The Cult of Conservatism: An Anthropological Field Study
Part Three: Where the Cult Attacks Liberal “Fascism” And Admits It Is Against Democracy.
We enter our last chapter in this Anthropological Field Study with the conservative judicial ruling that cements the power of free speech, for all practical purposes, exclusively into the cold hard cash of corporatism. The “For Sale” sign has now been hung over every election in the US.
Supreme Court Decision on Citizens United v. FEC Post: January 21st.
---
DD:
I think it was Mark Twain who first said we have the “best Congress money can buy”. Back in his day the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad in 1886 was used to grant corporate personhood. Although this personhood was not specifically worded in the decision. It was added by a clerk. J. C. Bancroft Davis wrote that the Chief Justice had said all the Justices had agreed that corporations are persons. Chief Justice Waite specifically disavowed this later in writing. Davis happened to be a former president of a small railroad, and was the man to endow corporations with all the rights of living person.
Thus a corporation is entitled to all the rights of a human being, and none of the accountability. You can’t put a corporation in prison, now can you? And with the army of lawyers they can afford, it’s not easy to lock up a crooked CEO.
We remember The Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 blessing the pouring of private corporate money into campaigns for public office.
The corrupting influence of money has once again been sanctioned as free speech.
The Golden Rule shall prevail. Those with the gold shall rule. One thing for sure, this will show who the real “elites” are. Unfortunately those elites are indoctrinating the masses to continue hating the dreaded liberal/socialist/communist/fascist, or other scary word of the week, voices of dissent, as if there were any doubt about who really has the money to pull the strings of the puppet politicians.
Free speech has been vulgarized into Big Money’s choke hold on corporate media propaganda. The voices of the poor and working class will be smothered.
Nothing will really change. It’s been that way for a long time.
*
Joe:
And what prevented China from buying a corp, setting up a PAC, and buying lobbyists before?
What kept China from buying Big Media and doing what they want? Face it – Big Media were the only corporations that were allowed to be critical of a sitting politician during that critical period just before an election. Everyone else was frozen out, including any little mom & pops that might have wanted to put out pamphlets.
All the fascilibs are in a dither screaming Big Oil! Big Pharma! Big This, Big That! – including the guy in the Oval Office. Trotting out all the usual boogymen to scare the children. But NONE of them ever think to bash Big Corporate Media – the one type of corporation that was EXEMPTED from taking sides. And guess which side it took in the last big election – yep, with the help of Big Corporate Media, the former jr. Sen. from IL stole the White House.
But now, Mom&Pop Pop can put out pamphlets on their soda counter within two months of a general election. And for the left that is a Bad Thing. Can’t have a real grass roots, populist movement.
*
DD:
In case you missed it, liberals were pointing out how complicit and subservient the corporate media were in parroting Bush/Cheney’s lies, fear mongering, and sabre rattling. There was near zero journalistic fact checking. Just like Fox, they all poured the Neocons’ Saddam/bin-Laden WMD kool-ade down the Americans’ throats.
Corporate media loves sensationalism and war is sensational. Mission Accomplished.
Of course now that three liberals have their own show on MSNBC, Cons think ALL media is liberal. Never mind radical right wing voices rage all over the rest of corporate radio, print, and TV. Their gullible listeners are true believers who never care to check the facts. In the Cult of conservatism, blind unquestioning belief is everything. Without that it falls like a house of cards.
Let me suggest a bit of truth here. Corporate media always suck up to power. Since money is power the media suck up mostly to corporate power.
They nit pick trivial crap to fake their way out of their shameful lack of investigative journalism.
Now you did it. You had to bring up China. Since the US government has been under the control of anti-regulation conservatism since 1980, the once greatest creditor nation has fallen into deep debt to the Chinese. Corporatism and unregulated capitalism has failed our economy and the public to the point of indebtedness to Communist China. But it’s worth it, right? The CEO’s and top suits have skimmed the cream off the top. Good conservatives ALWAYS want what’s best for their beloved uberclass.
Why do those corporatist worshipers of Mammon hate America? I bet they hate us for our freedom and once thriving middle class. Don’t worry; we can fix all this with more tax breaks for big business and our holy and wealthy elite masters. We can all help them by accepting less jobs, pay, and benefits for working class corporate employees. A proven formula for success since 1980. Why change anything now?
Oh, and the absurd part is they really do think WE are the commies for mentioning these things.
Oh look, a tea party! Go drink your corporate kool-ade and don’t forget to call Obama a fascist, or a communist, or a socialist. Chances are you don’t know the difference anyway.
*
Doomed:
Dave Dubya,Actually the FASCIST movement is OUTRAGED.
Gee imagine that….CORPORATIONS are given freedoms to use the 1st amendment.
Now why would a fascist who wants to CONTROL corporations….be angry over this decision?
*
DD:
Doomed, Thanks for proving my last statement.
*
Scoop:
When did ‘fascist’ become a pejorative for the Left? That’s like calling Nixon a commie.
*
Joe:
Scoop, I’ve been using it for 15 or 20 years, since I realized that the actions are somewhat fascist.
“Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state (sounds a lot like the libs in CA), with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy (who pushes the nanny state?) and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality (look at the politics of division that the left uses, and the cult of victimhood it preaches).
Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement(if you dare to express any opinion other than that of the DNC you are mobbed, vilified, slandered, shouted down – and before you go off about the “teabaggers” [see comments about being vilified] – this has been a tactic of the left for at least 40 years here, only recently taken up by moderates and conservatives).
*
DD:
Joe, Your contempt for democracy was quite clear when your boys were given the White House by a conservative court against the will of the voters.
You are right about one thing. Fascists do not tolerate dissent.
By your reasoning, you must agree that Bush/Cheney and their supporters were fascists when they accused us of treason for calling them liars. Remember when Ashcroft warned us, “Americans need to watch what they say.” They spied on Quakers for Pete’s sake. Every pro-peace movement was regarded as hostile to the regime and was put under surveillance.
It’s NEVER fascism when Right Wingers do it. No double standards here, right?
*
Joe:
Dave Dubya, Damned straight I’m against democracy as you seem to mean it, and for the same reason the Founders were, and why they gave us a REPUBLIC. I am against mob rule.
Yes, Lincoln tossed tens of thousands of pro-peace activists in jail, without warrant or trial. He also intercepted mail and telegrams.
I don’t see the right or moderates, or didn’t until last year, sending in mobs to shout down speakers, throwing riots as “peaceful demonstrations” (they haven’t started doing that yet). And…hmmmm…it was a DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED SENATE that passed 99-1 that POS USA PATRIOT Act that gave the executive branch power unseen since the days when Lincoln grabbed those powers for himself. And which the current guy in the Oval Office is seeking to expand. I still wonder exactly what he mean by
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the combined military forces). Was that, as J. Cary wrote in American Thinker ”
Barack Obama’s recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.” If so, I suggest that you take a close look at how Germany was organized in the 1930s & 40s with the organization starting with the block, and several blocks in a cell, several cells in a district, and so on up, all with “People of all ages, stations, and skills (will be) asked (and expected) to serve.”
*
Joe:
Dave Dubya, I look at three issues – 2nd amendment, abortion, and affirmative action. Gross generalization, but good indicator – liberals hate the civil rights protected by the 2nd, love abortion, love affirmative action(blacks are too dumb to compete on even terms with whites). The main stream media is very anti-civil rights, pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action.
“subservient the corporate media were in parroting Bush/Cheney’s lies, fear mongering, and sabre rattling.”
While heaping derision on Pres. Bush. And I love your continuing to parrot the lefts myth of “Bush/Cheney’s lies.” Sorry, they may have relied on faulty data, but then, so did the UN, most of Europe, and most of the Dems in power at the time.
Fear mongering? Gee, lets see, to be a good lib, you have to be afraid of guns, goose liver, fat, trans-fat, Christians, whites, males, Big Business, smoke, cars, light bulbs, nuclear power, coal power, (and now it seems “green” power like solar, wind, and testing tidal generated power).
*
DD:
Joe, I’m happy to see you admit gross generalization to be the base of your wild accusations. You don’t know me and you probably don’t know any liberals. You only “know” what you are told by the right wing propagandists. I can tell exactly what you think by what the radical right propaganda machine says. You have no clue to what I think other than what I tell you I think. I happen to have REAL Christian values like peace, and love of ones neighbor. I own firearms and support all the Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment. In case you didn’t notice, Bush/Cheney shredded the Fourth Amendment with warrantless surveillance of Americans.
And nobody loves abortion. One would be insane to think so. It is about a woman’s reproductive rights and control of her own body. They must face their conscience and Creator for the choice they make. I respect your opposition to abortion. It is a horrible thing and I would never choose it if I were a woman. But it’s not about me, and it’s not just about YOU, either. Liberals understand sex ed and contraception are needed to avoid the entire circumstances for abortion. Cons would rather dictate morality. That’s always their preferred method. Some cons even go so far as to kill those doctors and Unitarians who disagree with them.
Those lies are myths? Say it ain’t so, Joe. Bush/Cheney lies are reality, not myths. They are recorded for posterity you know. One would have to be a radical right wing authoritarian to be gullible enough to believe their lie about “faulty data”. They cherry picked exactly what they wanted to use for fear-mongering propaganda. I remember Dick saying something like, “Americans are going to get hit again if they don’t vote right”.
They pushed the lies as truth and suppressed any voice contradicting their claims. Reverence of Cheney puts you well into the far-right fringe, you know. Torture, war based on lies, and spying on dissenters are all elements of fascism embraced by both the American radical right and Hitler. But you let Rush tell you tax funded health care is fascism. You DO know how ridiculous that makes your side look, don’t you?
One more thing: There are many Christian liberals. Hard for you to comprehend isn’t it? In fact Jesus was so liberal the conservatives in power killed him. Cons do love their capital punishment. “Thou shalt not kill” applies to others, not them. Just ask Blackwater.
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon.”—Matthew 6:19-21,24
Bottom line: Corporate power and their corporatist politicians are all servants of mammon.
How do you expect anyone to actually believe you embrace the teachings of Jesus, when you ALWAYS (apart from a fetus) take the side of the rich and powerful?
*
Joe:
Dave, I grew up in a Dem household. I was a bleeding heart, straight party Dem for years. I spent 30 years in liberal, o, so tolerant, diverse, and inclusive Sonoma County, just up the street from San Francisco. I don’t listen to any right wing talk radio, but I did a heap of listening to local left wing talk shows. I base my attitudes on personal experience.
i love your knee-jerk ‘you don’t know me so you can’t know jack about me.’ Yeah, turn that right back around at your own generalizations and hate.
Yeah, the 4th. And who gave the last admin that power? why a DEMOCRATIC Senate. Yep. And while I agree that there were predations on the 4th, at least they left the rest of the BoR intact, unlike the left which is still trying to take out most of the protections in the 1s, 2nd, 4th, 5th (remember Pelosi applauding Kelo?),9th, 10th, and throw in the part of the 14th for good measure.
*
DD:
Joe, I’m glad you have an inkling of the perils befalling our Fourth Amendment. Both parties, along with the Supreme Court, have threatened our Bill of Rights. You falsely assume I am a Democrat. I distrust all politicians. I’m the opposite of a true believer like you. I am skeptical of our corrupted system of campaign finance, the false notion of corporate personhood, and corporate media.
Cons seem to love projecting the word hate upon those who disagree with their narrow views confined to promoting the interests of the rich and powerful. Just who are you accusing me of hating? I give you honest verifiable fact based information and opinion and you think that means I hate someone. I try not to hate anybody. It is a soul killing emotion contrary to my above mentioned Christian values. I’ll tell you what I do hate. I hate being lied to. I hate seeing needless suffering, death and war because of those lies. I hate seeing our Bill of Rights destroyed. But I don’t hate you or other right wingers. I sort of pity them as I would other cultist true believers.
I’m curious what traumatic event turned you into such a radical right winger. What turned you from tolerance to intolerance? Was it 9-11? Were you attacked or mistreated by a black person? Was it hatred for Bill Clinton? I have a buddy who fell for the Right over that escapade. He thought Clinton’s affair was harmful to his daughter. Never mind Republicans (like Vitter) made it a public issue and are guilty of similar sins.
Your devotion to Dick Cheney seems to carry a lot of resentment toward the vast majority of the people of this country who do not believe him. Have you considered the possibility that your side is the hateful one?
*
Joe:
A question for all those here who will shout “Democracy!” and imply that you truly believe one man/one vote. What do you do about the houses of Congress? The lower house has set its membership at 435 for almost 100 years now. In some states a member of the House of Reps. will represent oh, 600,000 people. Those from other states may represent 900,000 (numbers for examples, but the range is well within what is really happening). Is that fair? And the Senate – how is it “democratic” for every state, no matter the size, to have two members of the Senate?
Another question, this one for the ones wetting themselves and screaming ‘Big Business!’
How is a ruling that will now allow the Mom & Pop Pop Shoppe, Inc. (all one location) to put stacks of flyers on their counter blasting Jane Incumbent (P-Anystate) within 60 days of a general election somehow vesting Big Business with the the power to control elections?
And how is stripping Big Corporate Media of the power to be the ONLY voice that can be critical of Jane Incumbent bad?
*
DD:
Joe , I don’t know who is shouting or implying anything about democracy, other your claim to be against democracy and equating it with “mob rule”. Hmm. You prefer a tyranny by the minority? You got it. You should be a very happy man.
This is why the US government is a right wing engine of militarism, empire, and corporate profiteering. The majority of the US population is under-represented in both the House and Senate. As we learned from the health care fiasco, a state has but two senators, while the insurance companies have at least 45. No democracy here. It’s corporatocracy, bro.
Remnants of your dreaded democracy lie in our right to vote, petition, and participate in government through ballot initiatives. But don’t worry, Big Business can easily oppose these with the influence wielded by their massive wealth through their corrupt, bought and paid for politicians. And this democracy stuff reminds me of another Bush/Cheney lie about “spreadin’ democracy” at the point of a gun.
And to your next question, just what mom and pop operation, or any other interest, has the cash to buy politicians like Big Money does? Sheeesh! Corporatism has reduced and restricted free speech to a cash commodity. Freedom of speech has gone from a right to, in effect, a privilege for the powerful wealthy elite. Like Orwell said in Animal Farm, “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”
So, you’re right, Joe. Nothing is fair in the American way of government. And conservatives still bitch as if liberals can do anything about anything. Liberalism has been extinct at the federal level since Reagan. Give me a break. And don’t try to tell me that welfare-cutting, government-reducing, Bill “NAFTA” Clinton was not in the pockets of Big Money. At least he did what no Republican would do, and left a balanced budget with a surplus.
Now then, where are the answers to my questions? They seem to have been conveniently ignored, as were most of the points I made. Anyone want to explain the double standards mentioned above?
And, again, how do you expect anyone to actually believe you embrace the teachings of Jesus, when you ALWAYS (apart from a fetus) take the side of the rich and powerful?
*
Joe:
Dave Dubya, Well, in matters of what the government does I’m on the side of the Constitution. I’m sorry if you believe that is the same as being on the side of the rich and powerful.
*
DD:
Joe, I think it’s great we are both on the side of the Constitution. I knew we had a lot in common. Does your Constitution say buying politicians is a First Amendment Right? Does your Constitution say corporations are entitled to all the rights and none of the accountability of human beings? Does your Constitution say it’s ok for telecoms to tap your phone and give your personal information to Cheney? Mine doesn’t say any of these things. I do have a corrupt government that makes these outrageous claims; mostly thanks to corporate intrusion into the Supreme Court as well as the other branches of government.
*
Joe:
Does it protect a right to abortion? Or medical pot? Or same sex marriage?
Does it support laws that trample down free exercise of religion? Does it support laws that limit the RKBA? (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) Does is say that the State can take property from an individual and give it to another because the second one will provide a better tax base?
Dows it support laws that tell you with whom you may associate? Does it support having to beg a permit from the State to exercise a civil right? Does it support though crimes?
*
DD:
My point was the Right is abusing the Bill of Rights to consolidate more privilege and power for the wealthy elite. If you remember the Bill of Rights is supposed to be about protecting the rights of individuals from abuses of government power. Government power is fast coming under control of Big Money against the rights of the individual citizens. You even gave one example about eminent domain. What was first used by government to build highways and infrastructure for the public good has been twisted into taking peoples homes for the benefit of corporate interests.
Where you trying to make a point with your list of grievances? You don’t believe people have a right to treat their own bodies as they see fit? Are you saying medical marijuana is wrong? Did God make a mistake giving that plant to us?
(Crickets.....)
*********************
Conclusion:
As we see our conservative friends have left the building, so to speak, I just want to mention my conviction that my words have not been in vain. Of course we don’t expect the authoritarian personalities to revise their beliefs, prejudices and indoctrination. We cannot deprogram cult members with facts, reason, or logic. What we CAN do is say, “I call you on your false beliefs and refusal of facts, and have now told you the truth.” And what we MUST do is make our stand against the madness. We are fighting for our freedom here.
Aside from that, I must confess I find a certain degree of sporting amusement in my exchanges with the cult members. I enjoy dismantling the falsehoods of the cult’s indoctrination because I also gain the benefits of better understanding and expressing the issues at hand.
In addition I want to say, ALL the commenters at Gun Totin’ Liberal are not such radical right wing authoritarian types. Scoop was one to offer a clear-headed comment. I’d like to add this comment from a post-exchange observer.
How R You:
Just for the record I must say Dave Dubya has given the most facts and even pointed out Google searches. I agree with most everything he has said. I'm not an avid watcher of news, but have easily noticed FOX news is a propaganda channel, just as much as MSNBC. CNN and moreover, BBC news is the most balanced. Glenn Beck is just a tool. Conservatives hated him on CNN for going after Bush. Now he's a hero. Same thing as Lou Dobbs.
Thanks, How R You.
I’d also like to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to our friend the Gun Toting Liberal for his kindly accommodation for our Field Study. I couldn’t have done it without him. And I’d also like to thank our conservative friends for sharing with us their beliefs, fears, resentments and misunderstandings. I do believe there are some well intentioned and decent people underneath the dark cloud of cult indoctrination. We liberals do not need to accept their thinking, but we need to accept them as our family, friends, neighbors, and fellow countrymen. We liberals need to find some compassion for everyone. If we are not the compassionate ones, who will be? This is what makes us different from the Cult of Conservatism.
Before I conclude this Anthropological Field Study, I wish to emphasize the distinction between traditional conservatism and the Cult of Conservatism. The Republican Cult of Conservatism exists only to consolidate political and economic gain for the Republican Party and its corporate donors and benefactors. These interests are not limited to Military Industrial Complex companies like weapons manufacturers, corporate mercenaries, and Halliburton/KBR. The financial, pharmaceutical, energy and insurance industries also nourish the propaganda network with their vast PR and lobbying efforts.
The Cult of Conservatism does not include the reserved old couple down the street who may not pay attention to politics and do not watch Fox. The Cult of Conservatism does not include Libertarians who opposed the Neocons’ criminal deceptions and efforts to implement their cruel and terrible doctrine of “pre-emptive war”. The Cult of Conservatism does not include the rational conservatives who oppose the insane and destructive war on drugs. The Cult of Conservatism does not include conservatives who value our Bill of Rights’ protection against illegal warrantless surveillance of citizens. The Cult of Conservatism does not include conservatives who don’t accept the absurdity of corporate personhood and their lock on “free speech money” to buy elections. I heard of one poll that said three quarters of Republicans disagree with the Supreme Court’s opening up our elections to unlimited corporate money.
There are conservatives who are very much opposed to abortion, and also very much opposed to the permanent “War on Terror” hysteria. There are conservatives outraged by Wall Street swindlers and their political enablers. Traditional conservatives and liberals can find common cause and interests; not so with the Cult of Conservatism and anyone else.
I will offer one more example to illustrate the fact that this study and its conclusions are not an attack against conservatism in general or people who consider themselves conservative.
It may be difficult to think of any group of Americans more traditionally conservative than the Amish. These folks are nothing like the war-mongering Neocons and greedy corporatists behind the Cult of Conservatism. Amish style conservatism is the kind that would make the planet a better place if more Cult members were to adopt it.
So you see, I am actually pro-conservatism here.
In conclusion we have learned the American Republican Cult of Conservatism is further inflamed with more anger, more delusional ideation, and more intolerance than ever witnessed in most of our lifetimes. Their authoritarian Republican and radical right media cult leaders have become increasingly more dishonest, divisive, and outright hateful.
Cheney is still allowed to brazenly accuse a sitting wartime president of giving “aid and comfort to the enemy". Imagine what would have happened to anyone saying that about HIM a few years ago. It was enough to get Dan Rather fired to have merely attempted telling the true story of Bush’s dereliction of duty and history of being AWOL from the National Guard. Cheney is instead rewarded with more invitations by the media to spew his evil lies.
Tom Tancredo invoked the most racist of anti-civil rights sentiment at the recent Tea Party Convention. “...We do not have civics literacy test before people can vote. People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House."
Wow. That can make someone not only very angry and frightened, but to also want to bring back civics literacy tests to be given to those who would vote for a committed socialist ideologue.
What’s wrong with a little civics literacy test? For one thing, they only applied to blacks in the South. Here are a couple sample questions:
"If a person is charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?"
"In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?"
These are what a black American voter needed to answer to prove his “literacy” in Alabama back in 1965. Even a college degree wouldn’t qualify him.
Whatcha bet Sarah Palin could answer these questions?
Palin closed the same gathering with her usual thinly veiled hateful sneer. “How’s that hopey changey thing workin’ out for ya?”
Nothing is too outrageous for them to assert, and it is done almost completely without question on their own Fox media empire. At least Fox would make a quick mention of a Republican sex scandal now and then. However, they would sneak in a capital “D” by the Republicans’ names on the screen just to give it their best fair and balanced twist.
We are learning to our dismay the other networks within the corporate media are also not very interested in challenging the lies and disinformation. They continue to put Dick Cheney on the air as if he were a credible person, as if the war based on his lies was legitimate and not even worth a second look back. Our corporate news media has degenerated to the point where they would present an argument in this manner. Were a radical right winger to claim the sky is yellow, and the opposing person say that the sky is blue, our corporate media will shrug and say, “The truth must lie somewhere in between. Therefore the sky is quite probably green. And we’ll have to leave it at that.”
Thanks, Wolfie.
This is why it is important for us to share as much truth and information as we can with the uninformed and unwary souls targeted for assimilation by the Cult of Conservatism.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Cult of Conservatism: Part Two
The Cult of Conservatism: An Anthropological Field Study
Part Two: Where the Cult Gets Information Overload and Sputters “Socialism”, And Is Confronted With Their Greatest Unanswerable Question. Also the Cult Defends Glenn Beck’s Racist Accusation of Obama.
The following discussion is ignited by a stupid comment by Glenn Beck about a stupid comment from the new Massachusetts senator Scott Brown about his daughters. Of course most of this dialogue is quickly removed from the original topic. But I wanted to go for the full ride, and, besides, how could I resist taking the cultists to the logical extension of their belief system?
Glenn Beck Post: January 20th
---
DD:
It speaks volumes that so many American people pay attention to a nitwit who said Obama is a racist who hates white people. I suppose that would include his hatred for his grandparents who raised him after his white mother died of cancer.
I’m no defender of Obama, but the Reich Wingers’ delusional Obama Derangement Syndrome is comical. Health care is fascism, and war based on lies, torture, and warrantless spying on Americans is what, again?
Oh yeah, I remember. Freedom. Yes, that’s it; they hate us for our freedom.
Idiocracy is here.
*
F&B:
No, Dave Dubya, Health care isn’t fascism, but the health care legislation being proposed by the current regime is Socialsim.
And, no again, they don’t hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we are not Muslim, therefore we are infidels, and it is the duty of Muslim (extremists) to kill infidels.
It’s easy to bash someone (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, conservatives in general, etc.) when you lie about what they have said, or when you lie about what you pretend to know that they believe. An end to the hypocrisy and lies will come about only after each party learns to respect the beliefs of the other party. Constructive discussions between the opposing sides will help both sides achieve mutually agreeable compromises. And quite honestly, I don’t see that coming from the left any time soon. Are left-wingers so insecure, so unsure of their own beliefs that they are unable to see the merit in any points of view other than their own?
*
DD:
Hi, F&B. Did you miss me?
Rush said the health care debacle is just what the Nazis did. It is recorded on both video and audio, you know. Just like the Becker-head’s “Obama is a racist” crack. I wouldn’t lie to you. Remember when the Shrub and his Big Dick were whipping up war frenzy over non-reality based WMDs and Sadddam’s fictional ties to al-Qaeda? I have all this on tape. And it is a fact that your man Bush told us they hated us for our freedom. (Hint: They hate us for the military occupation of Muslim land, US coddling of Arab dictators, and unconditional support of the Israeli hard right.)
I’m happy to respect the beliefs of others when they are fact based.
I’d like to help you understand the difference between socialism and corporatism. Corporatism is the government taking our money and channeling it into the pockets of big business. You know, like the idiotic proposed mandate for purchasing health insurance. Here’s another example. Remember when Bush’s Texas Rangers wanted a new stadium? They raised taxes on the public for the direct benefit of corporate interests.
Socialism is the government returning our tax dollars in the form of public services. Yes, that would include the military, law enforcement, fire departments, infrastructure maintenance, and Medicare.
So we can clearly see the Senate version of health care “reform” is actually more about corporate wealth care than public health care. This is corporatism. Look it up.
*
F&B:
Of course we missed you Dubya. No, really.
Of course it is no surprise that you are still blinded by your irrational fear of corporations.
You need to research your definition of Socialism a little more, btw.
Socialism is centralized control of the economy by the government, or more precisely, government control of the means of production and government allocation of resources (including people).
This is exactly what Obama-Pelosi-Reid is trying to do to the U.S. health care system.
Government’s provision of services to society, e.g. military (which is mandated by the constitution), fire department, etc. is not socialism. Government control of the means of production and the allocation of resources is Socialism.
I truly hope you can see the difference, although I know most liberals are brain-washed beyond the ability to understand this.
*
DD:
F&B, I see you are befuddled again, my boy. You have confused socialism with communism. And that’s just what your right wing propagandists want.
It would appear your definition of socialism is directly from the mouths of propagandists like Limbaugh or Beck. It is entirely wrong of course. Your confusing socialism with communism is exactly the intent of your right wing propaganda indoctrination. I’d be interested if you could even cite one instance where you disagree with Limbaugh. Either this man is blessed with the perfect wisdom of being always correct,(Self-described as 99.9 percent) or his listeners are a gullible cult incapable of independent thought.
Fascism is the nexus of military/industrial complex and authoritarian government that employs a foreign policy benefiting business to the detriment of civil liberties and citizen participation in governing. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Socialism establishes government regulation of business and provides services primarily for public benefit. It also allows more civil liberties than Fascism or Communism. It is a social system in which the producers (All the people, not just the corporate boardroom) possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
Communism is a one party authoritarian government with ownership and control of the means of production and distribution with extreme social control.
As to your false judgment of my “irrational fear”, I remember explaining corporatism to you. I’m sure you have either ignored it or quickly forgotten it because it does not fit the radical right’s ideology. It is amazing, or maybe not so surprising, the very word corporatism is invisible to both the radical right and corporate media. Orwell nailed it. Ignorance is strength.
Here is my position as simply as I can put it. Corporatism is antithetical to democracy. We need more citizen involvement in government and less influence by the big power brokers.
My concern for the expansion of corporatism in our government, media, and culture was first kindled by the words of our last Republican president who was not primarily a corporatist. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes were all company men who could never say no to any demand or request from Big Business. I would also include Carter, Clinton and Obama as corporatists, albeit to somewhat lesser extents. Nobody gets into the White House in these times without being a company player.
None of today’s corporate media like to acknowledge this message in Eisenhower’s Farewell Address on January 17, 1961.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.“
Of course the corporate acquisition of influence in government is not limited to military related industries. We can clearly see the workings of the telecommunications, finance, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, insurance, and large agribusiness sectors as well.
Due to the nature of our system of campaign finance, Big Business has a veritable open channel of legalized bribery. Since the Supreme Court has confused free speech with handing money to politicians, the influence is now institutionalized. Public financed elections would help immensely in solving this situation, but guess who is against that kind of change. Big Money has a lock on our politicians that overcomes any interests or needs of the public.
This is only the foundation of corporatism. The edifice of corporatism has been built by the exponential growth of the lobby industry over the past decades. It is now out of control. Congress itself has become a virtual lobbyist academy. Outgoing congressmen have been moving in droves over to K Street.
Finally the very powerful machinery of corporatism has taken hold to the point where business interests are involved in the actual writing of our laws. You ask how we are to determine too much influence by business. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was largely written by credit card companies. Eighteen corporatist Democratic senators voted with the lock-step Republicans. Now credit card interest rates are exceeding the levels charged by organized crime syndicates.
Here is what you ignored, once again.
Don’t get me wrong. I give my hard earned money to corporations. All I want in exchange is what I pay for. Isn’t that fair? I do not want them buying off my representation in government with money they get from me or anyone else. That is what happens when corporate money fills the campaign coffers of politicians. And to see them get away with not paying their taxes is an insult to me.
Government policy bought by corporate money and influence is Corporatism. That is antithetical to the principles of democracy.
I am not against capitalism, I am against corporatism.
I am not against corporations, I am against corporatocracy.
All that money greasing the skids for Big Business and special interests takes all the democracy out of our government.
So you see, I am an old-fashioned American, just like you, who values my freedom, self determination, and representation along with taxation through a free democratic republic.
*
F&B:
You seem to have more time to write than I have to read Dubya. I won’t bother refuting all your points one-by-one, mainly because I know the limitations of the liberal mind and you would be unable to accept the truth.
Since the liberals have begun their latest attempt to destroy our Republic and its economic foundation, I have been spending more time than usual trying to create jobs by expanding business for my company. Unlike liberals who are destroying jobs, but somehow counting them as “jobs created or saved.”
Dubya: “cite one instance where you disagree with Limbaugh.” — As hard as it seems to be for you to believe that not all conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh constantly, I am not that familiar with what he says. So if you would be so kind as to provide a list of things that he says that you disagree with, I would be more than happy to look that list over and respond to your request. Otherwise, like I said, I’m not that familiar with what Limbaugh says. At most I may hear him for an hour or two a month when I happen to be in my car around lunch time. In general, I get the impression that he is a little more radical than I am.
Socialism is as I described it. What you refer to as “communism” is the highest stage of Socialism. That is from Karl Marx, who would not generally be considered a right wing propagandist by any rational person. Can you spell U-S-S-R, as in the now defunct “Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics”? Socialism’s end goal is state control of the means of production and state control of the allocation of resources, which includes not just money and raw materials, but also people. The political concept that you describe as “Socialism” is in fact more correctly termed “Socialist” or “Social” “Democracy”.
*
DD:
F&B, Your inability or refusal to refute my points with the excuse of “limitations of the liberal mind” displays the limitations of your radical right indoctrination, pal. It is a psychological defense mechanism called projection. Look it up. Oh, sorry, you don’t have time to read. No wonder you dislike facts that are inconvenient to your belief system.
So what gives you the impression Rush is more radical right than you are? That’s all I ask. I happen to pay a lot of attention to the propaganda machine of the right. They ALL say ridiculous things like, “Obama hates America and is destroying America.” “Obama apologizes for America.” “Obama gives aid and comfort to the enemy.” The FOX propagandists are all on the same page, basically. This is the koolade you are drinking. Rush backs EVERYTHING Cheney says. Where do you disagree with the most radical right wing war criminal ever to wield US power?
Hell, over half the crap Obama does regarding war and foreign policy is right wing. The Bush/Cheney Cartel built the foundation of a police state and Obama has done nothing to dismantle it. Domestically, he is a corporatist company man. Ask the telecoms and pharma and Wall Street. And still the propagandists call Obama a racist, socialist, fascist, communist, along with other scary unfounded accusations with the sole purpose of duping voters into fear and anger towards Obama and anyone else not drinking their Cult’s Kool-ade. Fear and anger are at the heart of right wing “conservative” propaganda. The radical right seems to be entirely oblivious to the corrupting influence of money. To them free speech is money, and freedom is power over the weak.
They pretend to be Christian, but by all appearances worship wealth. That would be “mammon” to a real Christian.
As I explained to Joe:
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. ““No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon.”—Matthew 6:19-21,24
How do you expect anyone to actually believe you embrace the teachings of Jesus, when you ALWAYS (apart from a fetus) take the side of the rich and powerful? And you call me a hypocrite for calling Cheney a war criminal.
The Republican Party works completely in lock step for the top one percent economic elite of the country. Me-too corporatist Dems like Lieberman, Baucus, etc. march along with them. Bottom line: Corporate power and their corporatist politicians are all servants of mammon.
“Socialism’s end goal is state control of the means of production and state control of the allocation of resources.” Who told you this? Don’t you have a dictionary? You invalidate reasoned debate by failing to define terms. The Cult leaders freely interchange the term socialism with communism to the point where the Cultists think they are the same thing. They are not. Remember, communism, like fascism, is a system of single party rule. You know, like we had under Bush.
Speaking of definitions, the Cult has redefined the Estate Tax on inherited wealth as a “Death Tax”. Most Americans would rightly not be overly concerned with how much poor little rich kids scoop up when the wealthy Old Man who was never home finally croaks. Notice how falsely calling it a Death Tax not only gets attention, it throws in a little fear mongering as well. Death scares everybody, right? Now the Death Tax myth frightens those poor people who would otherwise never have heard of an Estate Tax.
This worked so well, the Cult decided to call health care counseling a “death panel’. See the pattern here?
I also seem to have more time to read and think than you do as well. I will not lie to you. As they say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. You could learn something from what I write, but I think you are unable to process the information I provide and resort to your pre-conceived belief system. Radical right wing “conservatism” has a long history of ignoring facts in order to embrace their rigid ideology.
Nonetheless and ever the optimist, I offer you the following facts:
Fact One: Since corporatism’s near complete seizure of the US government we have gone from being the leading creditor nation and become a debtor nation. Check for yourself. Pre-Reagan up to the present.
Fact Two: You have not recognized the word corporatism. Therefore you are again unable to enter reasoned debate on the subject. Sub-Fact: The corporate media also NEVER use the word corporatism. Coincidence?
Fact Three: We NEVER hear a word of acknowledgment of Eisenhower’s warning about the military industrial complex from the radical right. This is why I use the phrase radical right “conservatism”. It is not traditional Eisenhower conservatism.
Facts Four and Five; Of course Bush/Cheney are to blame. They entered office inheriting a balanced budget with a surplus. They left with a 1.3 TRILLION dollar debt and two UNFINFISHED wars of choice.
Fact Six: Contrary to the Right Wing media circus, liberals have not been in charge in decades. And they still are not in charge.
Fact Seven: Obama is not a socialist. This one is a little complicated so you may want to skip it and call me irrational instead.
We have a grossly unbalanced information network dominated by indoctrination from radical right interests. Money talks and Big Money talks the most. A significant part of the population doubts the American birth of the president. A significant part of the population believes Obama and the Democrats are socialists, communists, and even fascists. A significant part of the population believes in death panels. A significant part of the population believes universal health care is a Nazi-inspired conspiracy. Yes, as extreme and delusional as this seems, the abuse of free speech has successfully sown the seeds of anger, ignorance, and hatred. We hear them tell us Obama and the Democrats are socialists.
We hear from the same voices that Hitler and his henchmen were socialists. Never mind that every extremist in the last century, whether communist or fascist, claimed to be socialist. This is because democratic socialism was the middle ground between fascism and communism. This was what people wanted. The Great Depression taught them the lessons of unregulated capitalism. There had to be a better way. FDR”s New Deal was attacked as socialism but it gave many people jobs, and helped turn our country back from the abyss.
Those concentration camps were filled with Jews, liberals, educators, socialists, communists, and anyone else who wasn’t a war profiteering Nazi capitalist or enabler. Hitler often called his enemies terrorists. He knew that was a perfect tool for building a fascist police state. Now the radical right is crowing about Hitler the socialist. The radical right wingers still believe what Hitler said. Not much has changed. The old Nazi fascist still dupes ‘em.
*
(Crickets... It would seem F&B didn’t have time to read this far.)
*
Mike:
Dave, I also Beck make a case for Obama qualifying for the term “racist”. I didn’t take it as a joke, I thought Beck made a decent case that Obama could qualify for that term. I don’t think having a caucasion grandmother that cared for you or raised you guarentees you aren’t racist. Obviously what qualifies or disqualifies someone from the term “racist” can be debated, but these days it is slung around so quickly and easily it might be worth analysing what one thinks those standards are. I’m pretty sure we would all be better off if people were slower to use that term, but since it seems everyone accuses everyone of such perhaps we should define what qualifies as racist.
*
DD:
Mike, What is racist? Well it could be suggested that Bush and his crew’s heckuva job casually responding to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was tainted by racism. Or maybe those Democratic voting people down there were just crybabies, complaining about their National Guard dying for Bush’s war in Iraq, instead of being home to help. Although I personally think Bush is more of an arrogant, bigoted aristocrat than a racist. But I certainly cannot rule it out.
But you say Beck has a decent case for Obama’s racism? How about you educate me about that decent case? “Everyone accuses everyone” doesn’t quite define it. Since you are decent enough to say, “We would all be better off if people were slower to use that term”, then we would be better off if either Beck shuts up, or Obama is, in fact, a racist.
“What qualifies or disqualifies someone from the term “racist” can be debated”. Yes, since you and Beck have “qualified” Obama as a racist, let’s see your rationale and evidence. Somehow I feel confident to bet your white ass any half black /half white person has a lot better idea of what racism is than you, myself, and Glenn Beckerhead combined could ever comprehend.
Of course you are free to prove me wrong…
*
Mike:
Dave Dubya, I’m going to be as candid as I can be here. I’d like to dodge your question because to answer it puts me in a place of setting a standard of which I believe there are no standards. Put the standard up high enough and violent KKK members can be seen as just misunderstood individuals with gaps in their education. Set it low enough and only Gandhi would get a partial pass. I think the term “black” or “white” as a race is as ambiguous as the term “rich”. We may all agree Oprah is rich but where is the cut off? I don’t recall all what Beck said, it was a number of months ago, of course there was the “guilt by association” argument for The President of the United States Obama (oops, I didn’t use his proper title last post) being such a fan of Rev. Wright until it became politically expedient to dump him. There was the President’s statement about his Grandma being..I forget the exact quote but..being a “typical white person afraid of blacks”. Even if it were true of his grandma, does that make it typical? Then there is the case of The President’s reaction to the Harvard professor vs. cop. Without knowing the facts at all, I immediately identified with the cop, having experienced a time being falsely accused of bias, my wife immediately identified with Professor Gates, and “knew” the cop was in the wrong, from experiences she has had. Perhaps my wife and I both qualify as being racist too. For 9 months I worked as an unpaid volunteer in what was then called Zaire, Africa. That may win me some charity points but I’ll concede that doesn’t make me an expert on what racism is, so I’d have to say I would lose that bet, I really have no idea what is or isn’t racist. Perhaps Beck and the President of the United States Obama would beat me. What is that old cliche? Takes one to know one.
*
DD:Mike, Citing a grandmother’s anxiety over minorities and attending a black church does not provide clear evidence of racism. (And saying a white cop over-reacted by arresting a black college professor in his own home is racism? That was also my impression, so I guess that would make me a racist too in your judgment. Although I’m not sure how the perspective of a white guy like myself can be racist toward a white cop.) However, an accusation of racism, especially by a conservative white man towards a black person, “excuses” and encourages racially based hatred for that individual. This is the consequence either intended or unintended by Beck’s accusation.
-----
I am somewhat heartened by Mike’s insight into his and his wife’s reactions to the Gates Gate incident. He seems to be a nice guy and I don’t believe he is racist. Although I do think he does indicate a slight bias when he “immediately identified with the cop”. On the whole I see Mike as somewhat less of an authoritarian than most of the cult, and more open to a reasoned discussion.
This will not be the case in our final chapter of our Anthropological Field Study. We shall soon again be off the deep end into the Cult of Conservatism.
Part Two: Where the Cult Gets Information Overload and Sputters “Socialism”, And Is Confronted With Their Greatest Unanswerable Question. Also the Cult Defends Glenn Beck’s Racist Accusation of Obama.
The following discussion is ignited by a stupid comment by Glenn Beck about a stupid comment from the new Massachusetts senator Scott Brown about his daughters. Of course most of this dialogue is quickly removed from the original topic. But I wanted to go for the full ride, and, besides, how could I resist taking the cultists to the logical extension of their belief system?
Glenn Beck Post: January 20th
---
DD:
It speaks volumes that so many American people pay attention to a nitwit who said Obama is a racist who hates white people. I suppose that would include his hatred for his grandparents who raised him after his white mother died of cancer.
I’m no defender of Obama, but the Reich Wingers’ delusional Obama Derangement Syndrome is comical. Health care is fascism, and war based on lies, torture, and warrantless spying on Americans is what, again?
Oh yeah, I remember. Freedom. Yes, that’s it; they hate us for our freedom.
Idiocracy is here.
*
F&B:
No, Dave Dubya, Health care isn’t fascism, but the health care legislation being proposed by the current regime is Socialsim.
And, no again, they don’t hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we are not Muslim, therefore we are infidels, and it is the duty of Muslim (extremists) to kill infidels.
It’s easy to bash someone (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, conservatives in general, etc.) when you lie about what they have said, or when you lie about what you pretend to know that they believe. An end to the hypocrisy and lies will come about only after each party learns to respect the beliefs of the other party. Constructive discussions between the opposing sides will help both sides achieve mutually agreeable compromises. And quite honestly, I don’t see that coming from the left any time soon. Are left-wingers so insecure, so unsure of their own beliefs that they are unable to see the merit in any points of view other than their own?
*
DD:
Hi, F&B. Did you miss me?
Rush said the health care debacle is just what the Nazis did. It is recorded on both video and audio, you know. Just like the Becker-head’s “Obama is a racist” crack. I wouldn’t lie to you. Remember when the Shrub and his Big Dick were whipping up war frenzy over non-reality based WMDs and Sadddam’s fictional ties to al-Qaeda? I have all this on tape. And it is a fact that your man Bush told us they hated us for our freedom. (Hint: They hate us for the military occupation of Muslim land, US coddling of Arab dictators, and unconditional support of the Israeli hard right.)
I’m happy to respect the beliefs of others when they are fact based.
I’d like to help you understand the difference between socialism and corporatism. Corporatism is the government taking our money and channeling it into the pockets of big business. You know, like the idiotic proposed mandate for purchasing health insurance. Here’s another example. Remember when Bush’s Texas Rangers wanted a new stadium? They raised taxes on the public for the direct benefit of corporate interests.
Socialism is the government returning our tax dollars in the form of public services. Yes, that would include the military, law enforcement, fire departments, infrastructure maintenance, and Medicare.
So we can clearly see the Senate version of health care “reform” is actually more about corporate wealth care than public health care. This is corporatism. Look it up.
*
F&B:
Of course we missed you Dubya. No, really.
Of course it is no surprise that you are still blinded by your irrational fear of corporations.
You need to research your definition of Socialism a little more, btw.
Socialism is centralized control of the economy by the government, or more precisely, government control of the means of production and government allocation of resources (including people).
This is exactly what Obama-Pelosi-Reid is trying to do to the U.S. health care system.
Government’s provision of services to society, e.g. military (which is mandated by the constitution), fire department, etc. is not socialism. Government control of the means of production and the allocation of resources is Socialism.
I truly hope you can see the difference, although I know most liberals are brain-washed beyond the ability to understand this.
*
DD:
F&B, I see you are befuddled again, my boy. You have confused socialism with communism. And that’s just what your right wing propagandists want.
It would appear your definition of socialism is directly from the mouths of propagandists like Limbaugh or Beck. It is entirely wrong of course. Your confusing socialism with communism is exactly the intent of your right wing propaganda indoctrination. I’d be interested if you could even cite one instance where you disagree with Limbaugh. Either this man is blessed with the perfect wisdom of being always correct,(Self-described as 99.9 percent) or his listeners are a gullible cult incapable of independent thought.
Fascism is the nexus of military/industrial complex and authoritarian government that employs a foreign policy benefiting business to the detriment of civil liberties and citizen participation in governing. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Socialism establishes government regulation of business and provides services primarily for public benefit. It also allows more civil liberties than Fascism or Communism. It is a social system in which the producers (All the people, not just the corporate boardroom) possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
Communism is a one party authoritarian government with ownership and control of the means of production and distribution with extreme social control.
As to your false judgment of my “irrational fear”, I remember explaining corporatism to you. I’m sure you have either ignored it or quickly forgotten it because it does not fit the radical right’s ideology. It is amazing, or maybe not so surprising, the very word corporatism is invisible to both the radical right and corporate media. Orwell nailed it. Ignorance is strength.
Here is my position as simply as I can put it. Corporatism is antithetical to democracy. We need more citizen involvement in government and less influence by the big power brokers.
My concern for the expansion of corporatism in our government, media, and culture was first kindled by the words of our last Republican president who was not primarily a corporatist. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes were all company men who could never say no to any demand or request from Big Business. I would also include Carter, Clinton and Obama as corporatists, albeit to somewhat lesser extents. Nobody gets into the White House in these times without being a company player.
None of today’s corporate media like to acknowledge this message in Eisenhower’s Farewell Address on January 17, 1961.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.“
Of course the corporate acquisition of influence in government is not limited to military related industries. We can clearly see the workings of the telecommunications, finance, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, insurance, and large agribusiness sectors as well.
Due to the nature of our system of campaign finance, Big Business has a veritable open channel of legalized bribery. Since the Supreme Court has confused free speech with handing money to politicians, the influence is now institutionalized. Public financed elections would help immensely in solving this situation, but guess who is against that kind of change. Big Money has a lock on our politicians that overcomes any interests or needs of the public.
This is only the foundation of corporatism. The edifice of corporatism has been built by the exponential growth of the lobby industry over the past decades. It is now out of control. Congress itself has become a virtual lobbyist academy. Outgoing congressmen have been moving in droves over to K Street.
Finally the very powerful machinery of corporatism has taken hold to the point where business interests are involved in the actual writing of our laws. You ask how we are to determine too much influence by business. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was largely written by credit card companies. Eighteen corporatist Democratic senators voted with the lock-step Republicans. Now credit card interest rates are exceeding the levels charged by organized crime syndicates.
Here is what you ignored, once again.
Don’t get me wrong. I give my hard earned money to corporations. All I want in exchange is what I pay for. Isn’t that fair? I do not want them buying off my representation in government with money they get from me or anyone else. That is what happens when corporate money fills the campaign coffers of politicians. And to see them get away with not paying their taxes is an insult to me.
Government policy bought by corporate money and influence is Corporatism. That is antithetical to the principles of democracy.
I am not against capitalism, I am against corporatism.
I am not against corporations, I am against corporatocracy.
All that money greasing the skids for Big Business and special interests takes all the democracy out of our government.
So you see, I am an old-fashioned American, just like you, who values my freedom, self determination, and representation along with taxation through a free democratic republic.
*
F&B:
You seem to have more time to write than I have to read Dubya. I won’t bother refuting all your points one-by-one, mainly because I know the limitations of the liberal mind and you would be unable to accept the truth.
Since the liberals have begun their latest attempt to destroy our Republic and its economic foundation, I have been spending more time than usual trying to create jobs by expanding business for my company. Unlike liberals who are destroying jobs, but somehow counting them as “jobs created or saved.”
Dubya: “cite one instance where you disagree with Limbaugh.” — As hard as it seems to be for you to believe that not all conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh constantly, I am not that familiar with what he says. So if you would be so kind as to provide a list of things that he says that you disagree with, I would be more than happy to look that list over and respond to your request. Otherwise, like I said, I’m not that familiar with what Limbaugh says. At most I may hear him for an hour or two a month when I happen to be in my car around lunch time. In general, I get the impression that he is a little more radical than I am.
Socialism is as I described it. What you refer to as “communism” is the highest stage of Socialism. That is from Karl Marx, who would not generally be considered a right wing propagandist by any rational person. Can you spell U-S-S-R, as in the now defunct “Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics”? Socialism’s end goal is state control of the means of production and state control of the allocation of resources, which includes not just money and raw materials, but also people. The political concept that you describe as “Socialism” is in fact more correctly termed “Socialist” or “Social” “Democracy”.
*
DD:
F&B, Your inability or refusal to refute my points with the excuse of “limitations of the liberal mind” displays the limitations of your radical right indoctrination, pal. It is a psychological defense mechanism called projection. Look it up. Oh, sorry, you don’t have time to read. No wonder you dislike facts that are inconvenient to your belief system.
So what gives you the impression Rush is more radical right than you are? That’s all I ask. I happen to pay a lot of attention to the propaganda machine of the right. They ALL say ridiculous things like, “Obama hates America and is destroying America.” “Obama apologizes for America.” “Obama gives aid and comfort to the enemy.” The FOX propagandists are all on the same page, basically. This is the koolade you are drinking. Rush backs EVERYTHING Cheney says. Where do you disagree with the most radical right wing war criminal ever to wield US power?
Hell, over half the crap Obama does regarding war and foreign policy is right wing. The Bush/Cheney Cartel built the foundation of a police state and Obama has done nothing to dismantle it. Domestically, he is a corporatist company man. Ask the telecoms and pharma and Wall Street. And still the propagandists call Obama a racist, socialist, fascist, communist, along with other scary unfounded accusations with the sole purpose of duping voters into fear and anger towards Obama and anyone else not drinking their Cult’s Kool-ade. Fear and anger are at the heart of right wing “conservative” propaganda. The radical right seems to be entirely oblivious to the corrupting influence of money. To them free speech is money, and freedom is power over the weak.
They pretend to be Christian, but by all appearances worship wealth. That would be “mammon” to a real Christian.
As I explained to Joe:
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. ““No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon.”—Matthew 6:19-21,24
How do you expect anyone to actually believe you embrace the teachings of Jesus, when you ALWAYS (apart from a fetus) take the side of the rich and powerful? And you call me a hypocrite for calling Cheney a war criminal.
The Republican Party works completely in lock step for the top one percent economic elite of the country. Me-too corporatist Dems like Lieberman, Baucus, etc. march along with them. Bottom line: Corporate power and their corporatist politicians are all servants of mammon.
“Socialism’s end goal is state control of the means of production and state control of the allocation of resources.” Who told you this? Don’t you have a dictionary? You invalidate reasoned debate by failing to define terms. The Cult leaders freely interchange the term socialism with communism to the point where the Cultists think they are the same thing. They are not. Remember, communism, like fascism, is a system of single party rule. You know, like we had under Bush.
Speaking of definitions, the Cult has redefined the Estate Tax on inherited wealth as a “Death Tax”. Most Americans would rightly not be overly concerned with how much poor little rich kids scoop up when the wealthy Old Man who was never home finally croaks. Notice how falsely calling it a Death Tax not only gets attention, it throws in a little fear mongering as well. Death scares everybody, right? Now the Death Tax myth frightens those poor people who would otherwise never have heard of an Estate Tax.
This worked so well, the Cult decided to call health care counseling a “death panel’. See the pattern here?
I also seem to have more time to read and think than you do as well. I will not lie to you. As they say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. You could learn something from what I write, but I think you are unable to process the information I provide and resort to your pre-conceived belief system. Radical right wing “conservatism” has a long history of ignoring facts in order to embrace their rigid ideology.
Nonetheless and ever the optimist, I offer you the following facts:
Fact One: Since corporatism’s near complete seizure of the US government we have gone from being the leading creditor nation and become a debtor nation. Check for yourself. Pre-Reagan up to the present.
Fact Two: You have not recognized the word corporatism. Therefore you are again unable to enter reasoned debate on the subject. Sub-Fact: The corporate media also NEVER use the word corporatism. Coincidence?
Fact Three: We NEVER hear a word of acknowledgment of Eisenhower’s warning about the military industrial complex from the radical right. This is why I use the phrase radical right “conservatism”. It is not traditional Eisenhower conservatism.
Facts Four and Five; Of course Bush/Cheney are to blame. They entered office inheriting a balanced budget with a surplus. They left with a 1.3 TRILLION dollar debt and two UNFINFISHED wars of choice.
Fact Six: Contrary to the Right Wing media circus, liberals have not been in charge in decades. And they still are not in charge.
Fact Seven: Obama is not a socialist. This one is a little complicated so you may want to skip it and call me irrational instead.
We have a grossly unbalanced information network dominated by indoctrination from radical right interests. Money talks and Big Money talks the most. A significant part of the population doubts the American birth of the president. A significant part of the population believes Obama and the Democrats are socialists, communists, and even fascists. A significant part of the population believes in death panels. A significant part of the population believes universal health care is a Nazi-inspired conspiracy. Yes, as extreme and delusional as this seems, the abuse of free speech has successfully sown the seeds of anger, ignorance, and hatred. We hear them tell us Obama and the Democrats are socialists.
We hear from the same voices that Hitler and his henchmen were socialists. Never mind that every extremist in the last century, whether communist or fascist, claimed to be socialist. This is because democratic socialism was the middle ground between fascism and communism. This was what people wanted. The Great Depression taught them the lessons of unregulated capitalism. There had to be a better way. FDR”s New Deal was attacked as socialism but it gave many people jobs, and helped turn our country back from the abyss.
Those concentration camps were filled with Jews, liberals, educators, socialists, communists, and anyone else who wasn’t a war profiteering Nazi capitalist or enabler. Hitler often called his enemies terrorists. He knew that was a perfect tool for building a fascist police state. Now the radical right is crowing about Hitler the socialist. The radical right wingers still believe what Hitler said. Not much has changed. The old Nazi fascist still dupes ‘em.
*
(Crickets... It would seem F&B didn’t have time to read this far.)
*
Mike:
Dave, I also Beck make a case for Obama qualifying for the term “racist”. I didn’t take it as a joke, I thought Beck made a decent case that Obama could qualify for that term. I don’t think having a caucasion grandmother that cared for you or raised you guarentees you aren’t racist. Obviously what qualifies or disqualifies someone from the term “racist” can be debated, but these days it is slung around so quickly and easily it might be worth analysing what one thinks those standards are. I’m pretty sure we would all be better off if people were slower to use that term, but since it seems everyone accuses everyone of such perhaps we should define what qualifies as racist.
*
DD:
Mike, What is racist? Well it could be suggested that Bush and his crew’s heckuva job casually responding to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was tainted by racism. Or maybe those Democratic voting people down there were just crybabies, complaining about their National Guard dying for Bush’s war in Iraq, instead of being home to help. Although I personally think Bush is more of an arrogant, bigoted aristocrat than a racist. But I certainly cannot rule it out.
But you say Beck has a decent case for Obama’s racism? How about you educate me about that decent case? “Everyone accuses everyone” doesn’t quite define it. Since you are decent enough to say, “We would all be better off if people were slower to use that term”, then we would be better off if either Beck shuts up, or Obama is, in fact, a racist.
“What qualifies or disqualifies someone from the term “racist” can be debated”. Yes, since you and Beck have “qualified” Obama as a racist, let’s see your rationale and evidence. Somehow I feel confident to bet your white ass any half black /half white person has a lot better idea of what racism is than you, myself, and Glenn Beckerhead combined could ever comprehend.
Of course you are free to prove me wrong…
*
Mike:
Dave Dubya, I’m going to be as candid as I can be here. I’d like to dodge your question because to answer it puts me in a place of setting a standard of which I believe there are no standards. Put the standard up high enough and violent KKK members can be seen as just misunderstood individuals with gaps in their education. Set it low enough and only Gandhi would get a partial pass. I think the term “black” or “white” as a race is as ambiguous as the term “rich”. We may all agree Oprah is rich but where is the cut off? I don’t recall all what Beck said, it was a number of months ago, of course there was the “guilt by association” argument for The President of the United States Obama (oops, I didn’t use his proper title last post) being such a fan of Rev. Wright until it became politically expedient to dump him. There was the President’s statement about his Grandma being..I forget the exact quote but..being a “typical white person afraid of blacks”. Even if it were true of his grandma, does that make it typical? Then there is the case of The President’s reaction to the Harvard professor vs. cop. Without knowing the facts at all, I immediately identified with the cop, having experienced a time being falsely accused of bias, my wife immediately identified with Professor Gates, and “knew” the cop was in the wrong, from experiences she has had. Perhaps my wife and I both qualify as being racist too. For 9 months I worked as an unpaid volunteer in what was then called Zaire, Africa. That may win me some charity points but I’ll concede that doesn’t make me an expert on what racism is, so I’d have to say I would lose that bet, I really have no idea what is or isn’t racist. Perhaps Beck and the President of the United States Obama would beat me. What is that old cliche? Takes one to know one.
*
DD:Mike, Citing a grandmother’s anxiety over minorities and attending a black church does not provide clear evidence of racism. (And saying a white cop over-reacted by arresting a black college professor in his own home is racism? That was also my impression, so I guess that would make me a racist too in your judgment. Although I’m not sure how the perspective of a white guy like myself can be racist toward a white cop.) However, an accusation of racism, especially by a conservative white man towards a black person, “excuses” and encourages racially based hatred for that individual. This is the consequence either intended or unintended by Beck’s accusation.
-----
I am somewhat heartened by Mike’s insight into his and his wife’s reactions to the Gates Gate incident. He seems to be a nice guy and I don’t believe he is racist. Although I do think he does indicate a slight bias when he “immediately identified with the cop”. On the whole I see Mike as somewhat less of an authoritarian than most of the cult, and more open to a reasoned discussion.
This will not be the case in our final chapter of our Anthropological Field Study. We shall soon again be off the deep end into the Cult of Conservatism.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Cult of Conservatism: Part One
The Cult of Conservatism: An Anthropological Field Study
Introduction
For quite some time I’ve been a rather bemused observer of human nature and its immersion into the surreal world of American political dynamics. In part two of my “Simple Explanation” posts we finally came to identify the cult behind Republican American Conservatism.
Now that Obama has been president for over a year, interesting tangents have sprouted from the Cult of Conservatism. It is time for some fresh research into their belief system now that it has detached itself even further from reality.
Once again I couldn’t resist the urge to wade into the murky waters of the Cult of Conservatism. And there are few better places to do so than at the blog of our friend, the “Gun Toting Liberal”.
Please feel free to go read his posts on the following subjects; although typical to cult behavior, the members quickly wander off topic. They do their best to splatter their indoctrination everywhere and muddy up the possibility of clear discourse.
Anyway, I just love how the cult members like to respond to my comments and attempt to “correct” my wayward independent thinking. Along with meeting some new conservative friends we are even reacquainted with our old buddy F&B.
The Cult of Conservatism: An Anthropological Field Study
Part One: Where Contact Is Established With The Cult, And “Honest” Dick Cheney Is Defended From “Liberal Hate”
“Jesus Guns” Post: January 18th
U.S. Military Weapons Used In Middle East Unconstitutionally Inscribed By Manufacturer With References To Jesus Christ
---
DD:
Nothing new here folks. Remember the inscription on the Wehrmacht’s belt buckles? “Gott Mit Uns”. Onward Christian soldiers.
Whether by the Third Reich or the corporate Amerikaner Reich, the dead innocents, military and civilian, are just as dead. The difference comes down to a matter of degree. And of course the American war criminals are still free to spew accusations that Obama is giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”.
Hail Victory!
*
Joe:
LOL, you forgot to use the little smiley faces on your humor piece there, Dave.
*
DD:
You know what they say, Joe. Satire is funny ’cause it’s true.
*
F&B:
Dave Dubya, That’s right, I’m glad you noticed that…
By moving known terrorists and enemy combatants who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to a cushy prison in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, and home to Thousands of soldiers who have died defending our Liberty against foreign enemies, and many of whom died fighting against these very enemies of the United States, and thus granting these enemies of the People of the United States with Rights that they should not have and do not deserve, Obama is in fact providing “aid and comfort to the enemy”, and for this he should be Impeached and tried for High Treason.Thanks for reminding us Dubya
*
DD:
F&B, when you said, “That’s right, I’m glad you noticed that…”, I take it you were referring to “American war criminals are still free to spew accusations that Obama is giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”.
I’m glad you agree Cheney is a war criminal.
Your point about “known terrorists and enemy combatants who were captured on the battlefields” should be proven lest someone accuse you of being a known terrorist. Remember you’re supposed to deprive people of their rights AFTER you establish their guilt. You may have no problem with punishing people with no proof of guilt, but that is not the American way. It is the Bush/Cheney Neocon/fascist way.
*
F&B
Dave Dubya, Are you really going to try to deny that nearly all of the enemy combatants in Gitmo were captured on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, then you are merely re-writing history, twisting the facts to try to support a baseless position. But then, I guess that is typical of liberal arguments.
BTW, non-U.S. citizens do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. Maybe we should treat them according to the laws of their home countries. Oh, but we couldn’t do that, that would be cruel and unusual punishment under our laws.
I am not clear who you are calling war criminals. It appears that you mean anyone who fights to uphold and defend the Constitution or the American way of life.
And yes, you are correct, as soon as prisoners of war are transferred to a cushy Illinois jail, Obama will be giving Aid and Comfort to the enemies of the United States.
This is a joke right: “that is not the American way” – the American way has NEVER been and never will be to provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the U.S. who have killed our citizens and soldiers. I know the truth is a bitter pill sometimes, and liberals really have trouble dealing with cold hard reality, but these people were trying to kill our soldiers when they were captured and they deserve to be treated through our military system, not through the U.S. civil or criminal court system. It reminds me of a scene in “A Few Good Men” – “You can’t handle the truth.”
Life isn’t always simple and pretty like the liberal mind-washers would have you all believe. Sometimes it is dirty and violent in ways that decent men don’t want to talk about but know that it must be done, especially when the people we are up against would rather kill you than look at you, and they believe whole-heartedly that their God will reward them for it.
Good luck with your naivete. At least the tide has turned and We The People have started electing people with some sense again.
Didn’t take long this time. Less than a year for the dem’s to show their true colors and for the People to see them for what they are.
*
DD:
F&B, I’m not going to waste time correcting all your wild assumptions, accusations and tangential thinking. You are free to spin out of control now. By your own twisted logic George W. Bush should be tried for high treason for aid and comfort to enemies by putting the Shoe Bomber in a “cushy” prison. Try to get a grip on reality here, buddy.
It’s hard to imagine how you didn’t see I was clearly calling Cheney a war criminal. Cheney is guilty of the complete antithesis of the notion to “uphold and defend the Constitution or the American way of life”.
Your embrace of “justice” based on presumption of guilt is at the very heart of totalitarianism.
It is sad to see well-intentioned good people like you blinded by radical right wing ideology.
*
F&B:
Dave Dubya, Are liberals really unable to see the difference, or just unwilling to admit that there is a difference, between a person committing a crime on U.S. soil, even if it is an act of terrorism (e.g. Shoe bomber, Timothy McVeigh, Zacarias Moussaoui) and enemy combatants captured on a battlefield who have declared war against the U.S.
Now, if you look at your last post you should see that in one line you accuse Cheney of being a war criminal and then describe what he is guilty of, then in the next line you accuse me of presuming guilt…Hmmmm….Can you spell H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e ???
*
Joe:
When was the trial, Dave? I missed it. Is Cheney going to appeal? How many of the Democrats in Congress were also implicated?
*
DD:
Joe, As we learn from history, war crimes are rarely prosecuted, especially by the dominant power against its own. If the US was defeated by Iraq, you can bet your bottom dollar Cheney would be hung. Unlike the secrecy surrounding detainees, the entire world is a witness to the lies and resulting war crimes these men committed. No trial doesn’t mean no crime, now does it?
You and I well know the Democratic Party is composed of republican lite, spineless enablers, and corporate yes men. Obama’s cowardly “looking forward” way of dealing with past crimes only portrays the US government as a rogue regime.
It must be very blissful for those folks who are incapable of seeing the true extent of the corruption in the US government. And those who see corruption in only one of the corporate owned parties are blind fools.
Those same fools will also jump to conclude liberals are to blame for everything wrong in this country. Never mind liberalism has been extinct at the federal level for over 30 years.
Yes, liberals are to the American Reich Wingers as Jews were to the Third Reich. Peace groups are still spied on as if they were traitors. War crimes by the Bush/Cheney cartel are still unprosecuted. Blackwater/Xe thugs are getting away with mass murder. KBR is unaccountable for the electrocutions of our military.
It saddens me to see how many Americans still blindly believe Dick Cheney. This is not conservatism; it is much more like a cult. No wonder the real cult leader and Bush family friend Sun Myung Moon is a staunch republican supporter.
*
Joe:
OH, so, in other words, he IN NOT a war criminal, except in the minds of a few. This is,at best, an UNSUPPORTED OPINION which may or may not be true.
But, to me, it sounds a lot more like the blind hate that liberals of various stripes have for anyone and anything remotely connected with the Bush Administration.
Thank you for making it clear.
*
(No, Joe. Thank YOU for making things clear. Something tells me this will not be the last time I get accused of liberal “hate”.)
To be continued...
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Brother Tim
From Brother Tim's Blog of Revelation:
Saturday, February 06, 2010
O'Donnell, Timothy J.60, son of the
late Edward and Laleeta O'Donnell
died on February 1, 2010
at his home in St. Louis, MO.
Best friend and loving husband of
Hallie O'Donnell; loving father of
Michelle (Frank) Mancuso, Bridget
(Tim) Olson, Maghen (Greg) Ellingson
and Amy O'Donnell; dear grandfather
of Sean, Brooklyn, Justin and Keaghen;
brother of Kevin O'Donnell; best friend of
Pushkin and Sadie (dogs), Moose and
Jose (ferrets), Big Daddy and Jippy (turtles)
and Jake the bird.
My heart, thoughts and prayers go out to our Brother Tim's family. Although our world is a colder and darker place without him, our hearts will be warmed by our memories of his kindness and compassion, and our minds will always be illuminated by his brilliant ideas and observations. God bless you Brother Tim. We take comfort in knowing you are with Jesus.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
O'Donnell, Timothy J.60, son of the
late Edward and Laleeta O'Donnell
died on February 1, 2010
at his home in St. Louis, MO.
Best friend and loving husband of
Hallie O'Donnell; loving father of
Michelle (Frank) Mancuso, Bridget
(Tim) Olson, Maghen (Greg) Ellingson
and Amy O'Donnell; dear grandfather
of Sean, Brooklyn, Justin and Keaghen;
brother of Kevin O'Donnell; best friend of
Pushkin and Sadie (dogs), Moose and
Jose (ferrets), Big Daddy and Jippy (turtles)
and Jake the bird.
My heart, thoughts and prayers go out to our Brother Tim's family. Although our world is a colder and darker place without him, our hearts will be warmed by our memories of his kindness and compassion, and our minds will always be illuminated by his brilliant ideas and observations. God bless you Brother Tim. We take comfort in knowing you are with Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
