OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 24, 4:44 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:


"Let's take a look at Webster's definition of fascism: 'Any program
for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely
nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry,
commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of
opposition.' What, actually, is the difference between communism and
fascism? Both are forms of statism, authoritarianism. The only
difference between Stalin's communism and Mussolini's fascism is an
insignificant detail in organizational
structure. But one is 'left' and the other is 'right'! -- Leonard
Readhttp://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0601Read.pdf

I've been told that this doesn't exist, so this story is obviously a
product of the vast right wing conspiracy:

http://tinyurl.com/366dym

Brandeis professor under fire for description of racial epithet
1/24/2008, 5:54 p.m. EST
By MARK PRATT
The Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) -- A longtime Brandeis University professor says he has
been the victim of "vindictive persecution" by school administrators
after he was found in violation of the university's nondiscrimination
policy for describing a racist word in one of his classes.

Politics professor Donald Hindley, who has taught at the Waltham
school for 47 years, had a monitor placed in his classroom and was
asked to undergo sensitivity training after he told students in his
Latin American politics class last semester that Mexican migrants are
sometimes referred to pejoratively as "wetbacks," according to the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is aiding his
case.

More there.

Bill C

In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

wrote:
Also, it's all one sentence, with too many commas. Because, you know, a
true free man doesn't have to stint on commas like some pinch-pennied
socialist.

Psst, don't tell greg but there's a planned tax on commas
in the next budget.

Rand is comma rich, she'll get a tax break. Those with fewer commas won't.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...

First W. Bush said that we were going into Iraq for WMD. Once there
was no WMD, he said we were doing it for democracy.

Here's the speech -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030319-17.html

Democracy doesn't work in the Middle East. It is by definition a grass
roots movement. You can't impose it, especially upon a tribal culture.

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.

"Bret" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 9:02 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

STATE SPONSORED altruism is evil. Picking your pocket and handing it to
someone else is evil. If you do not allow them they then put you in jail
or
worse. Is that something difficult to understand?

Do you consider a state funded rescue mission to be evil? A search for
a lost hiker for example.

Let me get this straight - you believe that you should steal money from a
large number of people to maintain a force that has nothing better to do
than to "save' hikers from their own stupidity?

"Bill C" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 4:44 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:


"Let's take a look at Webster's definition of fascism: 'Any program
for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely
nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry,
commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of
opposition.' What, actually, is the difference between communism and
fascism? Both are forms of statism, authoritarianism. The only
difference between Stalin's communism and Mussolini's fascism is an
insignificant detail in organizational
structure. But one is 'left' and the other is 'right'! -- Leonard
Readhttp://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0601Read.pdf

I've been told that this doesn't exist, so this story is obviously a
product of the vast right wing conspiracy:

http://tinyurl.com/366dym

Brandeis professor under fire for description of racial epithet
1/24/2008, 5:54 p.m. EST
By MARK PRATT
The Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) -- A longtime Brandeis University professor says he has
been the victim of "vindictive persecution" by school administrators
after he was found in violation of the university's nondiscrimination
policy for describing a racist word in one of his classes.

Politics professor Donald Hindley, who has taught at the Waltham
school for 47 years, had a monitor placed in his classroom and was
asked to undergo sensitivity training after he told students in his
Latin American politics class last semester that Mexican migrants are
sometimes referred to pejoratively as "wetbacks," according to the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is aiding his
case.

This is the sort of world that you get when you allow ANY form of government
excessive power.

On Jan 24, 10:12*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bret" wrote in message

...
On Jan 24, 9:02 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:



STATE SPONSORED altruism is evil. Picking your pocket and handing it to
someone else is evil. If you do not allow them they then put you in jail
or
worse. Is that something difficult to understand?

Do you consider a state funded rescue mission to be evil? A search for
a lost hiker for example.

Let me get this straight - you believe that you should steal money from a
large number of people to maintain a force that has nothing better to do
than to "save' hikers from their own stupidity?

I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire
department? Are they evil too?

Bret

"Bret" wrote in message
...

I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire
department? Are they evil too?

Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is
equally bad.

On Jan 24, 10:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bret" wrote in message

...



I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire
department? Are they evil too?

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?

Bret

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Jan 24, 2:06*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article
,
*Bill C wrote:

According to Howard I'm wrong and he was a minor player, who had little to NO
support here among the left because noone knew who he was.

* *I didn't say he was a minor player. He wasn't really in the foreground until
after the Smith govt. had just about folded. Anyway, that article has a few
errors. It states that there were two resistance groups, when there were actually more
like 20. One of the largest and most militant groups was led by Joshua Nkomo,
while another large grouop was put together by other people who were more
interested in political solutions (although they too had a military wing). Mugabe
did take over in '75 but mostly continued the political angle, though the military
part of the resistance still played a big role.

We disagree. There was national coverage to some extent, and plenty of
local support and coverage in the college/independent press here. That
being a similar area I have real doubts that there wasn't coverage,
and weren't rallies in support of him.

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.

Media attention on Zimbabwen vaporized.

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.

* *I don't think the average person here knew who Mugabe is until Zimbabwe
started getting attention for having huge inflation and seizing farms. They just
haven't been on the radar screen, Bill. it's not all that uncommon, especially in
Africa. For example, what do you think is the deadliest conflict since WW II? At
least 3.8 million people have died in only six years in the area around the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. How much of that do we hear about in the news?

I see a fair amount, but that's because of the Euro sources. Agreed
here in the US it's not an issue, but it doesn't have a huge "freedom
fighter" to exploit, as Zimbabwe did.

I think they don't cover it because they aren't interested, not because they don't
see a "freedom fighter" angle. There are plenty of those kinds of fights going on in
Africa right now that are getting even less coverage than the DRC war is, such as
Western Sahara and Sahrawi.

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.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Jan 23, 11:49 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

The 2008 version of this is Jonah Goldberg's recent book that purports
to show
that liberals are fascists.

They may just as well be, since "liberals" aren't liberals.

You have swallowed the entire socialist obfuscation of basic
language. You've been had.

Well, I think you've swallowed the entire "libertarian / free marketeer"
obfuscation of basic language, Greg. I think what your source(s) are doing is
redefining terms in ways that will suit their pre-ordained positions. They're
defining "liberal" as "communist", then saying that "communism" is the same as
"fascism".

For a little more about the Doughy Pantload's book:

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2008_0...27808031919651

__________________
"But as we've demonstrated, the fascist route to power was not by competing for
political space on the left but by occupying that of the right. Fascists may have
adopted various socialist appeals as part of their revolutionary backgrounds, but the
way they obtained power was also clear: by forging financial alliances with business
capitalists and social conservatives and essentially contracting out to them as their
thuggish enforcers, violently attacking and destroying every vestige of "progressive"
or "leftist" reform in their paths. That is, they became fully creatures of the right.

"And this was so especially after they obtained power. The business capitalists
like Fritz Thyssen who had been early supporters of the Nazis were rewarded with
heavy investment in the Nazi war machine, and so in the 1930s large numbers of
captains of industry invested likewise -- including those from the United States,
such as Henry Ford (though, in the case of Thyssen notably, some of them later came
to regret it)."
__________________

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01...ftovers-2.html

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...izarro_history

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01...l-fascism.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01...-to-jonah.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?