Originally Posted by Weave

Anti Semitism has NOTHING to do with being conservative. Plenty of lefties out there are anti-semitic. Helen Thomas comes to mind.

True enough. Although to be fair to Helen Thomas, she apologized for her statement that got her into trouble, explaining that Israelis can stay in Israel, but should get out of the Occupied Territories (ie. Palestine). I'm Jewish and I have sympathy for that view point.

And yes, Nazism was an extension of left wing big government movements alive in Germany at the time.

Baloney.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

True enough. Although to be fair to Helen Thomas, she apologized for her statement that got her into trouble, explaining that Israelis can stay in Israel, but should get out of the Occupied Territories (ie. Palestine). I'm Jewish and I have sympathy for that view point.




Baloney.

She's made quite a few other statments including this gem only 1 month ago.

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9763

Of course the national media basically ignored it. Had it come from a conservative they'd still be quoting it.....

Palin's hit map -



- is still up on her Facebook site -

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-...0/373854973434

I'm surprise she hasn't drawn at least a dotted line across her Rep. Giffords listing. Maybe we'll shortly see this again -

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.
9:31 AM Mar 23rd, 2010 via OpenBeak
Retweeted by 100+ people

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — Christina Taylor Green's father says she was "a beautiful, young, vibrant girl."

The 9-year-old, who was born on Sept. 11, 2001, was among six people killed Saturday during an assassination attempt on Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

John Green tells NBC's "Today" the hospital staff worked hard on his daughter, who he called a fighter, but they couldn't save her.

Christina, an aspiring politician, had just been elected to the student council at Tucson's Mesa Verde Elementary School. A neighbor took her to meet Giffords at a constituents' gathering.

The unidentified neighbor was shot four times but survived and is recovering from surgery.

Ah, yes, Giffords and Green - one a ruler in the U.S. Congress and one a ruler at Mesa Verde Elementry - what's the difference to us "subjects" without "influence" - looking for our very own Patrick Henry moment? Just collateral damage?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, yes, Giffords and Green - one a ruler in the U.S. Congress and one a ruler at Mesa Verde Elementry - what's the difference to us "subjects" without "influence" - looking for our very own Patrick Henry moment? Just collateral damage?

That's a rather ugly statement. The "Patrick Henry moment" was a question -- i.e., will we have one this 4T? -- not in any way exhorting the death of this promising, little girl.

I guess I was more correct than I'd like to be, when I said that this incident would bring out loonies on both sides.

Originally Posted by Xer H

That's a rather ugly statement. The "Patrick Henry moment" was a question -- i.e., will we have one this 4T? -- not in any way exhorting the death of this promising, little girl.

I guess I was more correct than I'd like to be, when I said that this incident would bring out loonies on both sides.

Ah, the looney myth of bloodless Patrick Henry moments.

How sweet.

Hardly a "myth" at all -- Henry's speech involved no bloodshed whatsoever. It was a speech to the Virginia Convention. You can look it up, if you don't believe that.

But the fact remains, it was a pivotal moment in that 4T. That's why it's worth considering if we will have a similar tipping point in this one.

But spin it, if you must.

Originally Posted by Weave

Nazism was an extension of left wing big government movements alive in Germany at the time.

You just proved my point. This RW revisionist lie about Fascism is complete nonsense. The Nazis were the Authoritarian Right.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes. "violence, or threat of violence has no place in our democracy".

Which explains, by the way, the utter lack of anything resembling influence that the people have over their rulers. It is apparently Right and Good to complain (quietly and privately, and only in permitted means and along permitted channels, of course) and to beg. But to threaten the actual interests of those who rule?

Why that's just un-American.

Let's give a moment of thanks to the tools of the ruling class for reminding us subjects of our place.

Threatening the elites is one thing, threatening to kill ordinary people just because you disagree with them is another. Many "Movement Conservatives" would be perfectly happy with mass slaughtering of everyone they consider "liberals". Then the elites will dispose of them just like Hitler disposed of the SA.

Originally Posted by Odin

You just proved my point. This RW revisionist lie about Fascism is complete nonsense. The Nazis were the Authoritarian Right.

How specifically were they "Right"? I'll need your interpretation of the definition of "Right" of course. I'm ready to be "enlightened"!

PoC67

PS: I can't wait to hear this one!

Right = pro-hierarchy, pro-capitalist

Left = anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalist

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I especially like the fact that you stated "maybe" i/r/t Jacksonian Democracy. While the dislike of the tyrannical possibilities of a Centralized Govt may have been apropriately attributed at the time to the followers of Jackson, with the benefit of hindsight, I would say Jacsonian Democracy WAS authoritarianly aggressive, if not outright tyrannical. I believe Davy Crockett believed it so; I highly suspect then non-citizen Cherokee Indians(et al) would agree as well.

With respect to the Cherokee I would definitely agree with you.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I'll take a "well-administered" US Constitution over a specific "Side" any day.

In this I would agree with you.

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric, you do know that gun control has racist origins, right? The Governor Reagan was scared of the Black Panthers.

Gun control goes back much further than that. The first such laws were passed in the south after the War Between the States. Its so much easier to terrorize people when they can't possibly defend themselves.

Simon Black On The Weekend's Shooting

Excerpt:

I’m inclined to believe that acts and threats of violence -against all people- have no place in any free society. The life of a politician is not worth more than the life of the nine year old girl who was shot and later died at the hospital, or the 76-year old man who died on the scene as he was protecting his wife, or of any of the other victims.

I’ve seen mainstream media reports that portray the apparent shooter as an anti-government subversive whose favorite books include Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. This makes absolutely no sense– what kind of anti-government proponent counts Hitler, Marx, and Engels as his favorite authors?

Rather, it’s more likely that the shooter was just another loony who owned a firearm and decided to use it. If the victim had been Gabrielle the bus driver instead of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, it would have barely registered a few words at the bottom of the CNN news ticker.

With one of their own victimized, however, I’m concerned that politicians will close ranks, capitalize on the social mood to generate a renewed faith in government, and pass a host of reactionary policies… all after sanitizing their Twitter feeds for any reference to violence, of course.

Perhaps some form of gun control is in the works… though with a Republican controlled Congress, I’d think new legislation targeting suspected ‘Anti-American subversives’ could be on the table, or something that gives sweeping new powers to government agents and police forces.

In 1946, the 79th Congress of the United States passed public law 601 giving permanent standing to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. This committee was authorized significant powers to investigate ‘subversive and un-American propaganda’ and assist Congress in ‘necessary remedial legislation.’

Ironically, in its efforts to ensure that America was nothing like the Soviet Union, the US government began turning the country into a fascist collective. Given what may come after the weekend’s shooting, I fear we may be returning to a time when it is increasingly dangerous to be a free thinking individual anywhere in the West.

With Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano perched above WalMart shoppers encouraging Americans to spy on each other, I sense the boiling frog may soon be getting a few degrees warmer.

Originally Posted by Odin

Right = pro-hierarchy, pro-capitalist

Left = anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalist

Please re-aquaint youself with the information under the heading of Anti-Capitlism in this Wiki definition of "Nazism" and get back to me if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

PoC67

PS: I know it's Wiki, but I'm a lazy RW Capitalist.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Please re-aquaint youself with the information under the heading of Anti-Capitlism in this Wiki definition of "Nazism" and get back to me if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

PoC67

PS: I know it's Wiki, but I'm a lazy RW Capitalist.

That is not correct, the Nazis were in bed with the Capitalist class, including W's grandfather.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503...ith_olbermann/

I agree with his sentiments...

The Corporate Media propaganda machine is in full swing today. 2+2=5, apparently.

I'm not sure I would want my son or daughter going to a college where other students were carrying guns.

Why do I get the feeling that we are going backwards as a society?

Now Arizona Wants to Allow Concealed Guns on Campuses
by Jeff Biggers

Arizona's weak gun laws could reach a new low this spring.

More infamously, Brewer also signed another bill last April that allows Arizonans to carry concealed guns without a permit. (photo by Flickr user krossbow)When the Arizona state legislature reconvenes today for the first day of the new session, two gun bills will be on the table for debate.

One bill--H2001--will allow faculty members to carry concealed weapons on campus.

The other bill--H2014--will prevent educational institutions from stopping a person from carrying a weapon with a valid permit.

http://act.commondreams.org/go/3906?...006.pTOZew&t=2

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes. "violence, or threat of violence has no place in our democracy".

Which explains, by the way, the utter lack of anything resembling influence that the people have over their rulers. It is apparently Right and Good to complain (quietly and privately, and only in permitted means and along permitted channels, of course) and to beg. But to threaten the actual interests of those who rule?

Why that's just un-American.

Let's give a moment of thanks to the tools of the ruling class for reminding us subjects of our place.

Are saying it's a good idea to shoot members of congress? My impression was that you are often referring to threatening (in the sense of being perceived as a threat) civil disobedience. You know---complaining loudly and in mass, which is not the same thing as political assassination. Or murder, which is another word for what Loughner has done. I'm all for power to the people and screwing the man. But, how disturbing this is, perhaps an ideological pause is in order?

Originally Posted by Odin

Right = pro-hierarchy, pro-capitalist

Left = anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalist

I have some disagreement with you on the hierarchy bit, but I see your point. Indeed, in theory, the Left certainly emphasizes heterarchy more as an ideal.

However, in practice, the Left can be guilty of a whole mess of hiearchy -- some degree is simply unavoidable -- as the existence of the nomenklatura bears out. Even in the name of proletariat a "dicatatorship" was necessary. Less extreme version of the Left, say Sweden, still have very large bureaucracies requiring lots of hiearchy.

The essential difference I see is one involving the perennial subject/object divide. When the Right sees a problem, they tend to see it as a "interior" problem of the subject -- e.g., poverty being an issue of people not having enough personal initiative, not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. It emphasizes the behavioral, the intentional, "values", gumption. When the Left sees a problem, they tend to see it as an "exterior" problem of the objective world -- e.g., poverty being an issue of people not having enough resources, wealth distribution, opportunity, material support, . . . or any boots in the first place to pull up by straps even if they could. Both sides have libertarian and communitarian components as far as I can see.

IMO, both POV's are correct insomuch as they are partial, incorrect insomuch as they claim exclusivity. All human beings, all human societies, have interior and exterior worlds and needs.

Right now in this nation, at this time, I see a relative need for Left solutions (net) but realize that one must be vigilant and remember the essential insights of the Right wing view (at least as defined above).

Originally Posted by Odin

The Corporate Media propaganda machine is in full swing today. 2+2=5, apparently.

That's funny b/c I was going to post 1+1=3! I'm serious.(lol)

PoC67

PS: You're more than entitled to your Thoughts/Feelings/Opinions, but debating the Issue is how we better understand one another Right? I mean Left, Right? Left, Left....Left, Right, Left.....

Man I need to Center myself! All this "marching" is making me exhausted!

Originally Posted by Tone70

Are saying it's a good idea to shoot members of congress?

Nah. That'd just be a waste of perfectly good ammo, for the most part. Congresscritters, as individuals, are pretty easily-replacable elements of the ruling structure. Unless you're talking about putting them up against the wall en masse, there's not really much point.

My impression was that you are often referring to threatening (in the sense of being perceived as a threat) civil disobedience. You know---complaining loudly and in mass, which is not the same thing as political assassination.

We've already gone over this elsewhere. The former cannot mean anything unless it is backed up by credible threat of the latter. The ruling class is perfectly willing to push their side up to, and including, the taking of your life, dissenter. You can have no leverage with them whatsoever, unless they believe that you are willing to do the same for them. So long as a ruler feels safe, he is free to do whatever he wants, to whomever he wants.

Of course, any person who is careless with his tools deserves to feel the consequences of any harm he causes thereby. Being in the right is no excuse for damaging the innocent (something I think we've also covered, over on the 'no-really-truman-wasn't-a-monster' thread).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Palin's hit map -

Simply amazing. At the very least can people admit that using targets in this manner was in bad taste, even if one concedes (for the sake of agrument, at least) that such a thing couldn't/didn't lead to what happened in AZ?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Mmmm, mmmm. Something about that is strangely . . . hot. I must admit. I am going to hell.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As someone who shares 9/11 ('68 in my case) as a birthday, and was in Battery Park City on this girl's actual birthday with my wife and infant son, I feel particularly touched by this. My God. This whole episode is just shame upon shame.

Why am I not surprised to see pw, in particular, so enthusiastically jizzing all over the corpse of an innocent child? I would ask about his sense of shame, but it was clear back during his "idiot america" days that it is lacking completely.

Partisanship is pointless at best... but sometimes we get to see it at its sickening worst. I suppose we should appreciate his service in bringing that to us.

Enough, though. Please.

Originally Posted by wiki

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]

Originally Posted by wiki

[11]^ Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; Eatwell, Roger, Fascism, A History, Viking/Penguin, 1996, pp. xvii-xxiv, 21, 26–31, 114–140, 352. Griffin, Roger. 2000. "Revolution from the Right: Fascism," chapter in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991, Routledge, London.

I know it's just the first paragraph of a wiki, but I'm a lazy leftist reader.

You guys were arguing about Nazi's (Nazi's!) being right wing, right? They were also opportunistic corporatists. Saying otherwise is silly. No counter-factuals allowed either! Yes, as winners, the Nazi's would have ultimately shot everybody, even the businessmen. But in our timeline they were totally in cahoots with German industry. Were they committed capitalists? Of course not. But then again they weren't committed to much of anything other then control and extermination. All else was a matter of convienence.

Oh, and stop baiting Odin.