The whole "New York Times are committing treason" thing hasn't even been posted on.

Do we only get the smart conservatives who realized how lame the whole story was so they avoided it like toxic waste? 

The whole "New York Times are committing treason" thing hasn't even been posted on.

Do we only get the smart conservatives who realized how lame the whole story was so they avoided it like toxic waste? 


;D

Most of what comes out of the New York papers is toxic waste anyway.

  Seems Gee-Dubya bounced...

  80sRocked - likewise...
  Screwball54 - a conservative, a friend, a penguin...

Rice Cube is still here. So is Mushroom.

It's not the conservatives per se, it's the Bush cheerleaders. They're laying low because it's so damn embarrassing nowadays!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif


;D

Most of what comes out of the New York papers is toxic waste anyway.


Judith Miller, William Safire...sure enough!
What you don't get about the New York Times versus the Bush Administration is it's just a Punch-and-Judy show to distract the gullible masses. It's the same people pulling the strings on both ends!

It's not the conservatives per se, it's the Bush cheerleaders. They're laying low because it's so damn embarrassing nowadays!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif


True.

Love that smiley, by the way. ;D

The whole "New York Times are committing treason" thing hasn't even been posted on.

Do we only get the smart conservatives who realized how lame the whole story was so they avoided it like toxic waste? 



As to that story, there was an interesting editorial in the NYT by Frank Rich. Here are some excerpts from it. I would make a link but as you know, you have to subscribe to the NYT which I do not. I found these excerpts on another website. The bold is my emphasis.


"No sooner were the flag burners hustled offstage than a new traitor was unveiled for the Fourth: the press. Public enemy No. 1 is The New York Times, which was accused of a 'disgraceful' compromise of national security (by President Bush) and treason (by Representative Peter King of New York and the Coulter amen chorus). The Times's offense was to publish a front-page article about a comprehensive American effort to track terrorists with the aid of a Belgian consortium, Swift, which serves as a clearinghouse for some 7,800 financial institutions in 200 countries.

"It was a solid piece of journalism. But if you want to learn the truly dirty secrets of how our government prosecutes this war, the story of how it vilified The Times is more damning than anything in the article that caused the uproar....

"Representative King, so eager to label others treasonous, has humiliating headlines of his own to counteract: he's the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee who has so little clout and bureaucratic aptitude that he couldn't stop the government led by his own party from stripping New York City, in his home state, of 40 percent of its counterterrorism funding. If there's another terrorist attack, he may be the last person in New York who should accuse others, as he did The Times on the House floor on Thursday, of having blood 'on their hands.'

"Such ravings make it hard not to think of the official assault on The Times and The Washington Post over the Pentagon Papers. In 1972, on the first anniversary of the publication of that classified Pentagon history of the Vietnam War, The Times's managing editor then, A. M. Rosenthal, reminisced in print about the hyperbolic predictions that had been made by the Nixon White House and its supporters: 'Codes would be broken. Military security endangered. Foreign governments would be afraid to deal with us. There would be nothing secret left.'

"None of that happened. What did happen was that Americans learned 'how secrecy had become a way of life' for a government whose clandestine policy decisions had fomented a disaster.

"The assault on a free press during our own wartime should be recognized for what it is: another desperate ploy by officials trying to hide their own lethal mistakes in the shadows. It's the antithesis of everything we celebrate with the blazing lights of Independence Day."



Cat

It's not the conservatives per se, it's the Bush cheerleaders. They're laying low because it's so damn embarrassing nowadays!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif

Judith Miller, William Safire...sure enough!
What you don't get about the New York Times versus the Bush Administration is it's just a Punch-and-Judy show to distract the gullible masses. It's the same people pulling the strings on both ends!


I consider Jewish Republicans to be the most vociferous and terrible traitors to my people (William Safire, Henry Kissinger, Louis Libby, etc.)

I consider Jewish Republicans to be the most vociferous and terrible traitors to my people (William Safire, Henry Kissinger, Louis Libby, etc.)


Don't forget Paul Wolfowitz, and Michael Savage, a.k.a. Michael Weiner, a Jew from the Bronx. From the way he talks you'd think hes Mister WASP or something. ::)

[quote author=

On the other hand, the NYT had the Downing Street Memo for weeks and weeks on end, didn't publish one word about it....
Monica Lewinsky on the other hand....

This is the kind of thing that inspired Eric Alterman to write the book What Liberal Media?

::)

Ha! Ralph Lauren=Ralph Lipschitz. Yeah, I forgot Wolfowitz...and Adam Sandler.


Sandler? Is he a Republican!? :o

I'm still here.  Being conservative doesn't force you to support the Republicans or Bush by default, it's more of a mindset.  I doubt the Republicans can even be called "conservative" these days, by the true definition of the term.

[quote author=

Do we only get the smart conservatives who realized how lame the whole story was so they avoided it like toxic waste? 


Heck, the Republican Party purged itself of all of those folks around the time of the Schaivo Debacle.

I gotta give props to Karl Rove.  For 20 years, libertarian (or at least free-market) Republicans held sway over the party -- and we used that power to hang the carrot of Dominionism in front of the religious fundamentalists' noses.  Who else were they gonna vote for, right? :)

Karl finally figured out that it was our votes the Republican party didn't need.  There were more "social" conservatives than "economic" conservatives, so why not jack up spending and throw some red meat to the would-be theocrats instead?

In electoral calculus, it was the smartest move made in the past 50 years. Purge the party of its intellectual roots, and usher in a permanent majority with a guaranteed 33% of the base.  They'll vote as they're told.  The Democrats can only make the same claim for around 20% of the base (who will also vote for whom they're told to vote).  The fight, therefore, is for 17% of the middle for an (R) win, or 30% of the middle for a (D) win. 

The 50% of the middle who's had enough of both parties can't be bothered to vote.  The 5% of the middle who's had enough of either party, so long as the size of government is reduced and its drain on private capital is diminished, is no longer relevant.

Someone like Ross Perot could probably pull off a third-party victory (or at least draw enough votes from the "R" and "D" wings of The Bipartisan Party to browbeat both halves into giving him some electoral power, or into disappearing him :) if he'd only brand himself as the "Had Enough" party. 

I've seen the slogan "Had Enough?" written on dollar bills.  A month ago, I saw it written as a Democratic slogan.  The second time I saw it was about a week later, and it was written without party affiliation. 

I'm still here.  Being conservative doesn't force you to support the Republicans or Bush by default, it's more of a mindset.  I doubt the Republicans can even be called "conservative" these days, by the true definition of the term.

Exactly. It's been the Karl Rove/Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes propaganda machine that's been intertwining the two. The GOP should have lost the conservative libertarians ten years ago. True social conservatives ought to realize the GOP has nothing to offer them either, except a lot of hot air and hate speech. The only constituency the GOP actually serves today is that top 5% of the income bracket, and even that might be stretching it!

  The GOP should have lost the conservative libertarians ten years ago.


...and if the Democrats had anything to offer other than handouts to Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson, the GOP would have.

A capitalist doesn't care who anyone sleeps with, as long as he or shey can make money selling you some pr0n and some lube.  I'm disgusted by the fact that I can retire off the money I've made off this war -- but the other half of the Demopublican party didn't offer me any investment opportunities whatsoever.

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats want to take away your copy of Grand Theft Auto "for the children, because it's violent", and the Republicans want to take it away because "you can download a mod that shows b00bs". 

In the sense of "conserving" the "classically liberal" values of the Founding fathers, both conservatism and liberalism are dead.  True liberals and true conservatives are obsolete: we're all serfs, and modern politics is merely quibbling about which slogan ("for the children" or "for morality!") we get to inscribe on our chains, in order to make us feel better about our lot in life.

ok... that's good.  I was just checking.  I don't want this board to become my political view or something, there's plenty of sites out there that discuss politics and basically take one side and exclude all the others. 

I was under the impression the right wing noise machine had been making a lot of noise about the New York Times this week, between the details of the financial monitoring (which was a lot of public knowledge stuff) and the pictures of Rumsfield's vacation home (which his office authorized the realese of).  I guess GW was the person who started threads about stuff like that, and he appears to be dropping in a lot less (summer related activities I guess)

I'm also trying to make sure people are not "scared of being banned" or some nonsense like that if they post something I disagree with. I think I've only banned one person who posted on the politics forum, for stuff they actually posted on the politics forum (and that was for very thinly veiled death threats).

I don't think I pay that much attention to politics anymore because I feel like both sides have betrayed the country...the Republicans have gone off the deep end and the Democrats are saying, "Well, we'll just do the OPPOSITE of what the Republicans are doing!" which doesn't help much either.  My opinion, of course. 

With enough exposure, this is probably the best time for a strong third party to emerge to offer an alternative to us "middle" voters, and maybe one or both of the main parties will go the way of the Whig...

I don't think I pay that much attention to politics anymore because I feel like both sides have betrayed the country...the Republicans have gone off the deep end and the Democrats are saying, "Well, we'll just do the OPPOSITE of what the Republicans are doing!" which doesn't help much either.  My opinion, of course. 

With enough exposure, this is probably the best time for a strong third party to emerge to offer an alternative to us "middle" voters, and maybe one or both of the main parties will go the way of the Whig...


I have to agree with you on these points, RiceCube.  I was very involved, first on one side, then the other, and now I'm taking a sabatical in a sense.  I can't handle the blame game anymore on both sides....the schemes, marketing ploys, etc. to manipulate public opinion.  (I do think one factor that led to this is the size of our country -- the need by politicians at the Federal level to communicate and way the opinions of way too many people of varied intellictual and finacial levels in a short window of time).

But anyway, I think you're right about it being a good time for a third party to step up.  Any ideas about who might do that...or who you'd like to see do that...in a way that would actually be effective?

  If we dont share our outlook on any topic then it is impossible to learn anything at all...

  Good politics should mean that everyone makes equal sacrifices for the better of the whole, and that everyone benefits. Idealistic, however...

  Good smoke never hurts...

 

   If we dont share our outlook on any topic then it is impossible to learn anything at all...

   Good politics should mean that everyone makes equal sacrifices for the better of the whole, and that everyone benefits. Idealistic, however...

   Good smoke never hurts...

 

Good comments.  would you like to run for office?  ;D

Good comments.  would you like to run for office?  ;D


  Oh...gosh...

  I have a closet full of skeletons...

  Besides, I'm not a "meeting" guy... ;D

I don't think I pay that much attention to politics anymore because I feel like both sides have betrayed the country...the Republicans have gone off the deep end and the Democrats are saying, "Well, we'll just do the OPPOSITE of what the Republicans are doing!" which doesn't help much either.  My opinion, of course. 

With enough exposure, this is probably the best time for a strong third party to emerge to offer an alternative to us "middle" voters, and maybe one or both of the main parties will go the way of the Whig...



I agree with you. The Repubs are totally out of control but yet the Dems don't seem to do anything about it. I think that if enough people get fed up with either party, a third party just may emerge. The problem is the voting system in this country. We have seen it all too many times when a third party tries to run. Ross Perot took votes away from the Repubs and Ralph Nader took votes away from the Dems. Many people see the possibility of this happening so many times they hold their nose and vote for who they think is the "lesser of two evils" from the two major parties. One way to prevent this from happening is to have Instant Runoff Voting. The voter would rank each candadate how they what them. Example:

Candadate #A-Repub
Candadate #B-Dem
Candadate #C-Ind.

As a voter, I could rank them as C, B, A. If C did not get the majority of the votes, then all the voters who raked C as their first choice will be knocked out and it will give them their second choice-in this example B. And it goes on like that until one will get a majority. That way a voter won't have to worry if they voted for a third party candadate that they will infact be helping out the party that they really don't want in.  I hope my example make sense.


Burlington, Vermont did try it at a local level. Everyone seemed to agree that it was very fair and they really liked it-except one person-the Dem because he was knocked out of the race during the first round of tallying.



Cat

I don't think I pay that much attention to politics anymore because I feel like both sides have betrayed the country...the Republicans have gone off the deep end and the Democrats are saying, "Well, we'll just do the OPPOSITE of what the Republicans are doing!" which doesn't help much either.  My opinion, of course. 

With enough exposure, this is probably the best time for a strong third party to emerge to offer an alternative to us "middle" voters, and maybe one or both of the main parties will go the way of the Whig...

I agree with Cat, we need instant run-off voting. Both parties oppose this, of course. We also need voter-owned elections. We need to return the adminstration of elections to the public sector.

I think you are totally wrong about the Dems saying "We'll just do the OPPOSITE..."
What I have seen the Dems do under the tutilage of the DLC (Democrats Lose Committee) is say, "We'll need to be just like the Republicans, only with a sugar coating."
That disgusts me to knnow end. The closer to the elections, the more tepid becomes the Democratic rhetoric. The Dems have "Neville Chamberlain" approach, especially in the way they just gave up after the Republicans stole the last two Presidential elections. It's like they are afraid of the Karl Rove rhetoric. Look, whether your approach is scathing invective, like Howard Dean, or brown-nosing capitulation, like Joe Lieberman, the Republican operatives will employ a scorched earth policy if you run for office.
Joe Lieberman (and, btw, I wish it was Joe the other day in place of Ken Lay), kisses azz to the Republicans, but if he becomes the Democratic candidate in a close race, the Republicans will slit his throat. That is just how they operate. Of course, Lieberman is exacting his revenge on Lamont, the Democratic party, the people of Connecticut, and the entire country by running as an independent. In this way he can split the Democratic vote and insure a Republican victory. That's why I say, Ken Lay already did his damage, Joe Lieberman has yet to do the worst of his. Now would be a good time for Joe to have a major stroke or something. Doesn't need to kill him, just needs to render him incapable of running in the primary! Of course, this must be left entirely up to God, not man!
::)

Ha! Ralph Lauren=Ralph Lipschitz. Yeah, I forgot Wolfowitz...and Adam Sandler.


Not to mention Adam Sandler is one of the lamest comedians of all time. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that he's a Republican... When are they ever funny? ;)

ok... that's good.  I was just checking.  I don't want this board to become my political view or something, there's plenty of sites out there that discuss politics and basically take one side and exclude all the others. 

I was under the impression the right wing noise machine had been making a lot of noise about the New York Times this week, between the details of the financial monitoring (which was a lot of public knowledge stuff) and the pictures of Rumsfield's vacation home (which his office authorized the realese of).  I guess GW was the person who started threads about stuff like that, and he appears to be dropping in a lot less (summer related activities I guess)

I'm also trying to make sure people are not "scared of being banned" or some nonsense like that if they post something I disagree with. I think I've only banned one person who posted on the politics forum, for stuff they actually posted on the politics forum (and that was for very thinly veiled death threats).


I've been scared away from a message board as a liberal. Well, not so much scared away, but I was the only liberal among rabid Righties and they were all using me as a punching bag, so a sense of futility led me to quit posting there. Can't even remember the website (something to do with "culture wars").

I hope conservatives on this board understand my disagreements with them are strictly political, and I hope they don't perceive my arguments as personal attacks. I find Mushroom, Rice Cube,  GWB, and Foo Bar (if he considers himself conservative) well-versed on numerous subjects.

The only members I've seen the mods ban are people who make personal attacks, and continue to after they get told to knock it off. I've seen a some others quit on their own because they got too steamed at people they didn't agree with.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cussing.gif

Initially I was against separating politics and religions, but now I see it was a good idea. If you get your nerves easily rattled, you don't have to be confronted with touchy subjects on the other message boards here.

Not to mention Adam Sandler is one of the lamest comedians of all time. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that he's a Republican... When are they ever funny? ;)

C'mon, is Sandler really a Republican? I mean, Kelsey Grammer didn't surprise me, but Adam Sandler?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

I agree with you. The Repubs are totally out of control but yet the Dems don't seem to do anything about it. I think that if enough people get fed up with either party, a third party just may emerge. The problem is the voting system in this country. We have seen it all too many times when a third party tries to run. Ross Perot took votes away from the Repubs and Ralph Nader took votes away from the Dems. Many people see the possibility of this happening so many times they hold their nose and vote for who they think is the "lesser of two evils" from the two major parties. One way to prevent this from happening is to have Instant Runoff Voting. The voter would rank each candadate how they what them. Example:

Candadate #A-Repub
Candadate #B-Dem
Candadate #C-Ind.

As a voter, I could rank them as C, B, A. If C did not get the majority of the votes, then all the voters who raked C as their first choice will be knocked out and it will give them their second choice-in this example B. And it goes on like that until one will get a majority. That way a voter won't have to worry if they voted for a third party candadate that they will infact be helping out the party that they really don't want in.  I hope my example make sense.


Burlington, Vermont did try it at a local level. Everyone seemed to agree that it was very fair and they really liked it-except one person-the Dem because he was knocked out of the race during the first round of tallying.



Cat


The problem with Perot is that he kept jumping back and forth into the race in '92.  If he had sustained his run for the Presidency, he very likely would have taken a couple of swing states and really screwed up the electoral college.  As it turned out, he ended up with 19% of the popular vote, which I think is the best tally by a third party since Teddy Roosevelt did his Bull Moose thing.  Neither Clinton nor his Republican challenger in '92 or '96 was able to get a clear majority of the vote, which shows the power of a strong swing candidate like Perot.  See, if Perot had taken enough states so that neither the R or the D could get their 270 electoral votes, it would have gone to a run off in the Congress.  Not exactly what you had in mind, but that's the way the system is designed.

Would be nice if the voting was done directly rather than through the electoral college, but that would leave the opinions of Joe Q. Wyoming out of the picture...and I don't think the dinky states are too keen on that.

I hope conservatives on this board understand my disagreements with them are strictly political, and I hope they don't perceive my arguments as personal attacks. I find Mushroom, Rice Cube,  GWB, and Foo Bar (if he considers himself conservative) well-versed on numerous subjects.
i for one often admire mushroom's arguments. he makes me batty because his challenges are often pretty damned valid.

i believe jacks is pretty conservative, to the extent she's political, and she's HILARIOUS, she has a great sense of humor.

i for one often admire mushroom's arguments. he makes me batty because his challenges are often pretty damned valid.

i believe jacks is pretty conservative, to the extent she's political, and she's HILARIOUS, she has a great sense of humor.


I know that there are funny conservatives. ;) I was just being a bit cheeky to amuse myself... And because I can't stand Adam Sandler.

  I still don't get what the problem is. Making the NYT a scapegoat for a leaky administration or the shoddy moral principles of a society driven by market share and profit margins is a futile gesture. I heard Rep. King going off about the Times on FOX News earlier this week; I couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying. He's incomprehensible in his rage, or perhaps it's just that he has no real foundation...

  Even calling the Times "a useful idiot" overlooks the environment in which it exists. To the other, being a useful idiot still keeps the Times in higher standing than O'Reilly and the FOX News crowd by proxy of being useful...

  It's far too easy these days to shout, "Treason!" when something is inconvenient to one's outlook and desires...

well said. the administration doesn't bother to disguise its naked contempt for a free press these days.

I hope conservatives on this board understand my disagreements with them are strictly political, and I hope they don't perceive my arguments as personal attacks. I find Mushroom, Rice Cube,  GWB, and Foo Bar (if he considers himself conservative) well-versed on numerous subjects.



i for one often admire mushroom's arguments. he makes me batty because his challenges are often pretty damned valid.


Thanks to both of you, and the same goes back.  Myself, I do not see the political debate as an "Us Vs. Them", nor as any form of warfare.  I really believe that it is best when both sides can express their viewpoints, and then find some kind of compromise in the middle.

But all to often today, neither side wants to compromise.  And that is what drives me absolutely insane.  And it gets even worse when people assume that their view is "right", and everybody who does not see it their way is "wrong".  And it drives me even more crazy when somebody uses as a response nothing more then a bunch of propaganda type of talking, with no real addressing of the issue at hand.

You have to remember, I am a real-life person, with real-life issues.  Talking to me about things like the cost of living matters.  Going on and on about the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, and about class struggle is the surest way to get tuned out by me.  You might as well try to argue your point on the basis of Hindu philosophy as opposed to Catholicism and Shia Islam.  None of them have no impact on the socio-economic impact of exporting brewing herbs from the Peoples Republic of China.

And I think most of the "Conservatives" have either left here (GW) or seriously lowered their participation (myself) because of the hostility we find.

Myself, I find most of the topivs brought up are frequently insulting or abrasive.  And I am really not the type of person to air "dirty laundry".  Corruption is not a "Conservative-Liberal" issue, it works in both parties.  A lot of people in here went all happy because of some of the corruption issues in the Republican party.  Yet for some reason, nobody thought to mention that Democrat Rep. William Jefferson is under fire for his own corruption case.  He is accused of funneling bids and contracts to companies that his buddies own, and makeing kickbacks.  He was arreasted after $90,000 of a $100k bribe was found in his freezer.  But nobody brings it up.  He was even removed from one of his congressional posts, and nobody mentions it.

Oh, but the things that are important...  and how they are phrased is frequently what ticks a lot of people like me off.  Let's go through a few:

Can George Bush Spell Potato?
Is it Coulter or is it Hitler?
Can you handle the truth about the GOP?
Bush asks legally blind reporter why he's wearing sunglasses
Ann Coulter: wrong...or more wrong?

Hmmmm, rather interesting.  Now let's see what kinds of things I can see that are topics against the "Left:

I'm now convinced New Jersey governor Jon Corzine has lost his mind!
This Just In: Republicans and Democrats Equally Adept at Ignoring Facts!

See a trend forming there?  And it becomes even more obvious when you look at some things that are not discussed at all.  I myself brought up the fact that last month we had the creation of the world's largest Marine Sanctuary.  An we had a total of 3 responses, most of them basically just attacks on the President.  Now there is real interest.  If most in here find such a thing so dull, then why whouls I care if you get all excited about some other Environmental issue?  I bet there would have been more interest if he had tried to press it through congress and it failed.

Then we had the time about a month or so back when the US normalized relations with Lybia.  Another "big Yawn" issue.  I wonder what would have happened if the government refused to normalize relations?  Or what if they had declaired war?  Oh, I bet people would have cared then.  But mormalizing relation sis basically "Good News", and we all know that nobody cares about "Good News".

Basically, a lot of people on the "Conservative Side" are just tired of bashing our heads against a wall.  Myself, I see it more as an issue of trying to debate with a bunch of zealots.  And you can't debate on something like that.  That is why for the most part, I tend to be so cold and logical.  I am sure that is part of what drives Tia nuts.  I do not get into the "he said - she said" arguement, I do not go on and on about feelings, or emotions, or beliefs.  That is all personal, and is also subjective on the person who's opinion is being expressed.  I prefer to deal with simple facts, and to build a case based on those facts.

I also bring in a mindset that a lot of people here have probably never experienced.  I am a computer technician, so I rely on logic in my line of work.  I also spend most of my time reading/watching about either history or science.  I am much more likely to listen to a Stephen Hawking then I am a Ralph Nader.  I find 50 years of "weather research" rather insignificant to the 100,000 year Ice Age cycles.  I also do not listen to conspiracy theories.  I no more believe that the CIA had Kennedy killed then I believe that Bill Clnton killed Vince Foster.  I reject the conspiracies of both political sides equally, because 95% are so unlikely that they defy the imagination.

Soetimes I consider trying to "attack back" by stooping to the same level of attacks that other people in here use.  But I simply do not see the reason to gloat about somebody like Rep. William Jefferson being caught in a fraud case, or about the fact that Michael Moore has extensive holdings in Haliburton, or that he had extensive holdings in Enron.  It really has no effect on the way things really are.

And as long as things continue like this, there will be less and less Conservatives taking part in discussion here.  It is because this board has become increasingly hostile to anything resembling "other political beliefs".  The old-timers in here have often moved on, because we tire of the hostility.  The newcommers often just pack up and leave, because they see no reason to put up with such an openly hostile environment.

And a few of the more moderates like myself just skim around from time to time, putting in an opinion here and there in the less acerbic debates, because we tire of being constantly on the defensive, lest we be attacked all over again because our beliefs and values are different.

ANd as a last bit of commentary: Will some of you stop trying to insert "The Administration" into every little thing?  I am no more or less of a Conservative because of this administration, or the last administration, or any other administration.  I am no more a "Puppet of Bush" then most "Liberals" were a "Puppet of Clinton".  It is grossly off-topic for the most part, and it is insulting to have people try to make us out to be nothing more then mindless parrots who follow "The Administration".  The only person responsible for my beliefs and opinions are myself.  I make up my own mind, based on things I have learned during my life.  I do not follow some kind of "Conservative Agenda", I do not take my beliefs from some kind of "Conservative Talking Points" memo, and I do not listen to George Bush or anybody else before I decide how I want to respond to an issue.

i used to frequent a messageboard about the t.v. show "land of the lost" (it's hard to believe there even IS an active message board about such an obscure, ancient show, but there you have it) and i used to be the token liberal on the politics board there. i argued valiantly for a while (and EVERYBODY was pretty much conservative but me, all gung-ho about the iraq war and all that) but the whole thing degenerated into anti-arab racial slurs and such and i had to take my leave.

The problem with Perot is that he kept jumping back and forth into the race in '92.  If he had sustained his run for the Presidency, he very likely would have taken a couple of swing states and really screwed up the electoral college.  As it turned out, he ended up with 19% of the popular vote, which I think is the best tally by a third party since Teddy Roosevelt did his Bull Moose thing.  Neither Clinton nor his Republican challenger in '92 or '96 was able to get a clear majority of the vote, which shows the power of a strong swing candidate like Perot.  See, if Perot had taken enough states so that neither the R or the D could get their 270 electoral votes, it would have gone to a run off in the Congress.  Not exactly what you had in mind, but that's the way the system is designed.

Would be nice if the voting was done directly rather than through the electoral college, but that would leave the opinions of Joe Q. Wyoming out of the picture...and I don't think the dinky states are too keen on that.



I had forgotten how Perot couldn't decide whether he was running or not. But I do agree with you that Congress shouldn't decide who gets to be pres.

I never really understood the electoral college. I know it is supposed to even out big states/small states to give them an even chance but I live in a small state and we only have 3 electoral votes. How is that supposed to give us a fair adventage against California which has 55? Why not give each state only 1? Why does the electoral college have to be an all or nothing type thing? (i.e. if there are 3 candidates and each one gets a 1/3 of the votes-why not split the electoral votes according?) The whole system sucks if you ask me. I would really love for them do away with it. I really think we SHOULD have a direct vote. I think that would be much fairer than the way we have it now.



Cat

ANd as a last bit of commentary: Will some of you stop trying to insert "The Administration" into every little thing?  I am no more or less of a Conservative because of this administration, or the last administration, or any other administration.  I am no more a "Puppet of Bush" then most "Liberals" were a "Puppet of Clinton".  It is grossly off-topic for the most part, and it is insulting to have people try to make us out to be nothing more then mindless parrots who follow "The Administration".  The only person responsible for my beliefs and opinions are myself.  I make up my own mind, based on things I have learned during my life.  I do not follow some kind of "Conservative Agenda", I do not take my beliefs from some kind of "Conservative Talking Points" memo, and I do not listen to George Bush or anybody else before I decide how I want to respond to an issue.


  God, this is boring...

  I've read your post twice over. You are saying...what exactly..?

 

  God, this is boring...

  I've read your post twice over. You are saying...what exactly..?


Never mind.  Maybe you should be in another forum, like maybe http://www.liberalforum.org/, or http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/index.php.

I am so sorry that you seem to have troubles following a line of thought that is not simply a bunch of political statements and jargon strung together.  I will consult my thesarus next time, and limit myself to words of no more then 2 syllable, and no more then 100 words in length.

I often forget that I am living in the "Post MTV Generation", and anything over 5 minutes is to long for the modern attention span.

**returns to reading Drive To The East, the latest in the 11 book series I am reading**

I had forgotten how Perot couldn't decide whether he was running or not. But I do agree with you that Congress shouldn't decide who gets to be pres.

I never really understood the electoral college. I know it is supposed to even out big states/small states to give them an even chance but I live in a small state and we only have 3 electoral votes. How is that supposed to give us a fair adventage against California which has 55? Why not give each state only 1? Why does the electoral college have to be an all or nothing type thing? (i.e. if there are 3 candidates and each one gets a 1/3 of the votes-why not split the electoral votes according?) The whole system sucks if you ask me. I would really love for them do away with it. I really think we SHOULD have a direct vote. I think that would be much fairer than the way we have it now.



Cat


The problem with a direct vote is that you essentially negate the opinions of the smaller states, like Vermont or Wyoming as in my example.  You may have seen Chucky's link to the electoral vote website run by an American expatriat, and you probably notice that nearly the entire map is colored red and only a wee bit is blue.  Of course, most of the red is in the big rectangular states in the West, the bulk of the Midwest where the population is comparatively sparse, and in the South, where, except for Florida and Texas, nobody really lives.  If you take enough of the non-populated states, they can cancel out or overtake a California or New York.  The whole point is to not let the Presidency be decided by a few states just because more people happen to live in those states.  Whether it is fair or not depends on who you talk to.

An example that has some relevance is when Richard Nixon ran against JFK the first time.  Nixon won California, which by then was probably the most populous state in the nation.  However, JFK won enough states to offset Nixon's CA win and then some.  Whether that's fair or not depends on if you like Nixon better, or JFK ;)


  God, this is boring...

  I've read your post twice over. You are saying...what exactly..?

 


He's saying, like I said, that just because one is conservative doesn't mean that we necessarily vote party lines or associate completely with the Republican party...just like some liberals, like my friends, don't adhere completely to the doctrines of the Democratic party.  Pretty clear to me.

in alll frankness, i have to say that although mushroom claims to not be allied with the administration, he seems to defend them with almost perfect consistency. i don't think he's as disconnected or objective as he claims to be; we've had that conversation already a couple of times. i don't have problems with people who have outspoken political opinions, but i'd like mushroom to go, yeah, i'm a conservative, and yeah, i like most of what bush does. i appreciate when people acknowledge their biases.

that said, i certainly wouldn't want to alienate the conservatives. liberalforum.org looks a lot like freerepublic, it's no fun when everybody agrees.

Never mind.  Maybe you should be in another forum, like maybe http://www.liberalforum.org/, or http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/index.php.

I am so sorry that you seem to have troubles following a line of thought that is not simply a bunch of political statements and jargon strung together.  I will consult my thesarus next time, and limit myself to words of no more then 2 syllable, and no more then 100 words in length.

I often forget that I am living in the "Post MTV Generation", and anything over 5 minutes is to long for the modern attention span.

**returns to reading Drive To The East, the latest in the 11 book series I am reading**


  Don't make this about me...

  All I read was alot of whining.  I know you've done this before and have even threatened to quit the boards...

  Inserting "the administration"!?  Off Topic!?  What is this, dementia..?  No one here is attacking you, Mushroom... 

  Either contribute or move on...

where's the love? can't we all just get along?

that said, i certainly wouldn't want to alienate the conservatives. liberalforum.org looks a lot like freerepublic, it's no fun when everybody agrees.



Yeah, this place is more fun when you have the knock-down drag-out fights like we used to.  ;)


(j/k Chucky)


Cat

in alll frankness, i have to say that although mushroom claims to not be allied with the administration, he seems to defend them with almost perfect consistency.


And why should that be surprising?

I am sure that you would find that most "Liberals" in here supprt the right to abortion.  Is that a sign of "like thinking alike", or "following the party line"?

And I can list one thing in particular where I agree with the President, and disagree with the Republicans in Congress:  Immigration reform.  In this area, Republicans in Congress and the President are almost 180 degrees apart from each other, and the President is much closer to what the Democrats want.  So who am I folloing here, Party Line, or "The Administration?"

And I am sure that 6 years ago, most of the Liberals in here would have been following the "Party Line" of the Clinton Administration.  That is only common sense, since they follow the basic beliefs of the President.  However, I do not go off of the asumption that just because a group of people think alike, that means they automatically follow each other like the Pied Piper.

Myself, I reach my own conclusions, and make my own decisions based on what I think and believe.  And I find it more then slightly insulting when people assume that I am parroting some kind of issue, simply because it also happens to be the belief of other people.

And I find it funny that I am often told that I say the same things as "Talking Heads" on shows like Hannity & Combes or Bill O'Reilly,  Because as I have stated in here before, I almost never watch Fox News or any other television news.  At the most, I spend 30 minutes in the morning "catching up" on what happened during the night.  And I tend to flip back and forth between Fox and CNN Headline News, turning off when a talking head comes on.  All I want to hear is the news, not the commentary.  I make up my own mind on the issues.

And Tia, it's too late. It is about you.

Someoby around here has Joe Lieberman-itis!
that was davester who said that, about not making it about him. if you're comparing me to joe lieberman, though, we're gonna have to settle this in the ring. i hate that schmo almost as much as i despise hillary clinton! also, though, i mean it about not wanting to alienate the conservatives. without disagreement it's impossible to have an interesting exchange and i'm not into the whole echo-chamber thing.

as a big admirer of folks like dennis kucinich and barbara lee, though, i have to admit that folks like that have no hope whatsoever of defining the dominant direction of the country. it's a dilemma, i was reading in last week's new yorker about the effort to redefine the democratic party as "anti-totalitarian", which is basically about taking the legacy of truman and kennedy as defense-conscious democrats and running on a platform that's basically about making the argument that the demos can fight the war on terror better than the republicans. it's a real puzzler for me because although i think the war on terror is a boondoggle and the militarist mindset in the country is really a cover for the fact that the economy is dependent on all this war-waging, the pragmatist in me is saying that the populace in this country is nowhere near a point where they're prepared to recognize this. so how do the dems win in 2008? not with the kucinich platform -- he'd get my vote and yours and not much else -- so realistically, what's the answer? you know?

Basically, a lot of people on the "Conservative Side" are just tired of bashing our heads against a wall.  Myself, I see it more as an issue of trying to debate with a bunch of zealots.  And you can't debate on something like that.  That is why for the most part, I tend to be so cold and logical.

If there is a wall it's a wall you and your conservative brethren have built. People who call themselves "conservative" have dominated our national politics and our media for a quarter century and to the last they portray "liberals" as being emotionally excitable zealots who don't like intellectual rigor and just argue from paranoia and hurt feelings. The mistake liberals in the national dialogue made was to capitulate to the conservatives and hang their heads, because when they did so, the right-wing Jacobins guillotined them.
Nothing poisoned our national dialogue the that treasonous war criminal of a president, Ronald Reagan, throwing out the "fairness doctrine." The payoff for the right was Rush Limbaugh and FOX News. Now, Mush, you say you don't listen to either. So what? You certainly take their talking points: no matter how much your side prevails, always play the victim.
The Right in this country feels entitled to have the liberals go quietly to the firing squad, like NPR and Dan Rather. When "liberals" such as Al Franken, Cindy Sheehan, or the guys on Air America showed up and said, "we're not going for the same old crap, you on the Right will have to beat us with ideas and logic, not threats and bully tactics," the Right flipped out!
At the same time as Bill O'Reilly ridicules Air America as a joke and a failure, he gets rage in his voice every time he mentions them. Heck, he can't even take ribbing from a rival on another conservative cable network, MSNBC. He's so mad at Keith Olbermann for daring to challenge him, O'Reilly threatened to call the cops because a caller said he thought Olbermann's show was better than O'Reilly's!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nopity.gif
What I have just seen from you, Mr. Mushroom, is not much different. I was surprised how personally you took all this debate. I do find you very informative on a lot of topics, but that's a different kettle o' fish.
There happens to be more "liberals" than "conservatives" on this board. Apparently, inthe00s attracts more liberal types than conservative. So when you find your views in the minority, you either make peace with it, or go find a message board where your views are in the majority.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I know I vent here at times because I get sick of all the lies the Right tells in the politics and the mainstream media. The way things have devolved since the repeal of the fairness doctrine is this: the right-wing can say anything they damn well please, but liberals better be good little lapdogs, like Alan Colmes, or get denounced as un-American traitors.
You sir, Mr. Mushroom, did the same when you suggested I should be the one to go find a "liberals only" message board. It is as if you too believe you are entitled to deference just by dint of being conservative.  Listen, another poster suggested you were ignorant. I did not like that. I wanted to make it clear I value your input on topics here even though I don't agree with you politically. You say "thanks," then you pour a cup of scalding water on me! Well, thank you too!
Just to clarify, I mentioned leaving another message board, but the situation was different. It was not because I was in the political minority, but because the Hitler youth running the place kept calling me "@sshole," and "f#ckhead," and "liberal queer," and they kept going on about, "why don't you move to Cuba you don't like it here!" It wasn't debate, it was just abuse, so I started calling them "little nazis," and "sh!ttoheads," and so forth. Then I realized I was lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas, so I quit!

^ Methunk the "Air America" network had really low listenership and was on the verge of shutting down when I last paid attention.

... I mentioned leaving another message board, but the situation was different. It was not because I was in the political minority, but because the Hitler youth running the place kept calling me "@sshole," and "f#ckhead," and "liberal queer," and they kept going on about, "why don't you move to Cuba you don't like it here!" It wasn't debate, it was just abuse, so I started calling them "little nazis," and "sh!ttoheads," and so forth. Then I realized I was lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas, so I quit!


I hope you do not think that I would condone anything like that.  In fact, I absolutely hate "name calling".  About the only time I will joyfully participate in anything even close to that is when I am talking about somebody like the Klukkers.  I have absolutely no problem calling them a bunch of inbred morons, who when all their IQs are added together you end up with a number just slightly over the cost of a can of beer.

However, I will admit that I frequently tune you out because of the fact that a lot of your posts are more "commentary" then "factual".  When I see something like "Nothing poisoned our national dialogue the that treasonous war criminal of a president, Ronald Reagan", I know that it is just more opinion, and rarely anything of substantial value.  And I do the same thing when others in here go on about the "Fornicator-in-Chief Bill Clinton", or any other kind of coprolite.  Putting that in tells me that what is being said is all opinion, and slanted strongly to one degree or another.

And I have listened to "Air America".  As Rice said, it is a failing network, that has had so many financial scandals it is not funny.  I think this month their New York flagship is getting it's plug pulled, because of low listenership and falling revenue.  And a lot of the problem is that they can't seem to find the difference between "lampoon" and "lambaste".

SNL is a great example of a show that can be political, and at the same time be revereny and respectful to the person being lampooned.  For those of us old enough to remember Chevy Chase, he started every show by falling down, a'la Gerald Ford.  It became his signature move, but he never did it in a way to insinuate "what an idiot".  The classic "First Family" record albums worked the same way, poking fun at the Kennedy Clan, but never being insulting towards them.

The comedy skits on Rush Limbaugh often follow the same vein.  And he lampoons all areas of culture, not just politics.  And a frequent target has been other Conservatives and Republicans, if he thinks they did something that was worthy of lampooning.  He has even lampooned himself in numerous occasions.  Compare this to Air America, where skits have ranged to everything from George Bush encouraging the Minutemen to "shoot for the head", to endorsing members of the AARP taking up guns and shooting the President.

The biggest difference I notice between Rush and Air America (and most "talking heads" like Franken and Moore) is how they talk about their political opposites.  Rush frequently says that he feels his opponents are "wrong".  When it comes to people like Franken and Moore, they often state that their opponents are "stupid" or "evil".

I never consider "Liberals" or "Democrats" to be "evil" or "stupid", and I find it rather offensive when people make that assumption about me or people that I agree with.  So it should be no wonder that when a political debate denegrates to that kind of name calling, that I normally bail out of it.  I disagree with Franken and Moore, but I do not go around saying they are "stupid", "evil", "insane", "criminal", "racist", or any other term like that.  And when I see words like that used, I normally just ignore the rest of the post and move along.

As I have said, I liove to debate.  In here I often debate for the sake of debating, and try hard to not turn it into an "arguement".  And I have taken all sides in here, frequently opposite of one I believe just for the sake of "showing the other side".  I do not take it personal, and enjoy the mental challenge of putting together a rebuttal to something.  I quite often take up a cause I really do not believe in, just to keep a topic from degrading into some kind of "we are all so wonderful, we all agree" kind of conversation.  And I welcome others when they engage me in a debate.

But debate is not when somebody just goes "you are a stupid idiot, neener-neener-neener".  That is not debate, that is a poor attempt at duplicating a Monty Python skit (The Arguement Clinic).

^ Rice says "Air America" is a "failing network." Bill O'Reilly does not call it the Air America network, but the "failing Air America" network. I did not think Air America would survive as long as it has. The Right has been trying to kill it from the get-go. Among the "Right" are the corporate advertisers who fund lavishly right-wing programming. Liberals are too big a risk. They may say things that discourage people from shopping, which has become the most noble act of citizenship in corporate America.

Air America may very well fail in the next couple of years. However, if it should fail, it is not because it fails in the marketplace of ideas but in the markplace of money. The Right speaks of the markeplace of ideas, however, the only idea at the core of right-wing thought is money and how to accumulate more of it. The patriotism and religiosity are just a ruse. Proof of this is born out in the economic policies of the Right since they took charge in 1981. Right-wing polices have faileed miserably on all counts except one: they have made the rich fabulously richer. Everything else in this benighted country has gotten worse since 1981.

When I call Ronald reagan a traitor and a war criminal I do so  because I firmly believe that is what he was. Iran-Contra was both treason and war crimes. I feel sad that so many millions retain a canine loyalty to the Ronster.

What the repeal of the "fairness doctrine" did was turn the media from a public service to a private profit center. That is, periodicals and television were most certainly funded by advertising prior to 1988, but they were prevented from becoming ideological monoliths because the the people's government wanted to insure both sides of any issue got aired. The "fairness doctrine" was not some hippie-liberal idea, either. It had been around since the 1940s. Furthermore, broadcast vectors were considered public property starting in 1934.

If you kill the "fairness doctrine," you kill civility in public discourse. However, the big business interests backing the Reagan Administration cared NOTHING about civility. They only cared about money and accumulating more of it. Right-wing forces of big business and big Christianity had one goal in common: the Dominion of money (Mammon is the true God of the Christian-right, not Jesus or Jehova). The problem with liberals is they criticize corporations. We just can't have that, can we? Hence the rise of Rush Limbaugh and FOX News. Limbaugh often boasted of the commercial breaks that consume half his air time as "The Limbaugh Profit Center."

I personally watched discourse disintegrate in America. Rush Limbaugh's broadcast ubiquity and all his assertions gone unchallenged took the apolitical and molded them into right-wing storm-troopers.

Air America is just as vitriolic and monolithic on the other side. Bill O'Reilly and others point out how hateful Air America hosts are, and I don't deny it. What the spokesmen for the Right do not admit is:
1. They have one hundred times the money and power as the media for the ideological Left.
2. The New York Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and CPB are not left-wing. They are corporatist with a less reactionary social outlook than FOX.
3. The hatred of Air America is directed at the rich and powerful. The hatred of FOX/Rush Limbaugh is directed at the exploited and vulnerable.
4. The Right started the vitriol and the scorched earth style of commentary. Liberals get nowhere trying to reason with the Right. Look at Alan Colmes. He is treated as a jester and a boob, and that's what he is.
5. Biggest lie in media toda: FOX News--Fair and Balanced.

If we reinstated the "fairness doctrine" FOX and Clear Channel would be required to air one hour of liberal point-of-view for every hour of right-wing POV. By the same token, Air America would be required to air conservative response in equal time.

Why doesn't Air America take the initiative and offer real balanced programming? Because you can bet dollars-to-doughnuts FOX and Clear Channel would not follow suit.

Right-wing political operatives such as Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and Karl Rove employ a strategy whereby political discourse is not debate but WAR! The Air America network was born because the Left saw the need to strike back. Unfortunately, Air America versus the Petroleum-Christian complex is like the Polish cavalry battling the Nazi Panzer division!

The Right scoffs at the idea of returning to the "fairness doctrine" because they cannot win a fair fight. The Right cannot win the battle of ideas unless the fight is fixed, and it has become apparent the Right can no longer win at the ballot box unless the fight is fixed. Reagan and his greedy cronies wanted to kill the "fairness doctrine" because the general public from Key West to Fairbanks would never refer to "the death tax" if they understood what the "estate tax" really is. In short, allowing liberals equal time interferes with the ascendence of Mammon the Money God and His chosen few.
And that's pretty much all there is to it.

And what the f88k is wrong with "commentary"?

I do encourage you to tune me out, Mushroom, if you want only to read what you want to hear.

Air America Radio failed from forces within and without.  You can read about it in the Wiki article if you wish:

Click me

Within: Contract disputes, head honchos quitting/being recycled

Without: Bad ratings, low listenership...which begs the question, is this because pundits are FORCING people NOT to listen to Air America, or is it because the people CHOSE for themselves NOT to listen because Air America sucks?  *shrug*

Btw, Alan Colmes does suck.  They should match Hannity against someone like a James Carville-type.  Carville is cool, and oftentimes does appear on the Hannity show, and he can hold his own unlike Colmes, who is a pushover.

With the leftist/libs regrouping to figure what they are standing for the conservs are laying low.

Austin Texas is supposed to be liberal yet saw on Inside Editon how a school teacher had 'asrty' syled photos taken of herself and the photographer published/released them and now the officials walked her out of her classroom and she has to appeal to the school board. Te board is saying it is against the morals of what they promote....I thought SOMEONE would've stepped up and sypathized with her if they believe in peoples rights and would like to show how liberal things are there...maybe they are NOT Soooo LIberal  :-\\there???

Air America Radio failed from forces within and without.  You can read about it in the Wiki article if you wish:

Click me

Within: Contract disputes, head honchos quitting/being recycled

Without: Bad ratings, low listenership...which begs the question, is this because pundits are FORCING people NOT to listen to Air America, or is it because the people CHOSE for themselves NOT to listen because Air America sucks?  *shrug*

Btw, Alan Colmes does suck.  They should match Hannity against someone like a James Carville-type.  Carville is cool, and oftentimes does appear on the Hannity show, and he can hold his own unlike Colmes, who is a pushover.

Hannity is a bully. He needs a pushover. Roger Ailes let him pick his own co-host, he chose Alan Colmes. The FOX News style of punditry only works when the liberals are pushovers, when the right-wingers are allowed to shout them down, and when snazzy commercials for SUVs and retirment funds interrupt proceedings every five minutes!
You will never see a Bill O'Reilly or a Rush Limbaugh go toe to toe with any liberal in a real debate. They would be crushed.

Air America is a commercial venture with some big problems. The network is not yet in the past tense. Right now I am listening to the Laura Flanders show online. I get the impression the business people who started the network were amateurs and they could have avoided many of the internecine problems in the network. You have to understand the great handicap Air America started with. The national radio chains have been invested in right-wing talk for fifteen years. Corporations do not like liberals because corporations do not like questions. Corporations control the government, therefore, when a fascist like Dr. William Bennett wanted to start a radio show, he got 400 stations from the get-go. Clear Channel saw no need to test the market because they knew Bill Bennett's point of view on "Morning in America"* would be: "Ra-ra-ra America's the greatest, liberals suck, black men are criminals, Muslims are terrorists," you know the usual white male dumb-down techniques. May I introduce you to something called "manufactured consent"? Start here:

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

* "Morning in America" was Reagan's presidential slogan. Odd logic from a man who also believed we were living in "end times."

Well, if we're going with sponsorship and advertising...wouldn't it be logical to you that the "big corporate baddies" would want to cater to the outlet where the most people congregate, where they will have the best shot at reaching out to the masses with said advertising?  That is why conservative radio succeeds.  Your own viewpoint is skewed so far to the left that it's literally teetering off the edge, which is why you personally believe that CNN etc. are not as liberal as they are. 

Air America fails because:

A-- They can't get the listenership, which means

B-- They don't attract sponsors and advertisers, which means

C-- They don't get money, which means

D-- They can't survive.

I will agree that Hannity is a bully, but I have heard his talk show on numerous occasions and he is more eloquent and thoughtful than you give him credit for.  Call into his show sometime, it might be fun.

By the way, I am conservative, yet I am not a white male.  I wonder if I sold out :P

No, CNN toes the right-wing line on all political issues that matter, and is economically corporatist. On the social issues of concern to soccer moms, CNN is a bit liberal. NPR/PBS shares the same positions as CNN.

Media outlets that do not kiss the ring of the Christian Dominionists and do not genuflect to the Wall Street Church of Mammon are pegged as "liberal" by the media outlets that do. If millionaires and god-hates-f@gs types are displeased with something you report, then you're part of the "liberal media."

I know you of Chinese heritage. Ironically, I'm a white male! Racial stereotyping is no damn good, and I oughta know better!

The question, after all, is not one of race, but of class.

Rice, do you have to work for a living? I mean, if you so chose, could you retire and live off dividends and other investment returns? If not, the Republican party is not your friend. That's all there is to it. To me it doesn't matter how bloody "conservative" you are as long as you can tell the difference between "conservative" and "fascist," because it is the same difference as between "conservative" and "Republican."

Rice, do you have to work for a living? I mean, if you so chose, could you retire and live off dividends and other investment returns? If not, the Republican party is not your friend. That's all there is to it. To me it doesn't matter how bloody "conservative" you are as long as you can tell the difference between "conservative" and "fascist," because it is the same difference as between "conservative" and "Republican."


I work for a living.  I found an opportunity where I used my upbringing and my natural intelligence to be paid to go to school.  I also saved a lot of my meager pay while I was a lab tech, a teacher and now a po graduate student towards retirement and for my son to go to college if he cannot earn a scholarship.  I will not rely on Social Security because the system is broken.  I will not rely on company benefits because those are unreliable.  The only thing I can rely on is myself.  I am not a friend of the Democratic party because they have NO PLATFORM.  Essentially the only thing I find the Democratic party to do is to really piss me off by championing issues that middle America doesn't give a crap about or by telling the Republicans that they suck.  I know the Republicans suck, but what are you gonna do about it other than throw a hissy fit because you're not in power? 

I am living in Indiana now.  I am registering to vote as an Independent.  Both of the major parties can suck it.

And can you tell me how the current administration is "fascist"?  Are protests not still allowed to occur?  Are the protesters getting shot by the Secret Service because they called the President a numbskull one too many times?  Are men in black vans about to bust through your door and confiscate your computer and flog you because you dared to call the "regime" fascist?  Did someone just miss Al Franken with a sniper bullet?

And can you tell me how the current administration is "fascist"?  Are protests not still allowed to occur?  Are the protesters getting shot by the Secret Service because they called the President a numbskull one too many times?  Are men in black vans about to bust through your door and confiscate your computer and flog you because you dared to call the "regime" fascist?  Did someone just miss Al Franken with a sniper bullet?



It's fascist because they say it is.  Just like Bush was responsible for 9/11 because they say he was.

It's fascist because they say it is.  Just like Bush was responsible for 9/11 because they say he was.


Did Stephen Colbert get his knees whacked and his show cancelled off Comedy Central?  Did all the late night talk show hosts get radio collars attached to their necks because they made one too many "Bush is stupid" jokes?  Did Henry Rollins get his house bulldozed because he had the gall to tell Ann Coulter to shut the (#*& up?  Did Don Carlos get arrested and interrogated in a dungeon by the FBI for the 8 millionth time?  Oh wait, that happens anyway :D 

Kidding.

It's fascist because they say it is.  Just like Bush was responsible for 9/11 because they say he was.
well, the allegations of torture, the dismissal of international law and the geneva conventions, and the invading of countries without provocation based on trumped up reichstag-fire-style false pretentions have quite a bit to do with the temptation to call the administration fascist. as do its obvious willingness to write policy based more or less solely on the interests of their corporate contributors. also its frank and overt disdain for the system of checks and balances -- they view the free press as at best extraneous and at worst treasonous, and they take such a lax view of the rights of the legislature vis-a-vis the executive that even republican members of congress called it a constitutional crisis. agree or disagree with the characterization, but this administration's style of governance has a lot of fascist characteristics, however you measure that. fascism isn't just about putting people in cattle cars -- it's about a unilateral view of executive power, a premium on one's own ideology and style of governance and an unwillingness to govern by consensus. these are all things the administration practices, basically by its own admission. so there's a much more solid argument for using the term "Fascist" than just "because they say it is."

ditto 9/11. remember the august 6 memo? do we just "say" he got that briefing, or did he actually get it? do we just say 9/11 saved his presidency, or is it measurable in his poll numbers? again, you can agree or disagree but there's a much more solid argument that there's funny business surrounding 9/11 than just "it's true becuase they say it is." that's ridiculous, frankly.

Did Stephen Colbert get his knees whacked and his show cancelled off Comedy Central?  Did all the late night talk show hosts get radio collars attached to their necks because they made one too many "Bush is stupid" jokes?  Did Henry Rollins get his house bulldozed because he had the gall to tell Ann Coulter to shut the (#*& up?  Did Don Carlos get arrested and interrogated in a dungeon by the FBI for the 8 millionth time?  Oh wait, that happens anyway :D 

Kidding.
so in other words they're not fascist because there are people they haven't arrested? i'm not sure i agree with this "fascist" characterization -- i'd go with jingostic and nationalist, but fascist might be a bit much -- but all the same, these counterarguments aren't very good. were the nazis not fascist because there were jews they didn't get around to rounding up? logically it's not a good argument.

so in other words they're not fascist because there are people they haven't arrested? i'm not sure i agree with this "fascist" characterization -- i'd go with jingostic and nationalist, but fascist might be a bit much -- but all the same, these counterarguments aren't very good. were the nazis not fascist because there were jews they didn't get around to rounding up? logically it's not a good argument.


Okay, we'll go with logic...so now you are comparing the US of A to Nazi Germany.  That's incredibly logical.  I'm sure all the Arab-Americans have to wear gold stars that say "I will die for Allah" or something now, eh?  And those who don't have to go on "Distraction" or some other lame game show and get pelted by rotten fruit, right?

I'm sure there were Jews that weren't rounded up, but they did catch about six million of them...not counting all the gays and non-whites they persecuted.  Now, if you can show me an example where, over the past five years of Preznit W's reign, where they persecuted six million protesters and had them executed, I would call this "regime" fascist.  But you can't, can you?

Fascism is not predicated on arresting people for disagreeing with the government (though that's on the way). Fascism is a state of conformist nationalism combined with the marriage of big business and big government. That is what Bush/Cheney is all about.

I have retired from "arguing" the fact that the last two Presidential elections were stolen by the Republicans or about 9/11 being an inside job. You're gonna be believe what you wanna believe evidence be damned. If you want to find out the true nature of these recent events, the information is at your fingertips. if I roll out line after line of facts and figures here, I'll be wasting my time. Some of you are in a gainsaying mindset and you'll just contradict what I say no matter what it is because I said it.

You know, the Right still extolls the victory of Reaganomics in spite of all evidence pointing to supply-side economics being a fraud and a failure from the start. It's like on the other side when I had to depart from my Marxist-Leninist friends because they still subscribed to Leninism in frikkin' 1991! More to the point, it's like when I tried to talk my crazy uncle out of his idea the Mafia was out to catch him and torture him. In the end, he just said, "well, they might do it for their own amusement."
You can't talk a madman out of his delusions!

Sister take another huff of morphine and dream your little dreamy dreams.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Fascism is not predicated on arresting people for disagreeing with the government (though that's on the way). Fascism is a state of conformist nationalism combined with the marriage of big business and big government. That is what Bush/Cheney is all about.

I have retired from "arguing" the fact that the last two Presidential elections were stolen by the Republicans or about 9/11 being an inside job. You're gonna be believe what you wanna believe evidence be damned. If you want to find out the true nature of these recent events, the information is at your fingertips. if I roll out line after line of facts and figures here, I'll be wasting my time. Some of you are in a gainsaying mindset and you'll just contradict what I say no matter what it is because I said it.

You know, the Right still extolls the victory of Reaganomics in spite of all evidence pointing to supply-side economics being a fraud and a failure from the start. It's like on the other side when I had to depart from my Marxist-Leninist friends because they still subscribed to Leninism in frikkin' 1991! More to the point, it's like when I tried to talk my crazy uncle out of his idea the Mafia was out to catch him and torture him. In the end, he just said, "well, they might do it for their own amusement."
You can't talk a madman out of his delusions!

Sister take another huff of morphine and dream your little dreamy dreams.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen


Whoa, I really must've been looking the other way if you thought 9/11 was an inside job!

You actually BELIEVE someone would kill thousands of Americans to start a fight with someone we didn't need to go after.
EVIDENCE is there with the photos of LL who participated, ADMISSIONSby others who knew about the plot..any other evidence is like those looking for a story to create, along the lines of the nuts who don't even believe a plane crashed into the towers!

Whoa, I really must've been looking the other way if you thought 9/11 was an inside job!

You actually BELIEVE someone would kill thousands of Americans to start a fight with someone we didn't need to go after.
EVIDENCE is there with the photos of LL who participated, ADMISSIONSby others who knew about the plot..any other evidence is like those looking for a story to create, along the lines of the nuts who don't even believe a plane crashed into the towers!

It ain't me, babe. I'm not interested in arguing the the case. All the informationis out there at you fingertips. Go find it if you're interested. Same with RFK, Jr.'s Rolling Stone article on the theft of the 2004 election. To any Republican stalwarts who choose to read that article, I discourage you from responding to me about it. It's a waste of everybody's time. Nobody ever wants to "lose" an argument, so I am not going to ask you to argue the inarguable. Accept it or reject it. I'm not interested in your gainsaying.

I wouldn't say that the Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11 but I believe that they KNEW it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it. So, now they have a good excuse to go to the opposite extreme-all in the name of security.


As for this Administration being fascist, here is an interesting article about fascism.


http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm


What if find interesting are the 14 characteristics of fascism. I'm not going to give the explanation for each one-you can click on the link for further reading.


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -

4. Supremacy of the Military -

5. Rampant Sexism -

6. Controlled Mass Media -

7. Obsession with National Security -

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -

9. Corporate Power is Protected -

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -

14. Fraudulent Elections -


All 14 points are present in the U.S. but according to the article, it is also present in Israel.


So I do agree with Max that we do have a fascist regime in Washington. And if those of you willing to turn a blind eye to that fact, don't be surprised if you wake up one day to discover that all the rights you had that were guaranteed under the Constitution are just a memory.





Cat

Okay, we'll go with logic...so now you are comparing the US of A to Nazi Germany. 
when did i do that? i took the premise of your argument -- that any regime that leaves any of its opponents free is by definition not fascist -- and took it to its extreme to show its wrongheadedness. any argument that could absolve the nazi regime of fascism surely isn't a valid argument, right? it's reductio ad absurdism, it's a technique of argumentation.

please show how i'm comparing america to nazi germany, because i'm lost on how that's happening.

please show how i'm comparing america to nazi germany, because i'm lost on how that's happening.


Perhaps it was in the wording of your previous statement.  I apologize if I jumped to conclusions.  Here is what I read:


so in other words they're not fascist because there are people they haven't arrested? i'm not sure i agree with this "fascist" characterization -- i'd go with jingostic and nationalist, but fascist might be a bit much -- but all the same, these counterarguments aren't very good. were the nazis not fascist because there were jews they didn't get around to rounding up? logically it's not a good argument.


The way you worded it made it sound as if you were saying that even though the USA "regime" right now isn't arresting numerous protestors and anti-Bushies, they could still be compared to Nazi Germany.  Which is why I responded as I did.  As to the rest of your statement:

i took the premise of your argument -- that any regime that leaves any of its opponents free is by definition not fascist -- and took it to its extreme to show its wrongheadedness. any argument that could absolve the nazi regime of fascism surely isn't a valid argument, right? it's reductio ad absurdism, it's a technique of argumentation.

I cannot agree with your assessment that just because the Nazis didn't exterminate every single Jew, that absolves them from fascism.    The Nazis stamped out opposing viewpoints, the people who made them, and the people who resisted them.  There is no movement in place in the USA right now to do the same.  I am sure you will state that conservative pundits like Hannity or Coulter spew propaganda on the airwaves...that is their RIGHT.  You have every right to tell them that they're stupid, extremist, etc., but you have to accept that they, and others who share the same viewpoints, will do the same to you.  But unlike in Nazi Germany, nobody in the government is going to gun you down and place you in a camp or make you wear a shiny gold star just because you are different and happen to think differently.  That, I believe, is where you took your argument a step too far.

I support your right to disagree with me, and I maintain that the government is not fascist. 

Allow me to address the points that were raised that can define the current "regime" as fascist:


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -

So it's bad to be proud of one's country, to want to be free of foreign influence (hello, I'm in the United States of America, a SOVEREIGN nation that shouldn't have to ask for a hall pass from France whenever we want to drill for oil!), to act in the best interests of said nation?  Jesus Christ I'm such a fascist.  I love the American flag.  I shout "U-S-A!" at Olympic and World sporting events.  How dare we continue to say "let's roll" to commemorate an unlikely hero in the midst of great turmoil.  In the meantime...did anyone kill your dog or bash in your windshield because you keep saying that "Bush is an idiot"?  By the way, he is, but think about what I am saying for a moment.  Nobody...NOBODY...has rescinded your right to an opinion. 


2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -

I'm sure this applies to the guys in Guantanamo Bay.  I agree to an extent that these prisoners may be held without cause, but other than rumors and hearsay, I don't believe any have been mistreated, even though they COULD as per some of Mushroom's posts about the subject.  If you are, however, referring to "enemy combatants", their rights are waived when they decided to wage war against the USA, as they are no longer civilians.  If you are referring to your own rights, I can't think of a single one that has been violated...unless some of you have some really wacky porn that you don't want the government to see.


3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -

The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were identified with strong evidence to be of Middle-Eastern descent.  The Taliban in Afghanistan partially financed and sheltered Osama bin Laden, also supported with strong evidence.  Saddam Hussein and Iraq are a bit of a stretch, though, to be truthful, but even they financed terrorist activities and were responsible for genocide...it's a whole new debate to ask whether it was justifiable to invade Iraq just because Saddam decided to gas a few thousand Kurds though.

4. Supremacy of the Military -

Like, where the government decides that they need to spend money to keep their troops safer and better equipped in a time of war?  That's utterly illogical.

5. Rampant Sexism -

Back in the old days, like with FDR and Truman and Eisenhower, the cabinets and legislatures were also maile dominated.  Those farking fascists!

6. Controlled Mass Media -

They censored stuff in WWII, Korea and Vietnam too.  Fascists!  Bloody two-faced fascists!

But hey, if the government is controlling the media, why does the media continue to bash the government?  I don't think that happened too often in Nazi Germany...

7. Obsession with National Security -

OMFG the World Trade Center and the Pentagon got bombed!  We need to:

A.  Make the nation safer

B.  Forget that it happened and move on like everything is hunky-dory.

I chose option A.  What about you?

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -

But not so intertwined that the ACLU and random atheists can't still scream foul when someone wants to put an otherwise innocuous statue depicting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a park...the fascists aren't doing a good enough job!

9. Corporate Power is Protected -

Economics, eh?  Well, if you don't protect corporate power, then who will employ 90% of the people in this ungrateful country?

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -

I used to belong to a union.  Union sucked.  I don't really have a point to make here, but the union is still there and threatening to strike all the time because the grocery stores won't pay someone $20 an hour to clean the toilets.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -

Mrr?  I'm not being funny here, but if you could provide a link to a reliable story where something like this happened, I would tend to believe you, because I honestly don't remember this happening.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -

I seem to remember a few stories where cops were punished for excessive violence in the past couple years.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -

The spoils system has been around since, like, Andrew Jackson.  I think he was definitely a fascist, because he hated them Injuns.

14. Fraudulent Elections -

Oooh, for like the 80 billionth time since 2000.  The part where Bush won by like 3 million votes in the popular vote and 35 electoral votes doesn't count.  2000 really did suck though.

Every one of these 14 points has been taken to an extreme that it shouldn't have been allowed to reach.  I believe the country is not fascist...just incredibly misguided.  You are all free to believe whatever you want.  I think I'll go watch baseball now.

Sister take another huff of morphine and dream your little dreamy dreams.



I don't believe I was talking to you, so kindly leave me out of it.  Thanks.

And you can't huff morphine.  Good Lord.

I support your right to disagree with me, and I maintain that the government is not fascist. 

Allow me to address the points that were raised that can define the current "regime" as fascist:

So it's bad to be proud of one's country, to want to be free of foreign influence (hello, I'm in the United States of America, a SOVEREIGN nation that shouldn't have to ask for a hall pass from France whenever we want to drill for oil!), to act in the best interests of said nation?  Jesus Christ I'm such a fascist.  I love the American flag.  I shout "U-S-A!" at Olympic and World sporting events.  How dare we continue to say "let's roll" to commemorate an unlikely hero in the midst of great turmoil.  In the meantime...did anyone kill your dog or bash in your windshield because you keep saying that "Bush is an idiot"?  By the way, he is, but think about what I am saying for a moment.  Nobody...NOBODY...has rescinded your right to an opinion. 

I'm sure this applies to the guys in Guantanamo Bay.  I agree to an extent that these prisoners may be held without cause, but other than rumors and hearsay, I don't believe any have been mistreated, even though they COULD as per some of Mushroom's posts about the subject.  If you are, however, referring to "enemy combatants", their rights are waived when they decided to wage war against the USA, as they are no longer civilians.  If you are referring to your own rights, I can't think of a single one that has been violated...unless some of you have some really wacky porn that you don't want the government to see.

The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were identified with strong evidence to be of Middle-Eastern descent.  The Taliban in Afghanistan partially financed and sheltered Osama bin Laden, also supported with strong evidence.  Saddam Hussein and Iraq are a bit of a stretch, though, to be truthful, but even they financed terrorist activities and were responsible for genocide...it's a whole new debate to ask whether it was justifiable to invade Iraq just because Saddam decided to gas a few thousand Kurds though.

Like, where the government decides that they need to spend money to keep their troops safer and better equipped in a time of war?  That's utterly illogical.

Back in the old days, like with FDR and Truman and Eisenhower, the cabinets and legislatures were also maile dominated.  Those farking fascists!

They censored stuff in WWII, Korea and Vietnam too.  Fascists!  Bloody two-faced fascists!

But hey, if the government is controlling the media, why does the media continue to bash the government?  I don't think that happened too often in Nazi Germany...

OMFG the World Trade Center and the Pentagon got bombed!  We need to:

A.  Make the nation safer

B.  Forget that it happened and move on like everything is hunky-dory.

I chose option A.  What about you?

But not so intertwined that the ACLU and random atheists can't still scream foul when someone wants to put an otherwise innocuous statue depicting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a park...the fascists aren't doing a good enough job!

Economics, eh?  Well, if you don't protect corporate power, then who will employ 90% of the people in this ungrateful country?

I used to belong to a union.  Union sucked.  I don't really have a point to make here, but the union is still there and threatening to strike all the time because the grocery stores won't pay someone $20 an hour to clean the toilets.

Mrr?  I'm not being funny here, but if you could provide a link to a reliable story where something like this happened, I would tend to believe you, because I honestly don't remember this happening.

I seem to remember a few stories where cops were punished for excessive violence in the past couple years.

The spoils system has been around since, like, Andrew Jackson.  I think he was definitely a fascist, because he hated them Injuns.

Oooh, for like the 80 billionth time since 2000.  The part where Bush won by like 3 million votes in the popular vote and 35 electoral votes doesn't count.  2000 really did suck though.

Every one of these 14 points has been taken to an extreme that it shouldn't have been allowed to reach.  I believe the country is not fascist...just incredibly misguided.  You are all free to believe whatever you want.  I think I'll go watch baseball now.




It is your right not see what is going on in this country. But personally I am very afraid that what this Nation stood for for 230 years is being destroyed. The Founding Fathers put into place the balance of powers so that one man/group could not seize power and this nation would not become a dictatoriship-which it is now heading in that direction. I admit that the U.S. has never been perfect but we had been making strives-labor issues, women/black voters, civil rights, etc. But it seems for the past 6 years, this country has taken a step back-like about 100 years. And when ever anyone DARES to exercise their Constitutional rights by "petition the government for a redress of grievances" they are called unpatriotic or even terrorist.


I wish people will see that the U.S. is under attack. And I'm not talking about Al Quada. It is an attack from within. This country has been held together for the 230 year by a living document called the Constitution. But to Bush and his cronies, it is just a piece of paper that is totally meaningless. Without the Constitution being the cement of this nation, it will fall like a house of cards. I am sorry that you and many others don't see it happening. I am afraid that by the time EVERYONE sees it, it will be too late. At this point, it is still not too late. That is why something needs to be done NOW!! If we continue to "stay the course" we hit that iceburg and then it will be too late.


(ok, enough of my metaphors.  :D)



Cat

Perhaps it was in the wording of your previous statement.  I apologize if I jumped to conclusions.  Here is what I read:

The way you worded it made it sound as if you were saying that even though the USA "regime" right now isn't arresting numerous protestors and anti-Bushies, they could still be compared to Nazi Germany.  Which is why I responded as I did.  As to the rest of your statement:

I cannot agree with your assessment that just because the Nazis didn't exterminate every single Jew, that absolves them from fascism.    The Nazis stamped out opposing viewpoints, the people who made them, and the people who resisted them.  There is no movement in place in the USA right now to do the same.  I am sure you will state that conservative pundits like Hannity or Coulter spew propaganda on the airwaves...that is their RIGHT.  You have every right to tell them that they're stupid, extremist, etc., but you have to accept that they, and others who share the same viewpoints, will do the same to you.  But unlike in Nazi Germany, nobody in the government is going to gun you down and place you in a camp or make you wear a shiny gold star just because you are different and happen to think differently.  That, I believe, is where you took your argument a step too far.

I support your right to disagree with me, and I maintain that the government is not fascist. 

fair post, i appreciate it. there's nothing to apologize for, it's just a give and take.

i'm not saying the nazis are absolved from fascism. i'm saying they're the epitome of fascism, so that any argument that WOULD absolve them from fascism must be erroneous. that was my original point.

i disagree with maxwell that the current government IS fascist, i don't want to go that far -- although a lot of it's semantics, frankly -- but i think the potential is there for it to move in that direction. this is mainly because of what i mentioned before, not because of the systematic elimination of all those who oppose the dominant point of view, which is how it worked in 1930s germany, but more of a combination of rising militarism with erosion of checks and balances. the checks and balances thing i really feel a need to keep harping on, because i notice no conservative ever really responds to that and that's the part that really worries me, because that's what the american system is founded on, and it's designed to avoid imperial overreach and militarism. without the rule of law and the perception that the executive has to obey some kind of rule of law, the danger for the rise of fascism will be very real. and it wouldn't look the same way in the US as it did in germany or in italy, japan or ancient rome -- fascist takeovers are tailored to the myths and symbols of the culture they try to co-opt, so where the german model used the iron cross and the swastika and other symbols of german identity, fascism in america will be all up in apple pie and fireworks and the idea of american exceptionalism. thats how it works.

i'm not saying the nazis are absolved from fascism. i'm saying they're the epitome of fascism, so that any argument that WOULD absolve them from fascism must be erroneous. that was my original point.


I see that now :)

I think you may be right about the checks and balances, because the Prez has been able to appoint so many judges to the lower courts and Supreme Court that share his ideology (still don't know what that Harriet Myers thing was all about :P ) and they are likely to maintain a slim majority in both houses of Congress.  I do believe that the Republicans are f**king up on all cylinders at this point...they haven't been able to take advantage of the "political capital" they claim to have, and, like the Democrats, are increasingly alienating Middle America (me!) with stupid causes.  That is why, several pages ago, I suggested that a third party step up and cater towards middle America with issues that we care about:

-- Despite the fact that some think it's a sham issue, polls show that America IS concerned about immigration reform;

-- Alternative fuels and keeping the environment clean is important on both sides of the aisle;

-- A reasonably strong national defense to promote and maintain national security.  Even if you are a Democrat, you cannot underscore the need to protect one's freedoms and sovereignty, eh?

I don't believe that most of Middle America really care about gay marriage, whether or not someone can get an abortion, stem cell research, or steroids in baseball to the extent that the politicians are touting these issues.  In fact, I think it's silly to argue about these issues when there are more important issues at stake, like a questionable war (I will not say it's unjust, but the motives are definitely questionable) and how to improve national security.

However, I do not believe that the path towards fascism will be an easy one, especially not in this country.  The checks and balances are still intact even with partisan power on the side of the Republicans.  The public can still speak out.  They can bear arms, for goodness' sakes ( :D ), and unless something incredibly calculated can be achieved, most of the would-be instigators for a fascist revolution can be removed from office either by ballot or by censure.  This country is too open-minded and too internally strong to allow fascism to rear its ugly head, and that's all I've got to say about that for now.

I'm serious about Stephen Colbert though...in many other nations, he would probably be tarred and feathered for what he did to W.  That was hi-friggin'-larious :D

Rice Cube wrote:

Economics, eh?  Well, if you don't protect corporate power, then who will employ 90% of the people in this ungrateful country?

OMFG! I could not boil the fascist essence down any more elegantly if I tried for 100 years!

You're freakin' me out, Rice! Scary sh!t!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

Rice Cube wrote:

Economics, eh?  Well, if you don't protect corporate power, then who will employ 90% of the people in this ungrateful country?

OMFG! I could not boil the fascist essence down any more elegantly if I tried for 100 years!

You're freakin' me out, Rice! Scary sh!t!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif



You would rather they were unemployed?

You would rather they were unemployed?




No, I believe that if a liberal such as Max were in charge, the government would have to be much larger in scope than it is today just to determine how much to suck away from the "haves" and give to the "have nots".  You see, in Max's world, the corporations and rich people in general don't do enough to alleviate society's woes, so you need the government to step in and step it up a notch so that even if someone is deadbeat and lazy, they can still acquire the $35000 in annual gross income that they "deserve".  Why work your butt off when you can't see a single extra dime for your efforts, and you can just sit on your bum and have the government and people DUMB enough to actually work hard make your money for you?

Doesn't sound fascist to me...just a bit socialist/communist.  Oh wait, we sort of know what happened in them commie countries too.  Yikes!

No, I believe that if a liberal such as Max were in charge, the government would have to be much larger in scope than it is today just to determine how much to suck away from the "haves" and give to the "have nots". 
If I was in charge, the government wouldn't suck. Period.
8)

You see, in Max's world, the corporations and rich people in general don't do enough to alleviate society's woes, so you need the government to step in and step it up a notch so that even if someone is deadbeat and lazy, they can still acquire the $35000 in annual gross income that they "deserve".  Why work your butt off when you can't see a single extra dime for your efforts, and you can just sit on your bum and have the government and people DUMB enough to actually work hard make your money for you?

Doesn't sound fascist to me...just a bit socialist/communist.  Oh wait, we sort of know what happened in them commie countries too.  Yikes!


C'mon, yer over there lip-syncing another Limbaugh litany!

We should be "grateful" to the corporations that subvert our democracy and destroy our ecology because we, as a voiceless and disorganized proletariat, must rely on them for our daily bread?
I don't mean to offend with this analogy, but it reminds me of Big Massa standing on the porch of de big house scolding, "Now you n*gg*rs best be grateful to Massa, 'coz you'd be lost and helpless without me! Now git back to work!"
For chrissakes, I'd even go so far as to compare the arrogance of your statement with the sign the Nazis posted at the gates of the concentration camps: "Arbeit macht frei" (Work shall set you free!). Of course, there the Nazis knew they were lying and the Jews knew they Nazis were lying to them, and both parties understood it was sadistical farce. The difference here is Rush Limbaugh drinks his own Kool-Aid, and the Republican-voting proles are willing participants in their own oppression.

I do not say American corporations are like Nazi concentration camps. However, we do have concentration camps in the U.S. in the form of our prison system. How is our prison concentration camp system populated? In nutshell, the capitalist profit machine has no use for huge sectors of our population. The bosses don't want to invest in healthcare, education, jobs, or salutary living conditions for poor people, so what happens? They end up ill-educated, unemployed, and standing idle amidst the impoverished hellscapes that cover ever more acreage of this benighted land. The occupying armies (know to suburbanites as "cops") watch and wait. As soon as one of these idle young people does something bad..BANG! They're railroaded through our kangaroo-court system and sentenced to prison. All that happens in prison is they get abused and learn how to be hardened psychopaths. They get out with prospects even more bleak than when they went in. More crimes. Crimes for survival, crimes for rage, crimes for nihilism. And then they're back in. That's the "prison-industrial complex" as Angela Davis calls it.

Take Jesse Jackson for instance--
The corporate establishment had to destroy the Rev. Jesse Jackson because Jackson kept pointing out how it cost less to educate a person than to incarcerate a person, and it cost less to build decent housing than prison cells. Jackson also suggested a positive anti-drug message: "I am somebody" to challenge Nancy Reagan's "Just say no," which was a verb and two negatives. African Americans are demonized as the shiftless urban scourge, but let's not forget most poor people are white. What if Jackson's messages got out of The Bronx, East St. Louis, Southside Chicago, and Southcentral L.A.? What if those who the media ridicule as gangbangers, hoes, trailer trash, and welfare sluts stood up and said "I am somebody"? What if they learned to say, "this is our nation and we will not let the privileged few horde all the resources for themselves"? Can you say class revolution? Jesse Jackson was too big a threat to the Rich White Order, but they knew if they killed him like Martin Luther King, they would have another martyr. They did worse. They corrupted and Jackson and, tragically, Jackson let himself be corrupted. Rev. Jackson is now a pitiful shell of the man he was in 1984. He and MLK were destroyed because they began to talk about class. Today the Dems are too timid to even hint at it.

As for your deified "corporations," I find it farcical how the "strict constructionists" never want to talk about the status of corporations in 1789. Until the late 19th century, citizens were free to incorporate for limited liability. However, the corporation needed to establish a specific goal for its charter, and after the corporation met the goal, the investors would take their profits and dissolve the corporation.
If you proposed to the Founding Fathers the following:

"Let's allow corporations to expand without limit and regulation. Let's allow corporations to expand into any area of commerce they wish and establish themselves on every continent. And most of all, let's provide them as many opportunities as possible not to contribute to the public treasure so that they may grow so wealthy they can challenge every sovereign state on the globe, especially the United States of America for which you are now forging a Constitution!"

Now, our Founding Fathers were the richest men on the continent, they held slaves, and they certainly did not like excessive taxation. However, after your speech, and after the laughter died down, Mr. Adams would say, "Hey, I like to make a buck as much as the next guy, but if we let chartered corporations start running the show, we'll kill off everything we are trying to establish here today!"
Or as old Tom Jefferson put it: