|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 1:10*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Jan 25, 12:47 am, " wrote: On Jan 25, 12:47 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: Let's just say that the totalitarian impulse can be summed up by the phrase, "it takes a village to raise a child." Oh come on. *Fascism was a basically nationalist movement. *That's not "it takes a village." He's talking about the background to the statement -- that is the obfuscation. *It sounds good on the surface, of course, but is total weasel language. *It is structured so that anyone who objects "hates children." *I can't believe you swallow this retarded crap. *You are focusing on a bunch of irrelevent superficial and peripheral crap so you don't have to face reality. *This again is the birth-room of Ben Franklin. No, come on. When one says "the totalitarian impulse can be summed up by ...'it takes a village'," the implication is that totalitarianism can be directly deduced from "It takes a village" without any other ideas. The only thing lacking is presumably the army necessary to impose it. This, I think, is silly. It's like saying that everyone who insists on the importance of individual rights is necessarily an anarchist. "Don't be a dumbass, dumbass." -- BF, 1759 If you didn't learn it by middle-school, your first week of poli-sci class should have taught you that once the descent is made to authoritarianism, the path and language don't distinguish the result -- that is the point being made. Fascism, communism, and socialism all result in the same basic statist structu rulers and the ruled. *Like Read pointed out, the differences are merely incidental details. You are a statist. There are different degrees of statism. Life under Stalin was different from life in Britain pre-Thatcher and both are different from life in Sweden. Just as there are different degrees of libertarianism. Hillary and I are both commies, but we have different ideas about where the balance between responsibilities of guvmint and rights of the individual should be drawn. I think it's worth preserving the distinction between guvmints that rule you more than you like, and actual fascism or socialism. IOW, I grew out of calling people fascists around the age of 22. Except for Pat Buchanan, maybe. Ben |
Ads |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
Bill C wrote: On Jan 25, 2:23*am, Howard Kveck wrote: In article , *Bill C wrote: On Jan 24, 2:06*am, Howard Kveck wrote: * *People here had seen how bad the white led governments of Rhodesia were and were supportive of the black's drive to get out from under that oppressive rule. Does that seem like a bad cause to be in favor of? I don't think so. As I said below, Mugabe didn't really come to the fore until almost the end of Smith's rule. So I don't remember any rallies that were outright and directly supportive of Mugabe. I was around then - in college, in SF and Berkeley around political people. I don't recall Mugabe's name being used then, Bill. I distinctly do recall his name being used as an icon of the People here. Those People were being supplied their weapons by the Soviet Union and assisted by Cuban troops and advisors on the ground. It was pretty obvious what was in store for the Country after they took power. The regime WAS oppressive, no debating that. Again, when they first took over, it was a very different situation - they weren't doing the crazy **** that they're now known for, at least not openly. It didn't take long to change. They also, inclusive of the native population had the lowest infant mortality, highest literacy rate, highest gdp, longest life expectancy, and fed the rest of sub-saharan Africa. How's that worked out? Obviously badly. But I sure haven't denied that. *Yep. They sure as hell weren't going to give a lot of coverage to a marxist HERO doing what they almost all inevitably do after the support for him as a "freedom fighter" had been so strong.. * Bill, please. Media has a short attention span, particularly on issues like this. They move on. It really isn't because the media is (or was) all happy because a Marxist was gaining power. "The Liberal Media" is a myth. Howard that's your opinion. I think it's totally wrong, but it depends on your position as an observer what you consider "liberal". I'd say that you are far enough out that way that what most people would consider either moderate, or slightly liberal you see as right wing. There've been numerous examples of this. You're trying an Overton Window maneuver here, Bill. Just because you've said I'm so far out doesn't make it true. *We're gonna agree to disagree. Neither of us can demonstrate the level of coverage and support where we were back then, at least reasonably easily. * *I was thinking about this earlier today and that's exactly what I realized. All I can do is describe my experiences (coming from a highly politicized family and spending a lot of time around other politicized people and situations), I just didn't see what you're desccribing (active support for Mugabe) - it was all aimed at the cause, not the personalitiies. Howard, here it was both the situation, and the Cult of Personality. The Heroes of The Revolution! Folks here still have their posters of Marx, Castro, Gueverra, Ortega, etc...up. They are STILL perfect heroes to lots of people here. I don't deny that there are some people who have stuff that's supportive of those guys around, but I'd say they're a drop in the ocean. You know, if you wanted to, you could try to find me some articles that are pro-Mugabe from someone here in the US. By the way, did you just now tell me that it's "the Left" who are driven by "Cult of Personality?" Two words: Ronald Reagan. -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
Kurgan Gringioni wrote: On Jan 24, 11:46*pm, Howard Kveck wrote: In article , *Donald Munro wrote: Tom Kunich wrote: The same thing was said about you heathen chinks. Somehow I'd bet you'd be insulted by that yet you have no problem using precisely the same logic on Arabs. The "heathen chinks" had a sophisticated civilization going while your ancestors were still walking around in loincloths. * *True. And while I more or less agree with Henry's position on this (you can't force it on them), I don't think that Arabs are incapable of having a working democracy, rather they've never had the opportunity to really have one. Of course they're capable, just not right now. It takes a generation or more, once a nation starts going down that path, to develop an independent judiciary. Without a tradition of an independent judiciary a democracy cannot succeed. You're absolutely right about the judiciary. That's a huge part of it. Witness the failure of democracy in Pakistan. I don't know if it's dead yet, but it's certainly on life support. Getting it back to even the sketchy levels it was at will be tough. Developing a successful democracy is a long process. It takes decades of constructing strong institutions. It's not as simple as holding an election. Just look at the Iraqi Parliament. "We got to paint a finger purple - SUCCESS!" Not. -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ],
Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , Howard Kveck wrote: The 2008 version of this is Jonah Goldberg's recent book that purports to show that liberals are fascists. How I got involved in this political discussion, I don't know (actually, I do know: because I am a dumbass). You've stepped into the abyss. But while I haven't read the book, I did hear him interviewed at length, and his subject is, more precisely, that the statist impulses of fascism (and he's talking generally about all the fascists here; Mussolini as much as Hitler, and probably Franco too), and modern-day instances of the totalitarian dream. Well, he does discuss that stuff in passing. But the thrust of the book is, as Ben accurately described, name calling. I think it's really more insidious than that, however. I believe he's attempting to convince people who aren't really paying all that much attention (i.e. not his core audience) that liberals are up to what his side actually is. It's trying to convict on a guilt by vague association. For example, one of the earlier working titles was "Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation From Hegel to Whole Foods". In it he talks about how the Nazis tried to promote nutritious, organic food. And, since liberals like organic food, they are the same as Nazis. Mui estupido. Goldberg's a pretty serious small-government, borderline libertarian right-winger, and his real concern is that he wishes to avoid the totalitarian dream. I doubt he mentions it in the book, but in the interview he specifically called out Huckabee as a disaster-candidate (in his opinion) for his essentially populist-totalitarian impulses. Found it: http://instapundit.com/archives2/013336.php Yeah, he and almost all movement conservatives are appaled that Huck is actually running. Ben hit that one on the head too. I'll add this: David Broder, long considered the "Dean of Beltway punditry, said of Clinton, "They came in and trashed the place and it wasn't their place." Anyway, as for the libertarianism of Goldberg and Glen Reynolds, it's worth noting that they have been big supporters of small govt. programs like the war in Iraq (and a possible war in Iran) and that famously libertarian warrantless phone surveillance program. In other words, don't believe their hype. ObBike: why have the Germans never acquired a reputation for making serious road bikes? Is there some boutique make I'm missing? Hmm, they do seem to have a nice boutique components market going. -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
" wrote: On Jan 25, 6:50*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , *Michael Press wrote: ObBike: why have the Germans never acquired a reputation for making serious road bikes? Is there some boutique make I'm missing? Warning: Gratuitous Ethnic Stereotyping. Hide the kiddies. http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,0... That's not UCI-legal. Some kind of recumbent? I'm pretty sure "Economical Uberpanzer" was an late-80s early-90s industrial band. I might have seen then opening for The Fall once. Howard probably remembers them better than I do. I wasn't so much into KrautRock then... That actually would be a great name for a band, though I still believe that the best and most accurate name for a band is "Negative Cash Cow." -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
" wrote: On Jan 25, 1:10*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: You are a statist. There are different degrees of statism. It's a matter of distinctions that are not being made. Kind of like the difference between trimming one's nails and having an arm amputated. IOW, I grew out of calling people fascists around the age of 22. Except for Pat Buchanan, maybe. David Duke? -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
Howard Kveck wrote:
In it he talks about how the Nazis tried to promote nutritious, organic food. And, since liberals like organic food, they are the same as Nazis. Mui estupido. Sounds like a new branch of logic known as Kunichian logic(tm). |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 26, 3:08*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article , *Bill C wrote: On Jan 25, 2:23*am, Howard Kveck wrote: In article , *Bill C wrote: On Jan 24, 2:06*am, Howard Kveck wrote: * *People here had seen how bad the white led governments of Rhodesia were and were supportive of the black's drive to get out from under that oppressive rule. Does that seem like a bad cause to be in favor of? I don't think so. As I said below, Mugabe didn't really come to the fore until almost the end of Smith's rule. So I don't remember any rallies that were outright and directly supportive of Mugabe. I was around then - in college, in SF and Berkeley around political people. I don't recall Mugabe's name being used then, Bill. I distinctly do recall his name being used as an icon of the People here. Those People were being supplied their weapons by the Soviet Union and assisted by Cuban troops and advisors on the ground. It was pretty obvious what was in store for the Country after they took power. *The regime WAS oppressive, no debating that. * *Again, when they first took over, it was a very different situation - they weren't doing the crazy **** that they're now known for, at least not openly. It didn't take long to change. They also, inclusive of the native population had the lowest infant mortality, *highest literacy rate, highest gdp, longest life expectancy, and fed the rest of sub-saharan Africa. *How's that worked out? * *Obviously badly. But I sure haven't denied that. *Yep. They sure as hell weren't going to give a lot of coverage to a marxist HERO doing what they almost all inevitably do after the support for him as a "freedom fighter" had been so strong.. * Bill, please. Media has a short attention span, particularly on issues like this. They move on. It really isn't because the media is (or was) all happy because a Marxist was gaining power. "The Liberal Media" is a myth. Howard that's your opinion. I think it's totally wrong, but it depends on your position as an observer what you consider "liberal". I'd say that you are far enough out that way that what most people would consider either moderate, or slightly liberal you see as right wing. There've been numerous examples of this. * *You're trying an Overton Window maneuver here, Bill. Just because you've said I'm so far out doesn't make it true. Just because you deny it doen't make it untrue. *We're gonna agree to disagree. Neither of us can demonstrate the level of coverage and support where we were back then, at least reasonably easily. * *I was thinking about this earlier today and that's exactly what I realized. All I can do is describe my experiences (coming from a highly politicized family and spending a lot of time around other politicized people and situations), I just didn't see what you're desccribing (active support for Mugabe) - it was all aimed at the cause, not the personalitiies. Howard, here it was both the situation, and the Cult of Personality. The Heroes of The Revolution! Folks here still have their posters of Marx, Castro, Gueverra, Ortega, etc...up. They are STILL perfect heroes to lots of people here. * *I don't deny that there are some people who have stuff that's supportive of those guys around, but I'd say they're a drop in the ocean. You know, if you wanted to, you could try to find me some articles that are pro-Mugabe from someone here in the US. * *By the way, did you just now tell me that it's "the Left" who are driven by "Cult of Personality?" Two words: Ronald Reagan. -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard * * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women, * * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork... * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - As for Reagan it's a mixed lagacy. I'm on the things were better during and after his Presidency than Carter's bandwagon. I have yet to see people on the right marching with posters of Somoza, or Baby Doc. I do see Gueverra. We're gonna agree to disagree. I have friends in Texas and Florida who think I'm a raving leftie due to my positions. It's all about observer position. Where'd you score on that quiz? I was just off center right. Bill C |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"Bret" wrote in message
... On Jan 25, 8:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Bret" wrote in message ... On Jan 24, 10:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Because a fire department isn't altruistic and if you even tried to think about it for a minute you'd realize that. "In the two male-dominated fields (more than 97 percent of firefighters and 96 percent of CEOs nationally are men), the fact that number one was a tie between the altruistic, brawny fireman and the bring-home-the-bacon CEO speaks volumes about what we find sexiest in men." -- hot-firefighters.com Thanks for the demonstration that you haven't a clue why the PUBLIC funds fire fighting. I suggest you now go elsewhere where you can hold a conversation with someone at as low an intellectual level as yourself. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 26, 8:26*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bret" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 8:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Bret" wrote in message .... On Jan 24, 10:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Because a fire department isn't altruistic and if you even tried to think about it for a minute you'd realize that. "In the two male-dominated fields (more than 97 percent of firefighters and 96 percent of CEOs nationally are men), the fact that number one was a tie between the altruistic, brawny fireman and the bring-home-the-bacon CEO speaks volumes about what we find sexiest in men." -- hot-firefighters.com Thanks for the demonstration that you haven't a clue why the PUBLIC funds fire fighting. I suggest you now go elsewhere where you can hold a conversation with someone at as low an intellectual level as yourself.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm not quite done with you yet. If it's evil to use public funding money for altruism, what would you call it if public funding is used for evil purposes? Evil squared? How do they rank as relative evils? Is the former a misdemeanor and the latter a felony? Both felonies? Bret |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's Surprised? | [email protected] | Racing | 39 | October 22nd 07 05:38 PM |
I'm surprised... | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 3 | September 5th 06 03:50 AM |
Surprised it hasnt been said but... | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | February 20th 06 12:07 AM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 11:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |