tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post4293869894555317233..comments2024-03-18T17:42:24.279-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: Oppose the HateDave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-91650386006880165172012-04-03T23:38:41.063-04:002012-04-03T23:38:41.063-04:00You're assuming again I'm "right wing...You're assuming <i>again</i> I'm "right wing."<br /><br />I'm not a member of the Republican Party and haven't been so in nearly half a decade.<br /><br />Oh, and killing hippies is both hilarious as a joke and in real life.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-54121451060790510542012-03-27T19:02:06.903-04:002012-03-27T19:02:06.903-04:00Daisy,
BS through and through. Never seen one of t...Daisy,<br />BS through and through. Never seen one of them "correct" another yet. Perhaps they confuse being Right Wing with being right, as in correct. They are a cult. They are programmed to actually believe, "The left does not understand concepts such as taking responsibility for your own actions".<br /><br />There's no reasoning with either Moonies or radical Righties. Deprogramming is the only cure.<br /><br />I think they hate hippies for their freedom. ;-)Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-31180839286586280212012-03-27T16:17:48.588-04:002012-03-27T16:17:48.588-04:00F and B: And that is one major difference between ...F and B: <i>And that is one major difference between the left and the right. The conservatives are willing to step up and correct others on the right, the left does not do the same on its side. The left does not understand concepts such as taking responsibility for your own actions.</i><br /><br />Really? Let's see about that.<br /><br />On this thread: http://www.davedubya.com/2012/01/what-class-warfare.html<br /><br />Freeo352 proudly stated: "the only good hippie is a dead hippie"--which means he thinks mass murder is 1) a positive good and 2) something to joke about. (We see that in the 70s, he was likely one of the proud bullies who specialized in beating up hippies.)<br /><br />If you are serious about your comment, let's hear you CORRECT him, right here, and inform him that this language is unacceptable, addressed to anyone, ABOUT anyone, for any reason.<br /><br />You won't, since you don't think this way. <br /><br />So since your moral authority is already highly compromised, how about you save the sanctimony?<br /><br />If you DO have the guts to tell him he is wrong, my apologies... but I have no such illusions that any right-winger will do as they promise they will. <br /><br />If so, here is your chance... although in light of the arrogant moralism of that paragraph, I am pretty shocked (ha, not really) that you have not <i>already</i> corrected him for his murderous, genocidal desires. <br /><br />Why haven't you? <br /><br />Oh that's right, because what you say is BULLSHIT.Daisy Deadheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17993200276152025235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-16979903610988482502012-03-22T18:03:02.855-04:002012-03-22T18:03:02.855-04:00Ah, more fresh false equivalence thrown in here, t...Ah, more fresh false equivalence thrown in here, this time about Jews and Quakers. No difference, eh? <br /><br />let's not forget something.<br /><br />http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/05/437800/female-veterans-demand-rush-limbaughs-show-be-pulled-from-american-forces-network/<br /><br /><i>VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a letter today (March 5) from a group of female veterans calling on the American Forces Network to drop Rush Limbaugh from its programming.<br /> <br />Miranda Norman (who is a VoteVets.org Senior Advisor), Kayla Williams, and Robin Eckstein, all Iraq War Veterans, and Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, released the following statement:<br />Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform. Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other – women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect. When many of our female troops use birth control, for Limbaugh to say they are “sluts” and “prostitutes” is beyond the pale. It isn’t just disrespectful to our women serving our country, but it’s language that goes against everything that makes our military work. Again, we swore to uphold our Constitution, including the freedom of speech, and would not take that away from anyone – even Limbaugh. But that does not mean AFN should broadcast him. In fact, it shouldn’t.</i><br /><br />AFN is owned and operated by the Department of Defense, funded with taxpayer dollars.<br /><br /><i>If you don't like what the troops choose to put on their radio station, fine - but it's still not your business.</i><br /><br />Yes it is. We pay for Limbaugh on AFN, even more directly so than Catholics pay for birth control.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-25399269784313666622012-03-21T23:28:51.330-04:002012-03-21T23:28:51.330-04:00A good example here, is recent Republican "fe...A good example here, is recent Republican "feigned outrage" over Robert Di'Nero's latest fundraiser where he made a joke. Seriously? Who gives a fuck?<br /><br />Back to the point of this post, if you think the military should have media for it's troops (and it should) then it should be (duh) up to the troops what they want on the AFN network and radio. It's for their moral and welfare, not yours. Frankly, if men shouldn't have an opinion on woman's issues like abortion such as Dave has suggested then by the same logic civilians (like Dave) should have as much say as to what troops put on their radio station.<br /><br />It's not for you or I to judge and be the taste police. I don't care what Di'Nero says, <b>OR</b>Maher says. I believe in free speech. If you don't like what the troops choose to put on their radio station, fine - but it's still not your business. They put Rachel Maddow (and when he had a TV show Kieth Oberman) on it too and I don't hear your complaining about that? And there is the double standard. You're happy as a clam when troops want to hear Rachel Maddow on AFN but "Oh the OUTRAGE!" when your tax dollars that fund the troops TV network and radio syndicate Rush. Oh, and BTW, there is no advertising on AFN so it's not like anyone is getting any royalties on it. <br /><br />That's both parties these days and it's pathetic on both accounts. I can't stand feigned outrage at what people say. If you don't like it, switch channels and if you don't like what the military puts on it's radio station then go fuck yourself. If you want a vote in that head on down to your local recruiters and sign the fuck up. Till then, you don't get AFN anyway so it's none of your business.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-20941689440568038882012-03-21T00:59:38.894-04:002012-03-21T00:59:38.894-04:00assault on voting rights and women’s reproductive ...<i> assault on voting rights and women’s reproductive rights.</i> - at the <i>expense</i> of other's rights. <br /><br />Reproductive rights? No one anywhere is saying a woman can't get an abortion <i>on demand</i> or use birth control. In fact, I said I use birth control and support it's use. What we <i>said</i> was that forcing any employer, especially one that is part of a church, to <b>provide</b> birth control by forcing them to purchase a good (insurance) for an employee violates <i><b>their</b> right</i> to exercise property rights (their money and business/church) and freedom to practice religion in accordance with their beliefs. I even provided examples of other cases where exceptions are made for such a provision, such as Muslims, Jews, the Amish, and Christian Scientists. <br /><br />What you are supporting is not support of reproductive or any other right. You are supporting extorting a church of money by forcing it buy a good against it's will - more over a good that is against the teachings of said churches religion. It's no different than forcing an Amish kid to attend the 12th grad, a Quaker to join the Army, or a Jew to eat pig.<br /><br />As for voting rights, asking someone to show an ID to vote does not suppress voting rights any more so than asking a person to submit to a background check violates a person's right to keep and bare arms. You can't support one and not the other logically. Further, supporting no type of reasonable controls (such as an ID check) further aids those who commit voter fraud to continue the practice, which violates every other citizen's right to vote. <br /><br />You are for "individual rights" when it suits your purposes, but when it does not you are quick Dave to advocate trampling them.<br /><br />As for National Socialism they were for universal healthcare, gun control, abortion on demand, welfare, limiting or eliminating capitalism, state regulation, strong central government, stimulation of the economy through large public works projects, and a belief that the good of the many outweighs the rights of the individual. The core difference between the two was communists wanted these things for everyone and National Socialists wanted them for Aryans.<br /><br />Other than the minor differences on race, they are fundamentally the same. For that matter, they are similar to Liberal Democrats. Take away their fundamental evil, and still both systems collapsed because they fail economically and regardless of attempts for equitable distribution of wealth all citizens universally ended up worse off except for a small ruling clique. This is true as well for countries not fundamentally evil such as Greece. <br /><br />Socialism no matter what it's face, fails. Capitalism as both an economic system and in principle a governmental system however has created the wealthiest country on the planet and the more capitalist the country, you find the more wealthy it is.<br /><br />Last, I have proven the fallacy that there are only two extremes, Fascism and Communism. This "right left" political yard stick was the tool of Musolini and Hitler and is used today as well by Socialists to scare people into surrendering individual rights to avoid a mythical extreme. In reality totalitarianism is totalitarianism is totalitarianism no matter what name it is given or assumes. <br /><br />And as for Bill and Rush, the only difference is your hypocritical support of the one and the rejection of the other. But double think of course is requirement in collectivist thought.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-87544629759127187542012-03-20T18:31:02.529-04:002012-03-20T18:31:02.529-04:00F&B wrote:
If Limbaugh is a filthy, hateful l...F&B wrote:<br /><br /><i>If Limbaugh is a filthy, hateful liar, then so is Maher. If Maher's comments were OK, then so were Limbaugh's. There is no 'false equivalency' here (one of the left's favorite new terms).</i><br /><br />This by itself is the perfect example of a false equivalency, one of the Right’s favorite old fallacies. <br /><br />We’ve been pretty clear showing the differences between the two, just as I’ve been very clear showing the differences between Free’s false equivalency of Nazi slave labor/death camps and the US internment camps. <br /><br /><br />Explaining the false equivalency with Limbaugh, Maher told ABC News’s Jake Tapper:<br /><br /><br /><i>“He went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves. I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people “terrorist” and ‘un-American’.” The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”<br /><br />Of course, if you take out of context over 10 years snippets inside comedy bits you can make anyone look bad, and sometimes I have been, not perfect, but not misogyny. In general, this is an obvious right wing attempt to dredge up some old shit about me to deflect from their self-inflicted problems. They are the kings of false equivalencies.” </i><br /><br />I think Free disagrees with my statement that socialism is compatible with democracy, while fascism and communism are not. His sarcastic remark didn’t quite make his point. <br /><br /><i> Yes, because National Socialism (fascism) and The People's Republic of "Insert totalitarian State's Name" (communism) are democratic.</i><br /><br />As anyone with a bit of understanding knows, the National Socialism of the Nazis is about as similar to democratic socialism as the Peoples Republic of Whatever is to a republic. <br /><br />If Free could retain what he reads, or had read something to begin with, he would see my record of support of individual rights, by denouncing the Right wing assault on voting rights and women’s reproductive rights. I have condemned the degradations of our Bill of Rights by the so called Patriot Act and new FISA rules as well. I have also defended our rights to privacy from the intrusions of a wrong-headed war on drugs. <br /><br />Free must have missed those parts.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-49199303291733416892012-03-20T03:55:37.586-04:002012-03-20T03:55:37.586-04:00FandB, you offered as a closing remark the followi...<b>FandB</b>, you offered as a closing remark the following (while running away with your tail between your legs)...<br /><br />"<i>First, I don't have to prove or cite anything.</i>"<br /><br />No, you don't. I agree. Concurrently, I <i>don't have to</i> believe a word that you're saying. Since you can't back up your assertions, I can only assume they came out of your ass.<br /><br />Good riddance...Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-34739767583739906872012-03-20T03:48:35.285-04:002012-03-20T03:48:35.285-04:00Free0352, you contributed with this...
"And ...<b>Free0352</b>, you contributed with this...<br /><br />"<i>And the only one really crying here are liberals...</i>"<br /><br />Really? So you're saying conservatives haven't been wallowing in tears about their perceived mishandling of their favorite pet's offspring, Bristol?<br /><br />You haven't been paying attention.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Hypocrisy to the max yo!</i>"<br /><br />Yo, Vinnie!Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-41953696086187515012012-03-20T00:54:05.436-04:002012-03-20T00:54:05.436-04:00First, I don't have to prove or cite anything....First, I don't have to prove or cite anything. Feel free to confirm, or wallow in your own ignorance, it makes no difference to me.<br /><br />Second, you're right...er, correct, why should I bother...<br /><br />Adios.FandBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670188784974843231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-61377217347410110852012-03-19T23:48:01.326-04:002012-03-19T23:48:01.326-04:00only socialism is compatible with democracy.
Yes,...<i>only socialism is compatible with democracy.</i><br /><br />Yes, because National Socialism and The People's Republic of "Insert totalitarian State's Name" are democratic.<br /><br />Move to Cuba, and enjoy your attempts at voting. Also, your record for the support of individual rights Dave is self evident. Bottom line, you support the fiat of the collective over the rights of the individual. You will probably continue to do this till the clique who represents the "collective will of the people" steps on a right you actually give a fuck about.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-8012135069511708542012-03-19T23:42:03.965-04:002012-03-19T23:42:03.965-04:00why do you, a conservative, feel a particular need...<i>why do you, a conservative, feel a particular need to hang out at decidedly liberal blogs to prove you're right...er, correct? </i><br /><br />Why do liberal progressives always complain and scream "hate speech" every time your messed up ideas are challenged? Its funny that way, since liberals are always calling everyone who doesn't agree with you close minded and yet here were are seeking you out.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-66663637547903938502012-03-19T20:54:07.504-04:002012-03-19T20:54:07.504-04:00FandB, you countered weakly with the following...
...<b>FandB</b>, you countered weakly with the following...<br /><br />"<i>If Limbaugh is a filthy, hateful liar, then so is Maher.</i>"<br /><br />Maher is a stand-up comedian; Limbaugh is not. Big difference in delivery; big difference in audience. If you condemn Maher, you'll have to condemn <i>every</i> comedian, right (which there are few) <i>and</i> left, who single out celebrities and skewer them.<br /><br />By the way, Sandra Fluke isn't a celebrity. She's an ordinary citizen who was brought before Congress to testify -- nothing more, nothing less. <br /><br /><br />"<i>You want to condemn Bristol Palin based on your claim that she is an 'attention seeking crybaby' while ignoring the fact that Sandra Fluke is an 'attention seeking crybaby'.</i>"<br /><br />Bristol Palin contracted to dance in order to profit, and to bask in her mother's dwindling fifteen minutes of fame. As already mentioned, Sandra Fluke testified before Congress. <br /><br />I hope you can see the difference.<br /><br /><br />"<i>She [Fluke] is a plant, the interview was staged by Pelosi and her handlers, Fluke entered Georgetown with the full intent of challenging their policy towards insurance...</i>"<br /><br />You'll have to cite evidence and verifiable sources about this...meaning <i>all</i> the accusations. <br /><br />Ms. Fluke's a third-year law student at Georgetown. Are you saying she's been waiting in the wings for <i>at least two years</i> in order to challenge the university's policies? Seems highly improbably to me.<br /><br />Again, please verify your statements. Each one of them, please.<br /><br /><br />"<i>...when one side or the other has a good idea or a strong argument, the other side rejects it as a matter of course rather than giving it the meaningful, thoughtful consideration that it may deserve.</i>"<br /><br />Yes, I agree, this happens more than I would think it should. But, obviously, neither side is willing to budge because of strong personal feelings about the subject. <br /><br />But, the real question, for me anyway, is why do you, a conservative, feel a particular need to hang out at decidedly liberal blogs to prove <i>you're</i> right...er, correct? It's analogous, to me anyway, to hanging outside the doors of a synagogue, for example, and initiating arguments about the supremacy of the Catholic Church, or the infallibility of the pope. <br /><br />So, I'll ask again, why do you do it?Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-57262678384764854592012-03-19T17:14:22.149-04:002012-03-19T17:14:22.149-04:00Dubya - the answer is that lefties need to stop de...Dubya - the answer is that lefties need to stop defending other lefties and condemning the right for doing the same things, and 'ditto' on the right. Only then will we be able to open a constructive dialogue.<br /><br />If Limbaugh is a filthy, hateful liar, then so is Maher. If Maher's comments were OK, then so were Limbaugh's. There is no 'false equivalency' here (one of the left's favorite new terms). You want to condemn Bristol Palin based on your claim that she is an "attention seeking crybaby" while ignoring the fact that Sandra Fluke is an "attention seeking crybaby". (She is a plant, the interview was staged by Pelosi and her handlers, Fluke entered Georgetown with the full intent of challenging their policy towards insurance and birth control, etc. - she really was not a private person, she walked into this with her eyes wide open.)<br /><br />If it is OK for Maher to bash Bristol Palin, then it is OK for Limbaugh to bash Sandra Fluke. If Limbaugh should be condemned for his comments about Fluke, then so should Maher for his comments about Bristol Palin.<br /><br />Until both sides are willing to end the hypocrisy, rational discourse will not happen. Even when one side or the other has a good idea or a strong argument, the other side rejects it as a matter of course rather than giving it the meaningful, thoughtful consideration that it may deserve.FandBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670188784974843231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-19971141455362455392012-03-19T15:44:08.790-04:002012-03-19T15:44:08.790-04:00Fascism historically, and typically, operates as a...Fascism historically, and typically, operates as a political party at the forefront of a mass movement, or revolution designed to initiate a revolution <i>from above</i> -- as opposed to pressure exerted from below -- and as a major force in events, <i>and</i> to organize the nation upon fascist principles, such as but not limited to: (1) promoting political violence and war; (2) opposing multiple ideologies; (3) purifying the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture; and (4) utilizing paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system. To achieve its goals, fascist states, and movements, purge ideas, people, and systems thought to be the cause of decadence and degeneration. Most importantly, fascism rejects conventional democracy that is based on majority rule -- its focus being authoritarian rule, based on rule of the most qualified, rather than rule granted by the majority. <br /><br />Sure, all "revolutions' are designated the propriety of the proletariat ("working class"), where they are seeded and hatched and delivered, and it's also true that fascism was influenced by <i>both</i> left and right ideas during its inception during World War I, <b>but</b> it's the consensus of most historians that fascism is more correctly considered right-wing due to its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing equality among all. <i>That's</i> why it slides to, and dominates, the right side of the political spectrum. <br /><br />I think Lewis appropriately and accurately described how fascism will endanger and eventually engulf this nation with his earlier mentioned quotation ("<i>When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.</i>"). Sure, it's not "exactly" how things degenerated in pre-war Germany, but then history doesn't <i>always</i> repeat itself -- but <i>it sure does rhyme</i> (attributed to Mark Twain). What's developing here is, for lack of a better term, "corporate-fascism", where the state and multinationals collude and work together for the benefit of a few; to the detriment and denial of the rest. It's happening now...today...right under your unsuspecting nose. <br /><br />By the way, I applaud your attempt to insert the square peg of fascism into the round hole of communism, but no matter how much you twist and yank, push and pull, it still isn't going to fit.<br /><br />Nice try...Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-31750466008995608642012-03-19T15:38:45.989-04:002012-03-19T15:38:45.989-04:00Free,
Wow. Talk about missing the point about “car...Free,<br />Wow. Talk about missing the point about “carrying a cross”. <br /><br /><i>So according to Adolph Hitler..</i> Are you sure you want to ascribe truth to that man? <br /><br />We’re not using Hitler’s words to find truth. We are using his words an example of the metaphor. <br /><br />Yet you confirm my position, over and over, that politicians will say anything. Like this, “Which party opposes Big Government... well at least says it does?” <br /><br />Exactly. They SAY that...as they claim authority to monitor every uterus, and demand “Papers, please”, and set up highway checkpoints, demand urine samples, kick in doors of medical cannabis shops and users, and intercept all electronic communications of Americans, allow law enforcement the legalized piracy of “property forfeiture” without conviction, etc. The list goes on, doesn’t it? You still want to believe those guys? Step right up, raise your right hand, and take your “loyalty oath”. <br /><br />In your rush to equate socialism, communism and fascism you ignore the most significant factor. Of the three, only socialism is compatible with democracy. <br /><br />Democratic socialism is the moderate way between the extremes of fascism and communism.<br /><br />Fascism and communism are in direct opposition to the principles of democracy. Kind of like the Republican Party. In a contest between rich and poor, the rich will win every time with their Republican Party in power. Why? Because their guiding principle is expanding wealth at the top and empowering those elites, while stripping public services and undermining democratic principles. In other words, minority rule, like fascism and communism. <br /><br /><i>The basic issue is not “rich versus poor,”</i> It is when the GOP/corpodems are in power. One side loses. The other gains. <br /><br />Fascism benefits the insider elites. Communism benefits the insider elites. Corporatist unregulated capitalism benefits the insider elites. Democratic socialism benefits most citizens. That is historical fact. <br /><br />Fascist death camps and slave labor camps do not equate with the US internment camps. The purpose was different. The treatment was different. The medical care was different. The hope of release was different. Ask a survivor if they “equate”. <br /><br />----<br />F&B,<br />What is it with you guys? You trust and believe the words of Marx and Hitler? <br /><br />It’s ok for anyone to say almost anything about politicians. What’s your problem with that? Obama was called a terrorist at a Palin rally. She seemed to welcome that kind of talk. If what is said was ignorant, hateful or a lie, then it should be called out as such.<br /><br />You still refuse to see the difference between a liar using the public airwaves to call a private person a slut and a comedian saying things about established cash hungry media figures on a pay channel or in concert. The Palins really are attention seeking crybabies. Boo hoo. <br /><br />Which one do you think that children could have more easily heard? Limbaugh or Maher? There’s no equivalency, and no outrage form the bastions of hypocrisy. This is what you sound like. “What, Rush said something bad? Let’s slam Maher, and defend Sarah Palin.” <br /><br />Maher said the little Dancing Queen with the Stars was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”<br /><br />Crass, but true. Unlike Limbaugh. He’s a filthy hateful liar. But that’s not so bad, if you’re a Republican. <br /><br />Right?Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-74664852494017506332012-03-19T13:49:34.844-04:002012-03-19T13:49:34.844-04:00Very well said Free0352. Karl Marx himself said th...Very well said Free0352. Karl Marx himself said that communism is the ultimate goal of socialism.<br /><br />Dubya quoting F&B: "It is peculiar that you would blast the right wingers who think Obummer is Muslim. Why do you think he isn't? Because he said so?" --> Sorry, that was a set-up. I knew you would take that statement out of context. Thanks for being consistent and predictable. My point was: "I don't think he's Christian or Muslim or anything else. He is such a narcissist that he appears to worship only himself."<br /><br />But, since you brought up Sarah Palin, and you think it is OK for democrats to say whtever vile, hate filled comments about her that they want. Do you also think it is OK that the left wingers preyed viciously on Bristol Palin too? And on Sarah's special needs son, Trig? Why is it perfectly OK to the lefties that Sarah Palin's children were brutally attacked by other left wingers? Bristol Palin has written an open letter to Obama that was posted at the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/19/bristol-palin-to-president-obama-i-look-forward-to-your-call-sir/<br /><br />Just in case anyone is interested in hearing the view of a young conservative girl who was subjected to numerous and repeated attackes from the left. (Many of which were based in the left wing notion that Bristol should have aborted her baby rather than carrying it to term.)<br /><br />Shaw: "Taking the morning after pill to abort a fertilized ovum is NOT killing a "baby."" --> I believe that it is. The 'morning after' pill has the potential to terminate a unique human life.FandBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670188784974843231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-44329055961354748522012-03-19T11:20:31.373-04:002012-03-19T11:20:31.373-04:00It seems to me Liberal Progressives are trying to ...It seems to me Liberal Progressives are trying to revive that old re-World War II vintage notion that the two “extremes,” are: fascism versus communism.<br /><br />The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. That notion is the tool of totalitarianism. <br /><br />In the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.<br /><br />It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up -as opposites- two variants of the same political system: It eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?” thus establishing statism as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice — according to the proponents of that fraud — is: A dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).<br /><br />That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory and that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that people are rightless slaves of the state, dependent on the state, and have a duty to the state. <br /><br />Both Communism and Socialism are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders. Under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique. Fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left” just as communism is. The basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government — which means: capitalism versus socialism. That is the "Big Lie" of the left. It is not rich vs poor but man vs Big Government. <br /><br />Which party opposes Big Government... well at least says it does?free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-21249191755230344822012-03-19T10:52:01.799-04:002012-03-19T10:52:01.799-04:00If you want to play the quote game, he also said-
...If you want to play the quote game, he also said-<br /><br /><i>"We don`t say to the rich `Give to the poor`, we say `German people, help each other`. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there`s someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman. The State must enforce this, it is a German moral imperative."</i><br /><br />Oh, and it gets better. Remember, Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse.<br /><br /><i>"In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.</i>"<br /><br />So Hitler wasn't a fan of Capitalism. I'm pretty sure our Republican friends preach it like dogma. But let me continue.<br /><br /><i>"The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. <br />If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.</i>"<br /><br />So according to Adolph Hitler, the fundamental difference between communist socialism and national socialism (Nazism) is race. That's about it. Both are socialist movements. Funny how both of those ended up... with a huge pile of dead people.<br /><br /><i>We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.</i><br /><br />Damn, Hitler sounds like he should be speaking at an OWS camp out here...<br /><br />So forgive me, but if I must choose between the lesser of two evils, I tend to choose the Republican evil, since it sounds about as far away from these Hitler ideas (let alone Stalin's) as can be found. After all, I'm about as opposite from Hitler as can be... being one of those damn Ayn Rand'ers.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-74391891880010295452012-03-18T17:29:21.648-04:002012-03-18T17:29:21.648-04:00Free,
The first facet of the fascism quote that yo...Free,<br />The first facet of the fascism quote that your argument has ignored is the part about fascism coming to America. Italy and Germany are other places in another time.<br /><br />We had our own American fascists who took to Hitler's ideas over FDR's. (Spare us the Internment camps false equivalency. Vile as they may have been, they were not for slave labor or genocide.)<br /><br />Your arguments are also not on firm ground for another reason.<br /><br />You are offering a literal argument, of loose historical narrative at that, against a metaphor.<br /><br />Let me show you an example of how that metaphor was once realized.<br /><br /><i>"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." </i><br /><br />American politicians sound just like this guy. (He-who-must-not-be-named.)<br /><br />The fear and complacency that has been induced by a "war on terror" mentality could someday submit us to martial law and other “State of Emergency” suppression.<br /><br />Fascism. It can’t happen here? <br /><br />It is amusing to see the near panic on the extremist fringe over a phantom shroud of communism, while the spirit of fascism demanded "loyalty oaths" to hear the president speak, kicks in peaceful citizens’ doors looking for politically incorrect plants, tells people for no good reason to pee in a cup, has suppressed voter turnout and registration, took us into an unprovoked war, and is now demanding, "Papers, please," at checkpoints on the highways.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-24595542160960631512012-03-18T16:31:39.498-04:002012-03-18T16:31:39.498-04:00ooh ooh... I missed F&B's rejoiner
//An a...ooh ooh... I missed F&B's rejoiner<br /><br />//An argument that is based on a lie as its foundation can never be a correct or accurate assessment of the truth.//<br /><br />.... but FBee... an argument that is based in bullshit can never be construed as anything but bullshit....and making it an assessment of the truth is ...well...still bullshit.<br /><br />you still have this sanctimonious attitude that you and only you have a lock on the truth... wich is bullshit.okjimmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11013002335848390765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-72140468613317286112012-03-18T15:59:41.576-04:002012-03-18T15:59:41.576-04:00Of course! Although, even a single red blood cell ...<i>Of course! Although, even a single red blood cell also meets the scientific definition of "life". It's also true that DNA testing will reveal, with 100% certainty, whether a red blood cell is (from a) human...or from any particular or specific hominoid, or canine, or feline, or...(fill in blank) </i><br /><br />Yes, and if I were to destroy your red blood cells via poison I would be guilty of assault or murder depending on how many I killed. Since an abortion kills all the cells a fetus or zygote has, clearly that life is ending. That life isn't a part of the mother, as again a DNA test will clearly prove with 100% accuracy that the human inside the mother is unique from her.<br /><br />You can argue about the morality of a given abortion but you can't argue logically it isn't killing a human. Science doesn't back that up.<br /><br />As for italian fascism it all ended up swasticas in the end - after Hitler took over Italy. And as for the flag, you admit yourself the German Workers party took down their national flag and replaced it with THEIR flag... the party flag. Right after that swasticas were replacing crosses and churches were being nationalized. You can see it to this day in Germany, where the nazi symbols have had to be cut away from the stone on the cathedrals and local churches that survived the war. The Nazis carried a cross all right, the swastica not the crucifix.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-69644019449058201742012-03-18T09:57:32.332-04:002012-03-18T09:57:32.332-04:00"I understand that you do not believe that a ..."I understand that you do not believe that a zygote is a human. I believe that it is. Other forms of preventive birth control are up to the user. But don't tell me I have to pay for them through subsidizing insurance premiums. I refuse to do so."I<br /><br />Millions and millions of US taxpayers subsidize thing they do not like or believe in. Why is your cause more important than say someone who is religiously opposed to war? Or capital punishment? Those are the taking of human life, and we've learned that it is not unusual to have a non-guilty person killed by the state in a capital punishment case. We also know that in any sort of war or conflict women, pregnant women, babies, and children are killed. I've never seen the passion against war and capital punishment that I see against abortion. I have to take away from that the possibility that a lot of the anti-abortion rage is probably about anti-women's sexual freedom. There's an element of wanting women to pay for their sexual freedom in this, and Rick Santorum, who is against birth control, has revealed this.<br /><br />Taking the morning after pill to abort a fertilized ovum is NOT killing a "baby." Using that rhetoric diminishes your point.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-33969877417067299052012-03-18T09:00:26.238-04:002012-03-18T09:00:26.238-04:00Free0352 incorrectly claimed...
"...when it ...<b>Free0352</b> incorrectly claimed...<br /><br />"<i>...when it came to Italy and Germany it wasn't wrapped in anything other than the party flag and it took crosses down and replaced them with swasticas [sic] in the name of the poor Italian and German worker/farmer...</i>"<br /><br />After Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s, a swastika was incorporated into the Nazi party flag, which was made the State Flag of Germany. The Nazis used the swastika as a symbol of an alleged, and superior, Aryan race. <br /><br />As for fascist Italy under Mussolini, the symbol of fascism was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_symbolism" rel="nofollow">fasces</a> -- <i>not</i> the swastika. the fasces is a bundle of sticks featuring an axe, indicating the power over life and death. Interestingly, even to this day, the symbol continues to appear on the seal of the U.S. Senate.<br /><br />If you're going to try to give a history lesson, could you please at least make it factually correct? As far as the quotation attributed to Sinclair Lewis, I'm more apt to go along with the wisdom of a Nobel Laureate than the meandering musings of a foot soldier.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-33411152168015702842012-03-18T08:25:34.769-04:002012-03-18T08:25:34.769-04:00Free0352 mentioned...
"Even that zygote meet...<b>Free0352</b> mentioned...<br /><br />"<i>Even that zygote meets the scientific definition of life, and any DNA test will reveal with 100% certainty that the life is human.</i>"<br /><br />Of course! Although, even a single red blood cell <i>also</i> meets the scientific definition of "life". It's also true that DNA testing will reveal, <i>with 100% certainty</i>, whether a red blood cell is (from a) human...or from <i>any</i> particular or specific hominoid, or canine, or feline, or...(fill in blank) <br /><br />It's <i>all</i> "life".Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.com