid nationalist, but had no initial beef with Italian Jews - his foes were those who held opposing political views). Common to both is the use of violence to create and defend this community. Communism, on the other hand, is different from Fascism because it bases its community on class rather than nation or blood. This little book is a pretty decent intro to what Fascism is "about" - much better than reading speeches or trudging through the movements' philosophical roots (read some Trotsky or Rosenberg, and you'll know what I mean).
|
|
You are right, the problem is posturing on both sides...and say what you want about me after I say this, but I do believe Obama has a plan.
But you got me thinking...we could build a bunch of electricity generating windmills around here, we're always windy. And it might hold us over until SOMETHING happens.
|
|
You are right, the problem is posturing on both sides...and say what you want about me after I say this, but I do believe Obama has a plan.
But you got me thinking...we could build a bunch of electricity generating windmills around here, we're always windy. And it might hold us over until SOMETHING happens.
obama had a plan in february. he changed it last week when his poll numbers slipped. posturing. meh, they're all alike...
they're experimenting with wind power in west texas, you see the generators everywhere. may work, but they sure do screw up the scenery...
|
|
unfortunately, there is no quick fix, and, in a capitalist (tempered with mild socialist) system like the one we have, change comes somewhat slowly unless there is a clear profit incentive. government should focus on giving private enterprize an incentive (tax breaks, fast track patent approval, stuff like that) to develope alternate energy solutions (hydrogen powered vehicles, electric, maybe ease barriers to new nuclear plants - they work well and cleanly in france, after all), instead of focusing on economically damaging "solutions" like ethanol (higher food costs, no real energy savings in production, lower fuel efficiency compared to pure petroleum based fuels), "windfall profits" taxes, blocking domestic production, etc.however, as i pointed out before, politicians are more interested in posturing than proposing real solutions...
Up here in Utah we have a guy named Bill Dew running to replace Jim Matheson. He has proposed many of these very ideas as part of his platform. He's endorsed by Ron paul, which has made me a little leary of supporting him, but so far he hasn't gone off into some of the crazier stuff that Ron spoke about. I have actually had the chance to meet and speak with him twice. He is very open and responsive to the people and is will to listen to our ideas. I mentioned the thing about French nuclear power to him a few weeks ago and then last week I heard him running a commercial about how we need to emulate France to address our energy problems. Problem is that any time you say the words nuclear power it conjures up images of Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome.
|
|
Up here in Utah we have a guy named Bill Dew running to replace Jim Matheson. He has proposed many of these very ideas as part of his platform. He's endorsed by Ron paul, which has made me a little leary of supporting him, but so far he hasn't gone off into some of the crazier stuff that Ron spoke about. I have actually had the chance to meet and speak with him twice. He is very open and responsive to the people and is will to listen to our ideas. I mentioned the thing about French nuclear power to him a few weeks ago and then last week I heard him running a commercial about how we need to emulate France to address our energy problems. Problem is that any time you say the words nuclear power it conjures up images of Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome.
yeah, the press and their insistence on the "panic sells" school of journalism.
maybe right after the lawyers, we should put the "journalists" against the wall...
(no desire for violence, just riffing off shakespear (or bacon, or whoever...))
|
|
Vattnisse,
would you agree, though, that both fascism and communism were VERY quick to resort to violence (of a most heinous and brutal sort) to achieve their ends, and that, with the sole exception of who were considered the "ins", their methodology and rhetoric were nearly identical?
The philosophy behind them are quite different, as are the in- and out-groups, which again affects the rhetoric and action plans. Having said that, the results are not all that different, and that's what really counts.
So, from a political philosophy standpoint - no, they are very different.
From a practical standpoint - they are functionally quite similar.
Of course, I like philosophy...
|
|
This is true if you give any weight to programs and declarations. The Nazis did almost nothing of what you listed above...
Quite right, but again that was what their movement was based on. It is the nature of people in power to do nothing to upset the status qou so long as it will help them retain it. In 2000 when the Republicans took control of the House, and the presidency they did not do what they said they would do either. Their claim was that without the Senate they could do nothing. So in 2002 we gave them the senate and they still didn't keep their promises. In 2006 we decided to give the Democrats a try and they didn't follow through either.
Both sides did what "polls" said the American people wanted them to do, but neither did what they were elected to do. Is irt any wonder that the whole lot has an even lower public approval rating than the president? At least he does what he says he's going to do, even if it's unpopular. The last few Congresses have been a living, breathing endorsement for term limits. Kick all the bums out and start over from scratch every six years and we might see something get done.
Edit: Obama's right about one thing. The country is ready for change, I just don't think we'll get it from him or McCain.
|
|
This is true if you give any weight to programs and declarations. The Nazis did almost nothing of what you listed above...
Quite right, but again that was what their movement was based on. It is the nature of people in power to do nothing to upset the status qou so long as it will help them retain it. In 2000 when the Republicans took control of the House, and the presidency they did not do what they said they would do either. Their claim was that without the Senate they could do nothing. So in 2002 we gave them the senate and they still didn't keep their promises. In 2006 we decided to give the Democrats a try and they didn't follow through either.
Both sides did what "polls" said the American people wanted them to do, but neither did what they were elected to do. Is irt any wonder that the whole lot has an even lower public approval rating than the president? At least he does what he says he's going to do, even if it's unpopular. The last few Congresses have been a living, breathing endorsement for term limits. Kick all the bums out and start over from scratch every six years and we might see something get done.
Unfortunatly, that will never happen. I think that Congress has to vote to give themselves term limits, don't they?? And if they do (and you were in their position) would you put term limits on yourself???
|
|
The philosophy behind them are quite different, as are the in- and out-groups, which again affects the rhetoric and action plans. Having said that, the results are not all that different, and that's what really counts.
So, from a political philosophy standpoint - no, they are very different.
From a practical standpoint - they are functionally quite similar.Of course, I like philosophy...
i'm of the "i don't care if you're oppressing me because i'm not the same ethnic group as you or because i'm not of the same social strata as you, i'm still oppressed" camp.
Of course, i like practicality...
;)
|
|
Unfortunatly, that will never happen. I think that Congress has to vote to give themselves term limits, don't they?? And if they do (and you were in their position) would you put term limits on yourself???This is true if you give any weight to programs and declarations. The Nazis did almost nothing of what you listed above...
Quite right, but again that was what their movement was based on. It is the nature of people in power to do nothing to upset the status qou so long as it will help them retain it. In 2000 when the Republicans took control of the House, and the presidency they did not do what they said they would do either. Their claim was that without the Senate they could do nothing. So in 2002 we gave them the senate and they still didn't keep their promises. In 2006 we decided to give the Democrats a try and they didn't follow through either.
Both sides did what "polls" said the American people wanted them to do, but neither did what they were elected to do. Is irt any wonder that the whole lot has an even lower public approval rating than the president? At least he does what he says he's going to do, even if it's unpopular. The last few Congresses have been a living, breathing endorsement for term limits. Kick all the bums out and start over from scratch every six years and we might see something get done.
well, if americans grew a collective pair (or si that a brain?), the congress critters would find out about term limits the old fashioned way, with a big fat vote AGAINST them :)
they're experimenting with wind power in west texas, you see the generators everywhere. may work, but they sure do screw up the scenery...
I think they're pretty!
Seriously, some domestic drilling is not a bad idea -- except for the fact that people are lazy; if a temporary influx of oil comes from it, then that's time that no one is bothering to work on alternatives: time wasted, in other words. To use a poor analogy, a methadone treatment doesn't work if the addict keeps shooting heroin: there's no incentive to switch.
|
|
Unfortunatly, that will never happen. I think that Congress has to vote to give themselves term limits, don't they?? And if they do (and you were in their position) would you put term limits on yourself???
Yes and no. If we wanted to do so in one fell swoop it would actually have to be done by Congress and would most likely require a constitutional ammendment. (I would have to check with some of the lawyers around here on that.) However, as each state determines who is eligable to serve in office in each particular state, we could put together refferendum drives to put term limit legislation on the ballet in each state which would be effectively the same thing. It would just be the states deciding how long you could serve, rather than the national goverment.
You are correct sir, but remember that I was responding to Bill's assertion that Democrats could not be fascist because fascism is violent.
Ahem. That's not what I said at all.
I said that calling Democrats fascists is clearly ridiculous because they have completely different underlying philosophies and goals. I could even clarify more by saying that even if there are superficial similarities of growing the state to accomplish their goals, the philosophies and goals are so completely different that the use of the word fascism is completely inappropriate.I did also say that fascists can't escape the label of bully. I did not say that Democrats couldn't also be bullies, though it's not a very strong element of the party's core these days.
You may not have noticed it in the original but there was a paragraph break in there. New paragraph - new idea.
|
|
though it's not a very strong element of the party's core these days.
i call shenannigans on that one. democrats use the bully pulpit as much as anyone, and the most vocal "core" constituents (moveon.org, code pink, the masses of very rude and potty mouthed daily kos and huffington post posters) are quite adept at shouting down any opposition, rather than engaging in constructive debate.
dems are JUST as guilty and culpable as republicans in this (but i will say the right wing posters at little green footballs dont have potty mouths).
both sides are nuts, neither side wants to work with the other, and neither side is interested in anything more than posturing in front of the news camera. soryy, just how i see it.
Yes and no. If we wanted to do so in one fell swoop it would actually have to be done by Congress and would most likely require a constitutional ammendment. (I would have to check with some of the lawyers around here on that.) However, as each state determines who is eligable to serve in office in each particular state, we could put together refferendum drives to put term limit legislation on the ballet in each state which would be effectively the same thing. It would just be the states deciding how long you could serve, rather than the national goverment.Unfortunatly, that will never happen. I think that Congress has to vote to give themselves term limits, don't they?? And if they do (and you were in their position) would you put term limits on yourself???
The probably with that is states would probably be shooting themselves in the foot with that. You want the senator from your state to keep sending money back home through government grants and programs. But you don't want those other senators to keep wasting "your money" on programs in their states.
|
|
The Democrats could best be described as "soft fascists." I would recommend the book Liberal Fascism for an excellent discussion of how the modern leftist movement bears many of the same hallmarks of early fascists, and how the same fascists felt about the founding fathers of the modern liberal movement FDR and Woodrow Wilson.
First I'd like to say that I'm happy to see you returned to the discussion. You have some strong beliefs and generally support them with well thought out arguments.
But, (and there is always a but, isn't there?) I think I will have to call shenanigans on your choice of printed sources here. You presented this book as a reference, and therefore an authoritative source, on the topic of fascism. It is most decidedly NOT for the following reasons:
1- Goldberg is a conservative commentator at the National Review - a source that is unabashedly NOT impartial. In fact, it is considered one of the core publications of the Republican intellectual movement. Goldberg makes his living off writing for folks who dislike liberals - as a pundit. Thus this book falls into the same category of works as the movies of Michael Moore and the books of Al Franken or Ann Coulter.
2- The book is presented in the form of an extended thesis argument. Essentially, the author provides an argument and then bends all of the evidence to support their stance. Evidence that does not comply with the thesis is discarded. Many of the comparisons between Liberals and Fascists are tenuous or coincidental.
3- The standard understanding of fascism is that it is a reactionary (ultra-conservative) ultra-nationalist movement, dressed up with a few populist trimmings to provide it some mass appeal. Fascism is about controlling and channeling the attention and will of the nation to adhere to the party's philosophy. Force is embraced as a tool to control this political discussion. What was the first thing the Nazis and Fascists did upon seizing power? They eliminated the communists.
Fascists and communists hated each other, primarily because they drew support from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
|
|
2- The book is presented in the form of an extended thesis argument. Essentially, the author provides an argument and then bends all of the evidence to support their stance. Evidence that does not comply with the thesis is discarded.
kinda like "an inconvenient truth"...
i agree with you on this one, for the most part. i think most writers will bend facts to fit their theses, rather than bend their theses to fit facts.
however, (and there's always a "however", isn't there?), even when someone from the "other side" DOES make a valid point, many partisans refuse to see the fundamental truth due to a myopic vision of their own politics. so, when someone says W isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, a certain percentage of right wingers will blame it on "bds" (bush dementia syndrome), and when someone points out that maybe obama isn't so wonderful, a certain percentage of the left will cry "racism".
sad fact of life in politics and political discussions...
kinda like "an inconvenient truth"...
As a scientist, I'd have to say that that movie has done more to damage the credibility of anthropogenic climate change than all the oil-shill "skeptical scientists" put together! Gore presents the viewer with iron-clad reasons not to believe it. His case would have been a lot stronger if he'd just presented the evidence, instead of dishonestly trying to spin it to make a more dramatic movie.
|
|
First I'd like to say that I'm happy to see you returned to the discussion. You have some strong beliefs and generally support them with well thought out arguments.
Thanks I am glad to be back. I just had to give myself a timeout and get my head straight again.
But, (and there is always a but, isn't there?) I think I will have to call shenanigans on your choice of printed sources here. You presented this book as a reference, and therefore an authoritative source, on the topic of fascism. It is most decidedly NOT for the following reasons:1- Goldberg is a conservative commentator at the National Review - a source that is unabashedly NOT impartial. In fact, it is considered one of the core publications of the Republican intellectual movement. Goldberg makes his living off writing for folks who dislike liberals - as a pundit. Thus this book falls into the same category of works as the movies of Michael Moore and the books of Al Franken or Ann Coulter.
That is absolutely correct as far as it goes. However, just because one has a dog in the fight does not mean that they cannot remain objective and impartial. And even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If we were to reject every source simply because they are a pundint and don't agree with them, we would be cutting ourselves off from a great source of information.
For example, some people refuse to watch Fox News Channel because of what they percieve to be a right wing bias. I agree that some bias exists, but it also exists in the MSM like CNN or NBC. Reporters have donated to Obama 25 to 1 against McCain according to the FEC reports. Only a naive person would believe that this is not going to influnce how the cover him. Every Sunday I try and watch Meet The Press and then Fox News Sunday because I know Fox will ask the Democrats the hard questions and MTP will ask the Republicans the hard questions. By watching how the two different shows each present the same issue and story, I get a better understanding of the issue by looking at what lies between the two.
P.S. I'm glad to finally here a liberal admit that Al Frankin and Micheal Moore are biased.
Edit: In my civics class I had my students spend one class period listening to conservative talk radio and one class period listening to liberal talk radio. Even the girl who was a founding member of Welsey Women for Obama said afterwards that conservative talk radio was more believable and less mean-spirited.
Edit: In my civics class I had my students spend one class period listening to conservative talk radio and one class period listening to liberal talk radio. Even the girl who was a founding member of Welsey Women for Obama said afterwards that conservative talk radio was more believable and less mean-spirited.
That's an easy contest to rig. Put Michael Moore up against Ronald Reagan. Who sounds more believable and less mean-spirited? Now try it again, but with Ann Coulter against Dan Rather. Fair contest?
|
|
That's an easy contest to rig. Put Michael Moore up against Ronald Reagan. Who sounds more believable and less mean-spirited? Now try it again, but with Ann Coulter against Dan Rather. Fair contest?Edit: In my civics class I had my students spend one class period listening to conservative talk radio and one class period listening to liberal talk radio. Even the girl who was a founding member of Welsey Women for Obama said afterwards that conservative talk radio was more believable and less mean-spirited.
Well actually I couldn't rig it because I had them listen to live radio. Rush Limbaugh was the conservative and the liberal was Ed Schultz, who I had never listen to before.