“The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief. And by dangerous I don’t mean thought-provoking. I mean: might get people killed”. – Sarah Vowell, “The Wordy Shipmates”
This post started out as a comment under the previous post, but I think it needed to be more prominent. It also serves as a fitting follow up to the “Five Pillars”.
***
This will be my final response to an anonymous comment in this thread. Why? First, because I have previously announced I have my limit for trolls. This one gets a second and final response because he posed a reasonable interest in a source for my claim. I will offer the courtesy of providing it for him. Afterwards I will explain further why I’m finished with him on this thread.
You see, I don’t mind an occasional post from a cultist as an example of indoctrination or entertainment value. In fact I will honor this person by posting here what he wrote to me at Tom Degan’s blog.
Dave Dubya,
I won't declare you a Communist like you are complaining about being called on your blog, but you definitely belong to the general species "ism":
Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressivism or Nazism, etc; they’re fundamentally all the same – just separated by varying degrees of evil. Every time someone wants to “control” the population, bad stuff happens. The game-plan is always the same too, Social Engineering through Wealth Redistribution and fueled by Class-Hate.
See what I mean about both cult indoctrination and entertainment? Ok. I admit I have a bit of a sick sense of humor.
Here is the source for my statement about Republicans believing Obama is the antichrist. It is from a Harris poll discussed at livescience.com.
14 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama may be the Antichrist. When split by political party, 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats viewed the nation's leader in this way.
Looks like some stupid Democrats go to the wrong church or something. Fear and ignorance are contagious.
Here’s more cult indoctrination:
38 percent say he wants to take away Americans' right to own guns.
32 percent say he is a Muslim.
29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of.
23 percent say he is a racist.
Amazing! ...And depressing at the same time, isn’t it?
We all know damn well the Anonymous types fit into this picture.
I limit my time with these cult trolls because I won't waste time with people who think the Earth is six thousand years old, or who believe Obama is a Muslim, socialist, racist, and yes, even the antichrist.
These people are cultists every bit as much as Moonies. You know, the Washington Times owner and Republican friend of the Bush family, Sun Myung Moon’s Moonie cult. Seriously, there is something wrong with them, and that reflects what is wrong with our country. They are misinformed, gullible, ignorant, fearful, hateful and pathetic human beings.
I wish we could help them, but they don’t want help. They are stubbornly devoted to their cult beliefs. And they are stooges for the rising new Amerikan fascism.
If this doesn’t shock, sicken and awaken enough sane Americans into voting against Republicans, we can kiss our freedom, democracy and standard of living goodbye.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
73 comments:
Conyinued from yesterday...
free0352 said... "I actually think John Myste here said it best when he said the military is as socialist as a football team is a dictatorship. The military is a part of government, it isn't THE GOVERNMENT. There is a difference."
Would you then make the argument that the US Military is not a service provided by the government, intended to benefit the people? If it is, it's socialist.
If it's intent is not a benefit, then you have a case.
Another way that the US Military is a socialist enterprise is that it's a massive jobs creation program.
With a $trillion a year going for Pentagon related programs, the US Military takes our taxes dollars and uses them to create jobs all over the world for people of all faiths and nationalities. Even Muslim terrorists are funded by Muslim contractors that work for the US Military in the Middle East.
Obama's socialist job program doesn't even come close to stepping into the shadow of the socialist MIC jobs program.
A Secret Panel decides who the US should assassinate, in order to protect the President from the consequences.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
Jerry Critter said..., "Weaseldog,
It sounds like you are confusing a system of government with government-provided services."
Socialism isn't really a system of government. It doesn't describe how government is constructed.
When applied to government, socialism is a contract between government and the people to provide services in exchange for tax revenue.
The USSR had socialism in it's name, but that's about as meaningful as 'Railroad' in the 'Texas Railroad Commission' (oil and gas). It's was there for propaganda purposes. The USSR could be better described as Fascist, as the 'Communist Party' was run by a few industrialists that owned most of the country.
Wease,
The targeted assassination program is chilling. We are at the edge of a a dangerous abuse of power. I understand the need to prevent someone from carrying out lethal attacks. In some cases capture and trial may not be options. But that leaves it incumbant on the government to show proof of treason and evidence of itent to murder to justify the killing.
I don't know of any government that has zero social/public projects or services. Almost all, whether socialist, communist, fascist, or capitalist have a military and police. But I don't see how a military by itself, although serving a social need and public service, reflects a socialist government.
So yes, in the broad sense, socialism exists in all governments by the very nature of government itself. But within the military it is more like a system of top/down dictatorship by necessity.
Dave Dubya said, "But I don't see how a military by itself, although serving a social need and public service, reflects a socialist government."
I agree Dave. I'm only asserting that the US Military is a socialist service.
As I mentioned, socialism doesn't really define the structure of a government so much as the contract it has with the citizenry.
Our Constitution defines our government as the form of a Representative Republic. Functionally, I don't believe it really works that way anymore.
For the Tea Party, I'll agree that Obama has promoted Socialist policies. But the knee jerk reaction that all socialism is bad, is one I have a problem with. Especially from people who use public roads or buy products shipped on public roads, and have an expectation that someone will pick up the line if they dial 911.
And yes Dave, inside the military, the structure is semi-fuedal.
The dim of wit, short of fuse and poorly informed tend to call anyone they don't understand, don't agree with and/or don't like a socialist. People of that description used to do the same thing with the commie label. When pressed to describe socialism, communism and the difference between them, most of these people can't give a factual, coherent answer. Nor do most of them realize, or are willing to accept, that the U.S. on its first day began operating with a core socialist institution that was mandated by the founding fathers right in the Constitution: the U.S. Post Office, as it was then called.
("Sweet Jeesuss, Hattie, would ya look at this? Now they're saying the founding fathers was socialists!")
The "cult" label, by contrast, hits on a very real dynamic that poses a serious, ongoing threat to our democracy. That's because a certain level of open-mindedness and willingness to compromise are absolutely essential for democratic governance. Together, they form the lubrication that keeps the gears of the mechanism that resolves conflicts among competing interests, allocates resources to various services, chooses between war and peace, and establishes public policy and law, from constantly clashing so badly the mechanism itself is damaged; or causes the mechanism to grind to an ineffective halt.
(Continues)
The dynamic is faith, in the sense of holding beliefs based on any number of things — fears, suspicions, prejudices, hopes, ambitions, greed, resentment, ideology and especially religious dogma — but not on verifiable facts.
It's like a teenager in love with someone who's clearly no good. You can't convince the lovestruck one of anything, because that person wants to believe what he/she believes. Facts don't matter.
For the same reason, faith-based opinions and preferences can't be proven good, bad, right or wrong to a person who holds them. They will hold to their belief because they want to. And remember, our democracy guarantees the individual the right to believe as they see fit, and to spread that belief. Again, facts don't have to matter.
Of course, governing without regard to facts is not only foolhardy, it's dangerous and if carried on too long, disastrous. We can see all around us the bitter fruits of doing it: free trade and the cumulative effect of 30 years of horrendous trade deficits, 50,000 factories closed in the last decade with millions of well-paying jobs lost, accompanied by repetitions of huge tax cuts — all based on beliefs not supported by facts. Look at our debt and deficit, at what's happened to our economy and middle class. And yet, a substantial portion of the political class, both parties, is about to pass another free-trade deal.
We can't go on like this. If we can't get back to governing on the basis of facts, reason and compromise, America has had it. And Americans will have asked for all the decline and destitution they will have to live with as a result.
Dave: ". . . I have my limit for trolls."
". . . I won't waste time with people who think the Earth is six thousand years old . . ."
"I wish we could help them, but they don’t want help. They are stubbornly devoted to their cult beliefs. And they are stooges for the rising new Amerikan fascism."
"If this doesn’t shock, sicken and awaken enough sane Americans into voting against Republicans, we can kiss our freedom, democracy and standard of living goodbye."
Hear, hear. The only reasons I'm regurgitating all this are because you state it so well, it needs to be read and reread, and seriously reflected upon - especially those last two graphs.
I just left this comment at Tom Degan's:
"For the moment, I stop short of calling the GOP-TP "Nazis," but to deny their "fascist" tendencies/characteristics is to deny the existence of the Pacific Ocean. It's all there and heading toward us like a giant tsunami."
Degan has an amazing tolerance for trolls, doesn't he? Actually, you are far more patient than I will ever be or care to be!!!
I enjoyed reading this and the one right before it - along with most of the comments. I thought you used to be on my blog roll but several months ago, maybe nearly a year, I lost around 2/3 of the blogs, either through computer or operator error and have had to rely on memory to restore them. But you're back, now.
SW,
As Lofgren concludes:
If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power.
One may think since this is coming from someone who had been a Republican for his entire career it would resonate.
But no, a cult is a cult is a cult.
Leslie,
Thank you. Your post on the effect of the GOP's war on democracy is vital information.
Yes, due to my sick sense of humor I tolerate a small measure of trolls for entertainment and teaching value.
I like to see how their brains are affected by what I write, knowing they really don't care to read any of it with intent to understand.
I think for the most part our ideas are strenghtened by discussion with the more informed and rational Righties.
As for the trolls, I'm sure they feel their position is also solidified just by assertion. When we make an undeniable point, it is overlooked or ignored, and another issue will be raised, often as a deliberate distraction.
Or they call us commies.;-)
Socialism is an economic system, not a service.
For example -
When the government sets wages with a minimum wage... that's socialism.
When the government sets prices with subsidy and regulation, that's socialism.
When the government takes part in labor disputes, that's socialism.
When the government picks winners through subsidy, that's socialism.
When the government funds health care, that's socialism.
When the government prints food stamps, that's socialism.
When the government runs and builds housing, that's socialism.
When the government funds businesses through bail outs or other means, that's socialism.
When the government chooses who runs a company as with General Motors, that's socialism.
Socialism is an economic system in which government takes varying degrees of control over the very broad term "means of production."
The military produces nothing, we only consume. We are not an economic system, we are an agency. I department in fact, which has unlike the things I mentioned above zero impact on the means of production.
You arguement weasel is devoid of logic. By your flawed thinking, anything done by government is "socialist" and it's only alternative is total anarchy. This type of black/white thinking is ignorant by nature, and indicative of an obtuse mind.
Free0352 says, "The military produces nothing, we only consume. We are not an economic system, we are an agency. I department in fact, which has unlike the things I mentioned above zero impact on the means of production."
If the military didn't consume, then there would be no demand for those things that the military consumes. So there would be no production. If the military didn't buy fully loaded F-18s, no one would make them.
You make the argument that argument that the US Military produces nothing. That it drains resources out of our economy, doesn't create jobs or drive production, and provides no benefit to America. And because I disagree with you, I suffer from poor logic.
I'll disagree with you and argue that the USA needs a military to provide for the common defense. This is Constitutional and socialistic and I support it.
What I don't support is that the military has been primarily engaged in offensive operations and unprovoked invasions. But since the earliest days of our Republic, that has been a constant role. That aspect of the military is unconstitutional.
You went on to mention a number of things including minimum wage, labor disputes, etc...
Yes, those are socialistic policies. The right of the government to engage in these socialistic policies is embedded int he Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
But those aren't the only services and regulations that the government provides that are socialistic.
Gross ignorance alert: "When the government funds health care, that's socialism."
No, if you're talking about Medicare and Medicaid, it's a service called insurance.
"The military produces nothing, we only consume. We are not an economic system, we are an agency."
The military's mission isn't to produce products. It's a service that protects our people and what belongs to them, including their freedom and independence, their ability to govern themselves as they see fit.
If it weren't for the military, those in the private sector who do produce goods and services would soon find their ability to do that reduced or taken over by others.
free, please take some unsolicited advice. You should spend less time sharing the dubious benefit of your wisdom and meager store of knowledge in blogs comments. Use the time instead to read a good American government textbook. Learn about what you like to write about. If you do that, you'll almost certainly stop making yourself look ridiculous because of nonsense like your last comment.
"When applied to government, socialism is a contract between government and the people to provide services in exchange for tax revenue."
Weaseldog,
By your own definition, all governments are socialists because all governments collect taxes and dispense services, so your labeling is useless.
I want to take a shot at arguementation:
Obama went to college
Obama had his college records sealed
Obama is academically a brilliant genius
Dave, Wealsedog,
I agree with you "the targeted assassination program is chilling. We are at the edge of a a dangerous abuse of power". And to realize this is being done by liberal Democrat is beyond the pale, how can you still support him? He is just using you to get re-elected.
JTF,
I am going to vote for Obama again because I belong to the cult of "Yes We Can" and "Hope & Change"! Just because you haven't seen Obama walk on water doesn't mean he can't!
@Dave
"I limit my time with these cult trolls because I won't waste time with people who think the Earth is six thousand years old..."
Obviously. Everyone knows it's 6011 years old, soon to be 6012.
"If this doesn’t shock, sicken and awaken enough sane Americans into voting against Republicans..."
I'm so confused. I thought this was a non-partisan blog dedicated to attacking corporatists and opposing minority rule.
@Weasel
"...I'll agree that Obama has promoted Socialist policies."
Noted for future use.
You make the argument that argument that the US Military produces nothing. That it drains resources out of our economy, doesn't create jobs or drive production, and provides no benefit to America.
Almost correct. We provide a very important benefit to America, we provide safety, security, and deterrence. In short, the only thing we produce is dead enemies of the United States. That is necessary in today's world, however those bodies are not a good. Policemen and firemen produce nothing either, and are equally necessary. Without all three of these professions, American society as it is today could not exist.
Providing that service is not socialist, it would be hard for you to make the arugment that the Untied States Military controls the national economy, but it would be rather easy for me to make the argument that the Federal Government controls it, to a high degree.
The right of the government to engage in these socialistic policies is embedded in the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
I agree, but don't confuse "can" with "should." Just ask Greece.
Now for Anderson
No, if you're talking about Medicare and Medicaid, it's a service called insurance.
It's hardly insurance when someone who HAS NEVER paid into the risk pool can get total coverage. It's welfare with a progressive label on it. Some pay, others do not. From each according to his ability to each according to his need is it's essence. Hardly capitalism - that's socialist.
The military's mission isn't to produce products.
Agreed, and in epic fashion you missed my whole point made to Weasel. The military cannot be socialist, as it unlike other agencies of the Federal Government does not control the means of production.
You should spend less time sharing the dubious benefit of your wisdom and meager store of knowledge in blogs comments. Use the time instead to read a good American government textbook.
I'm pretty sure I did that a time or two earning my political science bachelors degree. But why don't you educate me? You can regale me once again with blather of how Soldiers should not have 1st Amendment rights (and several others no doubt) or how we who fought in the Iraq war are stupid dupes tricked by the crooked Bush administration and then laughably call yourself a supporter of our military. Then you can blather on again about how corporations are not "people" (when obviously they are a group of...people. You are easily the most hypocritical and intellectually dishonest blogger I have ever encountered, but what the hell Anderson, perhaps this time you'll get lucky and say something that isn't mind numbing, sophomoric and asinine.
Noted for future use.
Well said.
I have shared the harbored thought of many Libertarians and Conservatives that Progressives secretly wish they could come out of the socialist closet but instead rename their socialism with terms like Progressive and Liberal (though their theories are neither) because historically SOCIALISM is quite a dirty word in American politics.
In the United States, if they just were honest and said "We're basically just like the Labor Party in the UK" they'd never win another election... hence all the smoke and mirrors. But just ever so often, you get one to come out of the closet.
Oh, and hate to multi-post but I figure I'll at least address Dubya's topic.
Obama is a socialist and would fit in well in the socialist parties of many western European countries such as the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Greece. He is not a Marxist. He would not fit in well in China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam or Burma.
He is hardly a Muslim, in fact I'd argue he's the most secular President in American history. I get the distinct impression that he only sat in Rev. Wright's church all those years because it was politically expedient. He sure threw Rev. Wright and his church under the bus the second it made sense politically did he not?
All evidence points to his birth being in Hawaii. Anyone who say's otherwise is likely a total moron.
He has a strong history of supporting very draconian gun control during his legislative career. I think the only reason he has not attempted it during his first term is because America is a very pro-gun, pro 1st Amendment country and being pro gun control is political suicide on the national stage. However I think if his reelection is no longer a concern to him he will very quickly turn his eye to undermining the 1st Amendment rights of Americans anyway he can, seeking a method to get around the Supreme Court's recent rulings supporting our right to bear arms.
I do not think Obama is a racist. I'm not sure about his spouse - not that it really matters. She's too busy on vacation to do anything about it, if she is.
free0352, as if to underscore my point about his knowledge and ability to make sense, wrote:
"It's hardly insurance when someone who HAS NEVER paid into the risk pool can get total coverage."
No, insurance is a service that indemnifies against unexpected loss, regardless of who pays for it. Your statement makes as much sense as saying ice cream is only sweet if the person who's eating it bought it, otherwise it's tasteless or sour.
Which brings me to your fantasy about charity cases getting "total care." The only one likely to do that is Reagan's fictitious welfare queen.
Finally, about your degree in political science. I'm reminded that George W. Bush has a master's in business administration, from Yale, no less.
Free,
Very good. You say Obama is a not a racist Marxist, but a socialist who wants to repeal the Second Amendment. This brings you closer to reality than a large percentage of Republicans. Even though I am largely a democratic socialist civil libertarian, I have enough capitalist, as opposed to corporatist, in me due to my 401K and an interest in keeping it. He gets a very low score for a socialist by other socialists though. Socialists are not exactly digging deep to kick in for his campaign. Corporatists have donated, and still are donating, to him. Follow the money to a politician’s ideology.
I think he’s too savvy go after guns. It would hurt his party. I think the Guns part of the God, Guns, and Gays circus is receding.
I have shared the harbored thought of many Libertarians and Conservatives that Progressives secretly wish they could come out of the socialist closet but instead rename their socialism with terms like Progressive and Liberal (though their theories are neither) because historically SOCIALISM is quite a dirty word in American politics.
I can see how you believe this. Can you see this perspective?
I have shared the harbored thought of many Liberals and Moderates that corporatists secretly wish they could come out of the corporatist closet, but instead rename their corporatism with terms like “Free Market” and “Conservatism”, (though their theories are neither) because recently CORPORATISM is quite a dirty word in American politics. (Well, it would be vilified like “liberal” and “socialism” if the corporate media dared to acknowledge the word corporatism. Hmm. I wonder why they don't?)
I’ll try to simplify how I see the picture.
To the degree that government and the economic system are bought and/or controlled by private banking, pharmaceutical, insurance, energy, mining, the defense industry, Big Agriculture, Telecoms, etc. it is corporatism.
To the degree that government and the economic system manages and/or regulates, on the public’s behalf, the banking, pharmaceutical, insurance, energy, mining, the defense industry, Big Agriculture, Telecoms, etc. it is socialism.
To the degree that private, corporate money influences elections and government, it is non-democratic Republican corporatism.
To the degree that public funding and participation influences elections and government, it is democratic socialism.
Democratic Socialism is government of, by, and for the people.
Republican Corporatism is government of, by, and for Big Money.
We all know which one is winning now, don’t we?
Your faith in government NOT being corrupt is really quite staggering. Also I would add, this eliminates all hope of third parties, totally disenfranchising them. As a card carrying member of the Libertarian party, that would obviously affect me.
Haven’t you noticed my near obsession with corruption? Let me amend that commission. “A Blue Ribbon commission with all parties and unaffiliated public interest groups”.
Obama is far too ineffectual to be the antichrist. If he is, the devil's game is really falling behind.
Heh, heh. Good one. I’d buy you a drink for that one.
Just The FOX(R),
Good to see we agree assassination programs are chilling, and are at the edge of a dangerous abuse of power. Then we can agree and remember Dick Cheney had his own hit team too. That sure ain’t in the Constitution either.
I know in your eyes Obama is a “liberal Democrat”, but you see, that very program, and even more aggressive Bush Administration measures he has taken up suggest otherwise. It’s not so much a matter that I support Obama really. It’s the fact that our democracy cannot survive a candidate selected by superstitious, frightened, angry, ill-informed, non-rational people who are actively courted and ill-informed by the Republican Party. These people are too frightened and irrational in their ignorance and by their beliefs in outrageous fabricated propaganda. It would be self-destructive madness to passively allow this to happen to our democracy.
Democrats are bad enough. One party rule by the Dark Side would be the end of our freedom, prosperity, and democracy. The collapse of September ’08 was our last warning. Next time will be worse.
So, no, Obama is not using me. He has no supernatural power to control my thinking and actions. Honest. Really. He’s not the antichrist. He’s not even a foreign born Muslim socialist who wants to take away my firearms.
HR,
Partisan? After what I said about that loony 6% of Democrats?
It is not partisan to defend democracy and condemn threats to it from both major parties. Although one party happens to be the greater threat.
It would be self-destructive and unpatriotic to passively allow such madness to infect our democracy.
Dick Cheney had his own "HIT" team like this White House has? Got to see your link for that one.
What I find no longer cute about you Dave is when something about Obama is brought up you do one of two disturbingly intellectually weak things.
1. What I call the 3rd grade defense, you know the one that goes like, "well at least I'm not as bad as so and so" or, "so what if I did bad, it's as not as bad as what your did".
2. Obama is not a liberal therefore:
A. his actions must be blamed on conservatives.
B. It's the rich's fault.
C. It's Bush's fault.
Maybe it's because he can't run on his record that you feel these are your only ways to defend him and his leadership to date.(You have posted you were going to vote for the not LIBERAL Obama) If I were you, and thank God I'm not, I would save my breath and vote for a REAL LIBERAL candidate so support. Not that a REAL LIBERAL could win the White House, but just saying.
I guess all of this means you will not be voting for him like you have already stated you would be?
The only one likely to do that is Reagan's fictitious welfare queen.
If you want to meet authentic welfare queens, please proceed to your nearest inner city or trailer park. I grew up around several thousand welfare queens, which infest the greater Detroit area where I'm from. If you would like a guided tour of welfare abuses, next time you're in the Toledo/Detroit area I'd be happy to show you.
ice cream is only sweet if the person who's eating it bought it, otherwise it's tasteless or sour.
No, I'm saying insurance is only insurance when all customers pay premiums instead of looters who use the force of the STATE to EXTORT what amounts to their share of premiums from total strangers.
Also of note, you can quit paying your insurance company. You have zero choice in funding Medicade or Medicare. If you fail to pay an insurance premium, they drop your coverage. If you fail to pay taxes you go to prison. That by definition is "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." That is Socialism. You can't argue the pros and cons of a thing until you identify it.
But I've found liberals won't identify socialist policy by name, because the name it's self is so unpopular. That's why they do things like call socialized medicine "insurance" or redistribution an "investment."
Simply calling it like it is would loose elections.
I'm not a Conservative myself, and never have been. I'm far, far too socially liberal. However, I know a lot of them, and on the issues of this post they are almost 100% in line with my above post.
Oh, and I forgot.
I think he’s too savvy go after guns. It would hurt his party.
Clearly, this has not stopped him before has it?
Dave Dubya,
Nice Rant about the Nazi Fascist Cult Trolls from the right!
The Cult Trolls invading your blog feared the following which is from my book Rules For Radicals:
"They fear that the development and building of People's (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein's monster against democracy."
Your Cult Trolls believe the fascistic demagogue foretold was born in 1961 and given the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
@Dave,
You are becoming more partisan every day. I see the evolution. It must happen that way. When people debate people with completely opposite views as theirs it exceeds their realities and reinforces their opinions. They remember the debates and how right they were. They remember being right in their more partisan arguments. It strengthens their beliefs. By the nature of this blog, you would and are becoming more partisan. It seems very clear to me.
@Weasledog,
When applied to government, socialism is a contract between government and the people to provide services in exchange for tax revenue.
Ayn Rand was so dogmatic because of her social contract. The socialist took the business her father had built “for the people” and left her with nothing. On the one hand, she should not have signed the contract. On other hand, she didn’t. Socialist governments are not administered by contract. The U.S.S.R was a communist government and a socialist one. Not government rules by consensus. Even the Athenian government was ultimately an oligarchy.
@Free,
Your list of what socialism betrays a lack of understanding of the concept. Socialism is not regulation or using tax dollars as the government deems it should. The means of production are not controlled by the federal government just because they regulate some things. The proceeds from production are taxed, but not divvied up by the government. You are lying when you call it socialism because you think that is an emotionally powerful term. The military is not socialism and the U.S. Government is capitalist.
You [Anderson] are easily the most hypocritical and intellectually dishonest blogger I have ever encountered, but what the hell Anderson, perhaps this time you'll get lucky and say something that isn't mind numbing, sophomoric and asinine.
I resent, that Free. I thought that was my designation. I guess I must have said something that wasn’t mind-numbing, sophomoric and asinine, like maybe: “The military's mission isn't to produce products. It's a service that protects our people and what belongs to them, including their freedom and independence, their ability to govern themselves as they see fit.” Oh crap! I did not say that. Mr. Anderson did. By your own assertion, it must be asinine. Either that, or you were angry and just wanted to name-call. I know, he did it first!
However I think if his reelection is no longer a concern to him he will very quickly turn his eye to undermining the 1st Amendment rights of Americans anyway he can, seeking a method to get around the Supreme Court's recent rulings supporting our right to bear arms.
You mean second amendment.
Free
I’m a pro-Second Amendment gun owner. I’m not afraid of Obama coming after my collection. What would you bet the “anti-christers” are near unanimous in sharing the delusion that Obama wants their guns?
Clearly, this has not stopped him before has it?
What, go after guns? Obama has never advocated gun confiscation.
As a state senator representing an urban district, Obama advocated the interests of the majority of his constituents.
He supported a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He never advocated registration or confiscation of firearms.
Obama and Biden stated their position:
Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans to halt progress on a United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States.
That takes care of that threat.
This doesn’t stop the NRA from going wild. Here’s a fact check on their paranoia:
NRA Targets Obama:
http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/
Somehow I suspect a large share of NRA members also think Obama is the anti-christ.
Talk about a bunch of clueless, frightened, sniveling, manipulated crybabies...
----
Just The FOX(R),
Thank you for agreeing Obama is not a real liberal.
Not that a REAL LIBERAL could win the White House, but just saying.
You said it. Even your third grade reasoning figured that out.
Since there are no real liberal candidates for president, I am forced to choose the lesser of evils.
About Cheney:
“Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh dropped a bombshell on Tuesday when he told an audience at the University of Minnesota that the military was running an "executive assassination ring" throughout the Bush years which reported directly to former Vice President Dick Cheney.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Hersh_US_has_been_running_executive_0311.html
The Constitution does not give the VP that power.
---
Troll Alinsky,
Your Cult Trolls believe the fascistic demagogue foretold was born in 1961 and given the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
This includes you, no doubt.
----
John,
Of course I’m a pro-democracy partisan. I would point out Russian anti-Nazi partisans were not pro-Stalin either. I am anti-fascist but not exactly pro-Democratic Party.
Dave Dubya wrote: "I am anti-fascist but not exactly pro-Democratic Party."
It might help if you would be pro-Democratic Party. Its conservadems need balancing out, and that can only be done from the inside.
SW,
I do make an effort to weed out the corpordems in the primaries. And I am dedicated to keeping Republicans out of office.
I still cannot be a true blue card -carrying Democrat. If I had to belong to a party, I'd rather be a socialist.
If the Dem party platform featured a plank for clean elections, to end corporate personhood, restore Glass/Steagal etc. I would consider joining.
"Those who criticize Hersh's credibility especially point to allegations Hersh has made in public speeches and interviews, rather than in print. In an interview with New York magazine, Hersh made a distinction between the standards of strict factual accuracy for his print reporting and the leeway he allows himself in speeches, in which he may talk informally about stories still being worked on or blur information to protect his sources. "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people... I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."
OH, that Seymour Hersh.
Dave, you got the wrong date from RAW STORY, its March 2009. And I guess you didn't know about Seymour's latest "bombshell".
"Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has broken some massive stories in his day, but uncovering secret societies within the highest echelons of America’s military would probably be the biggest of his career."
Friday, January 21, 2011 The Raw Story.
This "boobshell" was that "High-ranking members of US military part of ‘Knights of Malta,’ ‘Opus Dei,"
I bet they are all Shriners as well!!
Scary stuff, be very afraid.
Just The FOX(R),
You asked for a source. I provided. The rest we leave up to your third grade reasoning to sort out.
You can live in a Socialist Dictatorship (Nazi Germany) or a Socialist Oligarchy (USSR) or a Socialist Democracy (UK).
That's because socialism is an economic system, not a political system.
Regardless of how it is administered however, it's results are fairly uniform.
Total failure. You get a temporary bump in standard of living followed by a steep decline. It's results are predictabel.
What, go after guns? Obama has never advocated gun confiscation.
Oh really?
I support the ratification of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.
-Barak Obama, 2009
I'm not against gun ownership, I can see allowing someone to have a shotgun for hunting purposes, but I can't see why anyone would need a hand gun.
-Barak Obama, 2004
We're working on gun control under the radar
-Barak Obama, 2011
I can see common sense regulation, like prohibiting handguns, or something with no purpose for hunting -- like a gun that carries five, six, even up to thirty rounds.
-Barak Obama, 2004
I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree.
-Barak Obama, 2008
We're eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family,
-Barak Obama, 2005
** Note his bill's definition of "assault weapon" was any gun which held more than 3 rounds.
am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.
Barak Obama, 2007
Dave,
That's good, my 3rd grade reasoning goes well with your 3rd grade debate style.
You're the one who used Seymour Hurst and the Raw Sore to support your claim of a supposed historical event, not me.
Free,
Nazi Germany was what we call a fascist state. Really. You’re buying into the Big Lie if you believe what the Nazis claim. It’s the same with the People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea. Guess what. That’s not accurate either, but it helps the rulers to get the people to accept their dictatorship if think they live in a socialist or democratic republic.
I’ll take socialist democracy over Corporatist Plutocracy any day.
That's because unregulated corporatism is an economic system, not a political system. (Yet it pulls the levers of government.)
Regardless of how it is administered and unregulated however, it's results are fairly uniform.
Total failure. You get a temporary bump in standard of living, (a fiction called “trickle down”) followed by a steep decline. (For the rest of us, not the elites.) It's results are predictable.
Examples: The Great Depression and the Bush Recession.
Free,
Too bad Just the FOX(R) isn’t as diligent as you are in research. Nice scary NRA quotes, all various personal opinions. However, not one contradicts my points.
Anybody else notice two missing words in particular? Nowhere in all those quotes does Obama even mention a plan, or intention, for registration or confiscation. Nada.
Point One: “He’s too savvy go after guns. It would hurt his party.”
Response: Clearly, this has not stopped him before has it?
Point one B: “What, go after guns? Obama has never advocated gun confiscation.”
Point One B Uncontested We have no evidence of any such efforts to be “not stopped”. Point one stands.
Point Two: He never advocated registration or confiscation of firearms. Not one mention by Obama.
Not one mention, not one shred of evidence for initializing or advancing legislative action for either registration or confiscation of firearms.
Point Two stands. And there’s this:
Obama received a failing grade from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for running away from gun control.
Obama signed legislation that would allow guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains.
Very sporting of him, wouldn’t you say? And sportsman friendly at that.
Since you were kind enough to share all those quotes, let’s have a closer look at some.
We're working on gun control under the radar
This is the gun control he was talking about, in their words:
"Strengthening the national electronic system by collecting new information to make background checks for handgun buyers simpler and faster, leaving an electronic paper trail under a law named for James Brady, Ronald Reagan’s press secretary who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on the president.
A new reporting requirement that federally licensed gun shops report any person who tries to buy two long-arm weapons near the Mexican border over a five-day period.
Tougher sentencing guidelines for straw buyers that Holder’s department pushed through procedural hoops at the U.S. Sentencing Commission earlier this year."
I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree.
All sane people agree with Obama here. Who wants child or spouse abusers to be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership? Who wants people with a history of violence to be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership? Who wants anti-social schizophrenics like Loughner to be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership? How about explosive and incendiary rounds? How about a flame thrower? How about a rocket launcher for self defense? That should “git’er done”, eh?. You betcha. There really is common sense gun regulation.
am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.
In Illinois Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.
We're eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family
Everyone knows shotguns are the best home defense. Even the NRA says so. I like a 12 gauge pump. My Winchester ’94 easily handles a more distant threat. But then you’re probably just sniping at the guy running away from your shotgun blast...if he’s able.
Just The FOX(R),
Cheney had more power and was more secretive than any VP ever. This is well known.
What? You mean Hersh is not a real journalist like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh? There’s your third grade education again.
According to “The New Yorker”:
Hersh’s journalism and publishing awards include a Pulitzer Prize, five George Polk Awards, two National Magazine Awards, and more than a dozen other prizes for investigative reporting. As a staff writer, Hersh won a National Magazine Award for Public Interest for his 2003 articles “Lunch with the Chairman,” “Selective Intelligence,” and “The Stovepipe.” In 2004, Hersh exposed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in a series of pieces in the magazine; in 2005, he again received a National Magazine Award for Public Interest, an Overseas Press Club award, the National Press Foundation’s Kiplinger Distinguished Contributions to Journalism award, and his fifth George Polk Award, making him that award’s most honored laureate.
Ah, that’s why you don’t like him. It’s very clear that you despise real investigative journalism. Thank you. Once again you make my point.
You validate my Fourth Pillar of Right Wing fanaticism shared by radical Republicans and fascists, “Contempt for education, journalism, and science that questions their radical Rightist indoctrination.”
And I was still feeling warm all over from when you affirmed this:
Not that a REAL LIBERAL could win the White House, but just saying.
You said it. Even your third grade reasoning figured that out.
Thank you again. Well done.
Fear and ignorance are contagious. And the GOP does a damn fine, bang-up job of spreading that fear. Look at how they categorize the OWS movement, as an example.
It's now bigger than any of their so-called Tea Party groups/rallies and yet they use nothing but negative phrases and words to explain/denounce it.
That's because, unlike the Tea Party movement, they can not co-opt the OWS movement. Hopefully, neither can the Democrats.
"38 percent say Obama wants to take away Americans' right to own guns."
And now the wingtards are having a hissyfit because Obama ISN'T taking anyone's guns away. A few weeks ago the head of the NRA had a public tantrum about it.
"29 percent think Obama wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government."
I don't know if you're familiar with UN Agenda 21, but that's the big bogeyman among the local tinfoil hatters (rural Washington). You wouldn't believe how many people around here are convinced that UN thugs are just about to come swooping in and steal Americans' property rights.
Nazi Germany was what we call a fascist state.
Fascism is a political governmental system.
Socialism is an economic model. Nazi Germany used the socialist economic model. When it predictably failed, Hitler invaded his neighbors to steal their wealth to cover his social and military spending. It was a Fascist answer to a common socialist problem. Instead of saying "Tax the rich" Hitler was saying "Rob your neighbors."
Obama even mention a plan, or intention, for registration or confiscation.
He makes it quite clear he thinks people have no business owning any kind of hand gun or rifle that holds 3 or more rounds. As you should know as a gun owner, that limits you at most to a double barrel shotgun or single shot bolt action. If his draconian definition of "assault weapons" were to be made illegal it's obvious you'd have to give those up. That includes my lever action 30/30, my 870 shot gun, my rem 700 hunting rifle, all my pistols, my ak-47 and my ar-15. If he makes them illegal, obviously I'll have to get rid of them. I'll go from owning about 9 guns to owning 2 (My single barrel 12 gauge and my singe shot marlin .22 LR. if Obama were to get his way.
James Brady, Ronald Reagan’s press secretary who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on the president.
You mean Brady Bill James Brady, the leading advocate of gun BANS in America? Yeah, I wish John Hinkley has been a little more accurate when it came to Brady and a little less accurate when it came to Reagan. Yup, I said it. I wish Brady was flat dead. He's the single biggest opponent of Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights in the United States.
Everyone knows shotguns are the best home defense.
Any time you want to square off with me with your shotgun vs my AR-15 (with simmunitions of course) you can learn the hard way that isn't true at all. You'll be picking chalk out of your face for weeks.
"This is well known." BY whom, support your claim
"You mean Hersh is not a real journalist like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh."
I never brought up their or anyone else names, it was you who did so in your #1 3rd grade liberal defense arsenal I listed for you earlier. I never knew the two you listed ever claimed they were journalist real or otherwise, that's your claim, support it. Figures.
"Contempt for education, journalism, and science that questions their radical Rightist indoctrination." And what is it you show for anything that doesn't support your liberal Radical left wing beliefs? Openness, diversity,respectful, big tent, inclusion of those views that differ from your radical liberal view? Not hardly.
As for Raw Sore and Seymour, you quoted Seymour's statements, not something he has written, for which he has be given awards. From his own mouth from which you quoted, he admits he takes liberties with his spoken claims, vs his written ones as they are easier to check on.
If I wrote that our Dear President knew about the guns for drugs deal with Mexico that went on with his knowledge as it was his idea, you would ask for supporting sources. If I said it I could always pull a Seymour. If you get my drift.
Dusty,
Note the Rightists love to say the OWS folks are "hippies and bums". Anybody but "real Americans".
Tom,
The UN/New World Order nuts first came out of the woodwork under Clinton, hardly a peep under Bush, and are now full flamers. Tells the story, doesn't it?
Free,
I don't see Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, Switzerland, even Germany invading anybody. Bush and Cheney on the other hand...Just don't ask the rich to pay taxes for the war they profit from. You do realize you are out on the fringe in believing in a war nobody wants to pay for. Since you cannot conceive of the very notion of Bush/Cheney dishonesty, you have no other choice. I am sorry it messed you up and killed your comrades. If I had my way they’d be alive.
How easily you ignore the failure of unregulated capitalism in September '08. Not failure for the elites, mind you, they're doing swell. Guess who isn't doing so swell from the failure of capitalism. The rest of us.
Time to punish the little guy some more and make him pay for the elites’ tax cuts and war. It’s the Republican way.
A shotgun works for home defense. Really. You know as well as I do that burglars don’t carry AR-15s. I'm not so insecure in my masculinity to need to play "my gun is bigger than your gun". I have a semi-automatic rifle, but I prefer the shotgun. Just the distinctive sound of racking a round has proven to be a deterrent. Chances are you’d have one of your pistols more handy for such a contingency anyway. I’m not afraid and I probably feel safer than you do.
I do believe you are paranoid. Obama is not coming after our guns. Really, he isn't. Not happening. There's no House or Senate support. But you're too smart to think he's the antichrist so you need this gun paranoia to feed your ideology. Here you are, a tough soldier, more frightened about something unreal than an old dude like me. Kind of sad.
Just The FOX(R),
You think Cheney had no power? Ha. And the Right calls liberals naive.
I'm delighted to know that you are more insightful and informed than Hersh. Well in your La La land anyway. But you do need to dismiss and scorn a veteran investigative journalist. Your indoctrination gives you no choice. You are programmed that way.
And Obama is the antichrist too, isn't he? Come on, you can admit it. Tell us what you really believe. We’d love to hear it. You know what we think. What do you think?
I’m sure I probably covered it with the five pillars, and the Harris poll likely reflects your beliefs. You don't seem to be denying any of it.
It's more appropriate for fanatics to demonize the messenger than acknowledge the truth of the message.
That’s ok. It’s who you are.
Obama coming after our guns is just another rightwing wingnut red herring. It's only purpose is to instill fear and hate into the insecure.
Jerry,
That is the simple truth. Without their tub of red herring fallacies they wouldn't have much else to say.
One of their classic emotion-targeted, deceptive distractions.
As our brother John M. would explain the old school term for red herring:
Ignoratio Elenchi - Latin
Translation:
"Ignorance of refutation": Including subfallacies "Straw Man" and "Emotional Appeal".
Wowzers! I stumbled in .... and wondering now why I did not do so earlier. Can I come back? I promise to be nice... and will even try to say something intelligent.
I have a difficult time with politics.... it is much to serious a game to be played by the foolish candidates that do so these days.
I never said Cheney did or did not have power, I just asked you to support your claims that he did. I guess that is asking to much of you.
Just as you would me if I posted that Occupy DC was paying people to protest.
or
there was a Treasury email that said the loan to Solyndra may have been illegal,
or
the 83rd round of golf being played by Obama (the guy your voting for) this weekend was a record for a President in 3 years in the White House,
or if I said the White House Jobs Czar (Jeffery Immelt) recently said
"personally I think tax cuts will create jobs".
You see Dave, in the liberal mindset anything that points out the weakness or failure or destruction of our freedoms by a liberal plan, is called a "red herring" by the left. Or as in the words of Police Chief Clancy Wiggum, "nothing to see here folks, just move along".
Okjimm,
Yes, we are rather opinionated to say the least.
I've always thought that wanting to run for office or any position of power is the first reason to suspect politicians.
Just The FOX(R),
Are you sober? You asked for support for my claim. I provided a real journalist as support. You reject real journalists. That's your problem. It is your programming. There's nothing left to say to you about it.
In the real world, venerated and accomplished journalists are valid reference sources. Your world has Beck, Limbaugh and FOX(R).
One more time. There is no "liberal plan" to take our guns. There is no Senate or House support for it. You have no evidence such a plan exists. That makes your argument a red herring. You are unable to let go of your delusional cult indoctrination.
You still haven't let us know your thoughts on Obama possibly being the antichrist. I have a feeling you suspect he is the antichrist. Am I right?
If so, that would illustrate the futility of attempting rational discussion with you, and many like you. There is no reasoning with a cultist's belief system.
As far as we know you are in agreement with all the frightend ignorant people in that poll.
How are you any different? Where do you think those people are misinformed? Come on, you haven't addressed the core content of this post. You seem to want to distract the discussion away from the results of that poll for some reason. You went so far to distract that you ended up admitting no "real liberal" could be elected president.
Are those results too close to home?
Yes I am sober, have been for 29 years, thanks to my Higher Power, my sponsors and my family. Thanks for asking.
Your "real journalist" quote is a verbal quote to which your "real journalist" himself admits to stretching the truth vs. his written work.
My thoughts on Obama possibly being the Antichrist, never once thought it, never once posted it, never once said it, in fact only place I ever heard of it was on your blog Dave. Don't know what that means but it's the truth.
"Your world has Beck, Limbaugh and FOX(R)." Again with the assumptions about me and my world. What happen to the big tent liberal, where diversity is honored?
Dave, I still say a known "true liberal" could not win the White House. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? Don't waste our time blaming Fox News or the Koch Brothers for your answer, cause if liberalism is such winning idea, how could they prevent a known "true liberal" from winning?
In closing, I have not called you any names. I have only asked you to support your claims to which, well, I'll let the readers of your blog see what you have posted for themselves. I have answered your Red Herring questions about Obama = Antichrist.
Are you going to now call me a Troll and again close down your blog to posting you first screen before publishing?
Just The FOX(R),
Congratulations on your recovery. Best of luck on your continued success.
Your "real journalist" quote is a verbal quote to which your "real journalist" himself admits to stretching the truth vs. his written work.
This is false. He was not referencing the Cheney comment.
You conveniently generalize, or assume everything he says is stretching the truth.
By the way, Hersh is a real journalist, not a “real journalist”.
Your antipathy towards journalism is still clear as a bell. You confirm my 4th Pillar again. For that I thank you, but you are still ignoring most of the poll and topic of the post. No comment on the subject?
You’re evading the central topic of my post. Distraction is troll-ish, but we know why you’d rather not talk about it.
I have answered your Red Herring questions about Obama = Antichrist.
You don’t seem to understand what a red herring is. This limited understanding also limits our discussion.
Don't waste our time blaming Fox News or the Koch Brothers for your answer, cause if liberalism is such winning idea, how could they prevent a known "true liberal" from winning?
The question contains the answer. You mention two of the powerful corporate interests dedicated to opposing liberalism and democracy. Liberalism has not been tried in decades largely due to their political influence and powerful voice in corporate media’s framing the issues.
They built the Tea Party for God’s sake.
Back to the topic. What is your impression of the Harris poll, given it reflects the thinking of many on your side?
Does it make you uncomfortable, and you’d rather talk about something else?
Nobody wants to hear your anti-journalism bias anymore. Been there, done that.
If you don’t want to discuss the content of the original post, fine. But please refrain from distraction.
"And Obama is the antichrist too, isn't he? Come on, you can admit it. Tell us what you really believe. We’d love to hear it. You know what we think. What do you think?
Dave's 1st question posted 10/8/2011 7:46 p.m.
"You still haven't let us know your thoughts on Obama possibly being the antichrist. I have a feeling you suspect he is the antichrist. Am I right?"
Dave's 2nd question posted on October 9, 2011 1:21 PM
My answer to these questions, on October 9, 2011 2:11 PM
"My thoughts on Obama possibly being the Antichrist, never once thought it, never once posted it, never once said it, in fact only place I ever heard of it was on your blog Dave. Don't know what that means but it's the truth."
Your next question posted on October 9, 2011 4:05 PM
"Back to the topic. What is your impression of the Harris poll, given it reflects the thinking of many on your side?"
My answer now and for the future:
1. I do not think or know people who think that Obama is the Antichrist. As I said above, this is the first place I ever heard of that view.
2. My impression of the Harris poll is the same impression I have of any poll, it reflects the views of those polled at the moment in time they were polled.
3. Would I know the Antichrist if I ever met him?
As for the poll reflecting the
"thinking of many on your side" as I stated above, I wasn't polled, don't know any of those polled, and as far as how I feel about something, you are trying to paint me with the same paint brush as you paint any one who disagrees with you, that's how I feel. I know based on the above samples of your questons, that you keep dodging questons and changing yours.
Back to Seymour, his statement about Cheney was verbal, the quote I gave you was from him was about all his verbal statements, but not writings. Your own post states
"Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh dropped a bombshell on Tuesday when he TOLD an audience at the University of Minnesota that the military was running an "executive assassination ring" throughout the Bush years which reported directly to former Vice President Dick Cheney.”
So you want to believe that Cheney had his own "HIT" team like this White House has? How does it make you feel that you beleive that verbal statements made by a man who admits his verbal statements, in an interview with New York magazine, that Hersh made a distinction between the standards of strict factual accuracy for his print reporting and the leeway he allows himself in speeches, "I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."?
Or how does it make you feel if you found out that:
Occupy DC was paying people to protest.
the 83rd round of golf being played by Obama (the guy your voting for) this weekend was a record for a President in 3 years in the White House.
Or if White House Jobs Czar (Jeffery Immelt) recently said
"personally I think tax cuts will create jobs".
There is a Treasury email that said the loan to Solyndra may have been illegal.
How would that make you feel?
Oh boy here's where my posting here gets banned, asking to many questions.
Just The Desperate FOX(R),
Thanks for attacking journalism one more time. We know you adhere to the cult’s contempt for journalism. We’re settled on that point.
Ok, ok. It’s clear you don’t want to discuss the subject of the post. We got it. You don’t believe Obama is the anti-christ. But we still don’t know if your think “maybe he’s the antichrist” since that was how it was phrased.
I don’t think you read the original post. Trolls don’t either. You are dodging, distracting and changing topics while adding multiple off topic points. This is bordering on rude. I though we agreed on the fact that that is spamming and trolling?
We can all see you are trapped in a corner, in agreement with the misinformed people who were polled. You had ample opportunity to face the topic and you ran from it.
Since you ignore my post’s content and simple question, I will ignore everything else you say that is irrelevant.
Thank you so much for proving how correct some of my points are. I appreciate it.
Later.
I don't see Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, Switzerland, even Germany invading anybody. Bush and Cheney on the other hand.
Norway, France and Germany being members of NATO are active in Afghanistan, and France is actively supporting anti-terror operations in Djibouti. In fact, the requested our assistance on that mission. We are also in partnership with Norway and France (along with many others) in Libya.
They realize Islamic Terrorism is a serious issue to be dealt with, with force.
Really. You know as well as I do that burglars don’t carry AR-15s.
First of all, I don't want to be on an even playing field with a violent thug. I want to massively outgun him.
Second, AK-47s are an all to common tool of violent gang members. In fact, it's the drive by weapon of choice. Go ahead and go up against one of them with your shotgun, only I'm be careful because they WON'T use simmunitions.
Third, if you're so worried about Republican abuse of governmental power, I'd think you'd want access to the most effective tool possible to resist it if necessary.
The most effective tool against governmental abuse of power is the vote, not the gun!
Free,
Yeah, we have some NATO in Afghanistan. I’m not sure they “invaded” so much as followed us in occupation and “peacekeeping”.
Iraq was more to my point anyway. They didn’t participate in invading Iraq.
Sheesh, we were talking home defense, not street combat. Sure, a .50 caliber M2 would suffice, eh? I have no plans waging a civil war of insurrection. Really.
Dave said, responded to my two answers below this;
"But we still don’t know if your think “maybe he’s the antichrist” since that was how it was phrase."
That is his response to my two answers to Dave's earlier questions to me about Obama being the Antichrist. I have listed my answers next.
"My thoughts on Obama possibly being the Antichrist, never once thought it."
"My answer now and for the future:
I do not think or know people who think that Obama is the Antichrist. As I said above, this is the first place I ever heard of that view."
Did search for the phrase “maybe he’s the antichrist” that Dave attributes to me making. Only place that phrase is found is in Dave's very own post October 9, 2011 10:44 PM. Did search for the word 'maybe", found used 3 times before Dave's post.
On
106/ 3:00 pm
10/6/ 11:24 pm
10/7/ 12:29 pm
Read for your self posters and then ask your self is John Myste description of Dave correct in his post of 10/7/12:25 pm? Is Dave so blinded by his own belief that he is right that he can't see that he is ignoring facts that disprove them?
Ask yourself why Dave would continue to defend a verbal "bombshell" from Hersh, when Hersh him self said "I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."
This thread titled Cult Trolls. It starts out with this quote from
Sarah Vowell, “The Wordy Shipmates".
“The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief." I see that has happened to Dave. The question is to whom is he dangerous?
Sheesh, we were talking home defense, not street combat. Sure, a .50 caliber M2 would suffice, eh? I have no plans waging a civil war of insurrection. Really
If you grew up in just about any inner city you would know there is combat going on in the streets. The AK-47 is the most produced fire arm in history. They are everywhere, and they are the favorite weapon of gang members when they can get them. That is a fact.
As for insurrection, I think the reason we haven't had a Napoleon or Hitler in our countries history isn't because no evil men were born in North America... but because we have a WELL ARMED populace. This deterrent effect of gun ownership of things like an AR-15 is invaluable for national defense. From a pure military stand point, you can't invade the United States. Not only do you have to contend with our active duty military, reserves, and national guard if all else fails your occupation would be a nightmare what with millions of armed citizens.
We haven't had a foreign army on our soil since 1812 and that is one of the reasons.
The most effective tool against governmental abuse of power is the vote, not the gun!
Without the gun we never would have had the vote.
Republicans make the best left wing protestors...
"But as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause -- a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator -- and I wasn't giving up before I had my story. Under a cloud of pepper spray I forced myself into the doors and sprinted blindly across the floor of the Air and Space Museum, drawing the attention of hundreds of stunned khaki-clad tourists (some of whom began snapping off disposable-camera portraits of me). I strained to glance behind me at the dozens of protesters I was sure were backing me up, and then I got hit again, this time with a cold realization: I was the only one who had made it through the doors. As two guards pointed at me and started running, I dodged a circle of gawking old housewives and bolted upstairs."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pzvJbtN4UfNaRnpjO08sjfJkTZGMZHtgP2kKDs-Ry_8/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
"We haven't had a foreign army on our soil since 1812 and that is one of the reasons."
You forget Pancho Villa and the recent incident where the Mexican Army got lost...
Free0352 says, "Socialism is an economic model. Nazi Germany used the socialist economic model. When it predictably failed, Hitler invaded his neighbors to steal their wealth to cover his social and military spending. It was a Fascist answer to a common socialist problem. Instead of saying "Tax the rich" Hitler was saying "Rob your neighbors.""
I love your fantasies. This really good alternative history fiction.
Most folks writing alternative reality fiction of this type, leave in the 'Treaty of Versailles', and write alternate outcomes. But you just skip it and completely leave out the effects of the banks and their predatory austerity programs.
Keep going. You're doing good.
Wease,
Thanks for the link. The authoritarian Right have always employed the tactic of infiltrating and agitating peaceful demonstrators or other non-authoritarian groups. From the twerp in the pimp costume to the FBI.
COINTELPRO was the FBI's fascist tool used against dissent and civil rights groups from 1956 to 1971.
More evidence Amerikan fascism is on the rise.
"other non-authoritarian groups"
Define please.
"other non-authoritarian groups"
Or civil rights groups, workers rights groups, pro-democracy groups.
Look up COINTELPRO for a list.
Pop quiz weasel, what was the first country Hitler attacked?
Was it -
A: Austria
B: Poland
C: France
D: Czechislovakia
Answer is freak'n A.
Quess which one of these he attacked dead last? Yeah, that would be France. Yeah, WWII was just revenge for WWI and had nothing at all to do with a National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party leader - who happened to be a duly elected German Chancellor - who ran out of money for his "shovel ready" public works projects (for which he blamed Jewish CORPORATIONS and BANKERS) and invaded his neighbors to raise the cash to pay for it all.
Socialism + Antisemitism + Insanity = Nazism.
Thank you for playing!
Oh, and Villa's 100 man strong March 1916 attack on Columbus, New Mexico in retaliation for which President Wilson launched the Punitive Expedition?
Um... 100 guys isn't an Army.
Fun fact - Free0352's Great Grand Uncle was on the expedition into Mexico. Doesn't really relate to an argument, it's just feak'n cool.
Free’s narrow vision of history ignores minor details like Germany’s need to import 33% of its required raw materials and Hitler’s ambition to conquer the world.
If Hitler's war was purely for money, it would more accurately be called unregulated capitalism. Same principle for our militaristic neocon elites like Halliburton Dick ‘Cha-ching” Cheney.
Socialism + Antisemitism + Insanity = Nazism.
Cute formula... for a vocabulary seemingly devoid of the word “fascism”.
Let’s play the History Formula Game anyway. Germany and the US took different paths back in the ‘30s.
Germany:
Fascism + militaristic nationalism + racism = Nazism
Unemployment went down and the military grew.
USA:
Socialism + Democracy + Freedom = New Deal recovery from Republican Depression
Unemployment went down and public projects were built.
Times have changed. Now the US is following the path away from democracy as Germany did.
One’s Big Lie was “Arbeit Macht Frei”(Work makes you free), and the other’s is the “Free Market”.
To justify war of aggression, one fabricated the lie about Poles attacking Germans.
The other fabricated lies about “connections to al-Qaeda”, “aerial drones”, “biological labs” and “nukular” aluminum tubes.
One promoted itself as the “Master Race” while chanting, “Sieg Heil!” Hail victory. Deutschland uber Alles.
The other promoted “American Exceptionalism” while chanting, “USA! USA! USA!” Feel the pride.
Unregulated Capitalism + corporate personhood + democracy suppression = Corporatism
Corporatism + militaristic nationalism + rule by an elite minority = Fascism
And Dave Dubya's Father in Law was in the Ardennes fighting fascism, not socialism, in December 1944.
Not "freakin cool", but he was freakin' cold.
Post a Comment