Beers With Demo is one of the Self-Proclaimed Right Wing Extremist™ Blogs (as found on my (Truth Before Dishonor) side-bar). And it is proven by a recent article.
Dean notes the liberals despise the fanatical religious fanatics who are trying to take over and destroy their version of the new US. Those idiotic fanatical religious extremists of the … Democrat Party???
“I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement.He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation — enough to derail the bill.
That felt so good, we may need a smoke.
More over there.
But isn’t it interesting the Party of Pelosi, Reid (and Obama), which is so far to the left of the left-field foul pole has some social conservatives in its midst? And we Conservatives are told to drop that in order to become electable? Obviously you’re not smoking the same thing Dean is. You’re on something much, much stronger.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor
I love that you’re calling Obama an ultra-left, so far out there, radical, extremist beyond-liberal liberal. The boy is crying wolf, and when we have an actual liberal, and not a centrist to run, your cries will mean nothing to the undecideds.
Obama isn’t a liberal or a leftist, he’s a Stalinist, straight up and flat out. Obama hates liberals, he sees them as wishy-washy fools uncommitted to the struggle for Marxism, unwilling to do the bloody wet work required, and too rich and too complacent to get off their pampered backsides. (These are the “useful idiots” scheduled to be viciously eliminated once they are no longer needed.)
Notice the surge in violence since Obama came on the scene, like the extreme vitriol directed at Sarah Palin and her young daughters. Notice the emboldening of thugs, from SEIU to the New Black Panthers. The intimidation of white voters at the polls caught on camera red-handed, yet all charges dropped by Obama’s Department of In-Justice.
Obama cultivated a much closer relationship with the two violent murderers — Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn — than he was ever willing to acknowledge. Nor have Obama’s enablers in government controlled media stirred themselves to examine the truth, although it’s right in front of them. They don’t look because they already know what’s there, lies, corruption, deception, and criminal enterprise.
Ayres and Dohrn, the demented 60′s homegrown terrorists never recanted their bloodthirsty actions bombing and maiming, urging white kids to go home and kill their parents, all in praise of fellow mass murderer Charles Manson. Ayers dedicated his self-congratulatory book to Sirhan Sirhan, convicted killer of Robert F Kennedy.
Consider Obama’s mentor the Communist, Frank Marshall Davis, who actually detailed the sexual domination and degradation of an underage white girl, the daughter of his long-time white “friend,” in his book called “Sex Rebel: Black.” Davis didn’t publish it under his own name, but he detailed his sexual exploitation proudly, and revealed himself in the process.
Obama isn’t as far left as it’s possible to go, but he’s well within the Red glow of Stalin, Lenin, and Mao. Obama’s fondest hope is earn the privilege of joining his heroes by delivering the USA into the slavery of Communism. If he does, he’ll have earned his place in hell.
I don’t think I’d call Obama and “ultra-leftist,” but he’s definitely a liberal. He’s as pro-choice as any candidate for national office we’ve seen, he’s a vocal proponent of “economic justice” and redistribution of wealth, he wants a single payer health care system and he wants to heavily tax industries such as coal and transportation to (a) force environmental alternatives and (b) raise revenue to pay for his giveaways.
Yea I found that to be an interesting post myself.
Obama isn’t a liberal or a leftist, he’s a Stalinist, straight up and flat out
Come now – are you sure he’s not some sort of reptile from Beta Crucis? Why not rant about him being here to steal the world’s water and eat small babies?
You’re a demented paranoid loon. Please, keep going.
He’s not even a Liberal, in my opinion. Hell, hardly anything has changed since the most radical right-wing extremist in this country’s history, George W. Bush, came along, started wars based on lies, adopted policies like torture (“for our own safety’ CRAP), eliminating habeas corpus, using our airwaves for propaganda, lying and lying and lying. You are out of your friggin’ mind if you believe Pelosi and Obama are Liberal.
Phooy,
My opinion of Obama isn’t hidden, or written in Chinese. There’s no mention of reptiles or baby eaters. Your sarcastic remarks add nothing to the topic, and are so transparently mean-spirited they would be inappropriate on any elementary school playground. Grow up.
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History by Thom Hartmann
The 70th anniversary wasn’t noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago – February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world. It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack.
The 70th anniversary wasn’t noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago – February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation’s leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn’t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language – reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state – and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he’d joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn’t know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation’s most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion – “a sign from God,” he called it – to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader’s flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation – in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it – that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn’t had time to read the bill before voting on it.
Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public – and there were many – quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police’s batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader’s public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a “racial pride” among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as “The Homeland,” a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl’s famous propaganda movie “Triumph Of The Will.” As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the “true people,” he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation’s concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it’s of little concern to us.
Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn’t act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a “New Christianity.” Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared “Gott Mit Uns” – God Is With Us – and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation’s leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome “intellectuals” and “liberals.” He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.
He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, “Radio and press are at out disposal.” Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation’s leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public’s recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people “denounced” were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out – a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn’t enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation’s largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.
With his number two man – a master at manipulating the media – he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation’s most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe – at first – denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar’s Rome or Alexander’s Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader’s new first-strike doctrine would bring “peace for our time.” Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, “Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.”
To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn’t think they’d succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only “one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief” (“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled “anti-German” or “not good Germans,” and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation’s valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the “intellectuals and liberals” who were critical of his policies.
Nonetheless, once the “small war” annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn’t enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class’s way of life.
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany’s first experiment with democracy.
As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.
February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe’s successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine’s “Man Of The Year.”
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency’s initials: the SS.
We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named “lightning war” or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable “shock and awe” among the nation’s leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book “Shock And Awe” published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler’s close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: “fas-cism (fbsh’iz’em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it’s useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.
Germany’s response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society’s richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism – The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
The above two posts are just some revisiting of high school social studies. You all did finish high school….?
One thing Hitler didn’t have to do was proactively use a word like “nazi” so often that it leeched the term of its real meaning.
Beck and O’Reilly and others have been hard at work at it, and the right can no longer see the frightening parallels between what has happened, and what so many people are trying to do here and now.
They don’t even believe fascism is a right wing phenomenon. “Fascism” is simply a generic insult now.
NAZI= National Socialist Worker’s Party, that sure doesn’t sound like a bunch of right-of-center guys going out for a beer to me.
It’s easy to tell the Fascists, they’re the ones bashing citizens for expressing their opinions at Town Hall meetings, they’re the ones trying to install Death Panels, and they’re the guys attempting to silence news outlets who don’t bow down and worship at the feet of Teh One.
Words always fool you, ropelight? Remember what East Germany was called, by its own communist government?
Fools don’t fool me.
ropelight:“My opinion of Obama isn’t hidden, or written in Chinese. There’s no mention of reptiles or baby eaters. Your sarcastic remarks add nothing to the topic, and are so transparently mean-spirited they would be inappropriate on any elementary school playground. Grow up.”
Folks, ignore this person, because this person ropelight is not interested in discussing anything, he/she is just throwing out bait! Same with John Hitchcockamania. These people are pathetic.
My opinion of Obama isn’t hidden, or written in Chinese.
Calling Obama a “Stalinist” shows that your opinion is worth about as much as a German Mark, circa December 1923. You expose your ignorance in public, and in so doing, make yourself a laughing-stock.
Sorry Perry, I’m not here to babysit you. If you can’t support your comments, it’s your problem, not mine.
Phooy, if you don’t think Obama is a Stalinist, then say what you do think, I did. Calling me names isn’t an argument. BTW, what’s up with your obsession with NAZIs. You lookin’ to pick up some tips on dealing with opponents?
Phooy, if you don’t think Obama is a Stalinist, then say what you do think, I did.
Yes, we know. The thing you don’t understand is that what you said shows just how little you think. If you had any sense, you’d be embarrassed at how stupid the remark was.
BTW, what’s up with your obsession with NAZIs.
Brief clue – referring to the German Mark in 1923 has nothing to do with Nazis.
Phooy, you must be a product of the modern public education system.
It’s not often I encounter someone as arrogant, aggressive, and ill informed as you. Rather than explain your point of view, or demonstrate the shortcomings of mine, you persist in childish personal attacks. You have yet to make a cogent point. Poor show.
As for your other ignorant remark: if you think German post WW-1 monetary policy had “nothing” to do with the discontent which gave rise to the National Socialist Worker’s Party, then you should get yourself a library card, and use it.
Rather than explain your point of view, or demonstrate the shortcomings of mine, you persist in childish personal attacks. You have yet to make a cogent point.
Apart from pointing out that calling Obama a ‘Stalinist” displays a breath-taking ignorance?
As for your other ignorant remark: if you think German post WW-1 monetary policy had “nothing” to do with the discontent which gave rise to the National Socialist Worker’s Party, then you should get yourself a library card, and use it.
Nice attempt to change the goalposts, idiot. Comparing the value of your opinion to a 1923 German Mark has nothing to do with Nazis, and your attempt to bring them into the conversation only further displays your ignorance.
blubonet forgets Congress voted “yes” on Iraq.
Uh-hum.
The remnants of our problem, after boiling and reducing to a single element, is partisanship. We enjoy sparring with each other, it’s a way to pass the time, but the real problem with government is our willingness to be led along partisan lines. When the sparring leaves a bruise, we are angry. There is good on each side, there is bad, but we can’t seem to figure out a way to include good ideas from “the other side of the aisle.” Our dialogue is wrong. We need to shed the partisan puss secreted by “leadership.” We are led along party lines because we can’t stop arguing with each other. We are not Bohnner and Pelosi. We should remember a simple fact. We are the People. We have a voice, and our voice is a collective bleat.
Phooy, I called Obama a Stalinist because the shoe fits. He acts like one, he surrounds himself with communist Czars, he’s out to silence dissenting opinion, and he’s trying to destroy our free market economy. I didn’t make him a Stalinist, he did.
Obama strong-armed Honduras, he sucks up to dictators, bows to Islamic potentates, and he turned his back on Eastern Europe. That’s not all.
Obama sat on his hands while US troops were being killed in Afghanistan. He dithered while our boys died. Now, that the election here is over, he just might be able to bring himself to some sort of half-measure, which leaves the troops exposed but keeps him warm at home and safe from criticism from leftist nutcases.
That’s not leadership, that’s not what the voters expected when he said Afghanistan was a necessary war. Obama is an embarrassment to the USA and he should resign.
Nangleator wrote:
“Fascism” or “Fascist” tend to be terms thrown around by sophomores: they are terms far more frequently used by people who’ve heard that they’re bad things, but who really have no deeper historical understanding of what the terms mean.
blubonnet:
The above two posts are just some revisiting of high school social studies. You all did finish high school….?
I finished HS and then some, but I studied History without a Social Slant.
And I’m sure the twin walls-o-text that took me forever to scroll past were some sort of copyright violation, ya know?
And did I finish hs? Heh, National Honor Society, toots. And a 2k/yr academic scholarship to a private Christian college (Malone College) (but I still ran out of funds). 31 composite on the ACT (34, 33, 29, 29) before they moved from 35 to 36 and dumbed down the test. Put that in your smipe and poke it, toots.
Phooy, I called Obama a Stalinist because the shoe fits. He acts like one, he surrounds himself with communist Czars, he’s out to silence dissenting opinion, and he’s trying to destroy our free market economy. I didn’t make him a Stalinist, he did.
No, he is not, you ignorant fool.
You forget that under the last administration, the Executive gained the power to declare any person – American citizen or not – an “enemy combatant” attheir own discretion and disappear them off without recourse to habeus corpus. If Obama was a “Stalinist”, he’d be using this power to really silence dissent. Glenn Beck, Fox News, tea-baggers – all detained and shipped off somewhere. He has the power to do it because Bush/Chaney wanted that power.
He does not do so. What you are spouting is paranoid nonsense with no bearing on reality.
You are a complete fool.
Harrison:
blubonet forgets Congress voted “yes” on Iraq.
Yes, Harrison, everyone was lied to by Bush. I was duped as well. So. Trusting our president, is what we should be able to do. How egregious that lie was, and how tragic the end result.
Not to mention the implementation of policies that came out of Nazi, Germany, like torture, spying on citizens, invading countries, bombing innocent people from the air. Yet, you all are more inclined to be peeved, not for those things, but (gasp) Universal Health Care. Never mind that many other countries around the world have it and live in peace, and health. What the hell do you all think tyranny is? Oh, that’s right, health care for all. The tyranny, and power control over health care from insurance companies don’t bother you.
Dana, the fellow, Laurence Britt, has a doctorate in political science. HE knows what fascism is. Other definitions will align with the definition as well. It is the fusion of corporate power with government. What we have in this country is a government that has been bought by corporate power. The Republicans are far far worse than the Dems.
An example I could give, is a scene from C-SPAN. A Dem was proposing oversight on the funds being given to Halliburton, since there had been such outrageous fraud and waste by them. EVERY Republican voted against it. That is only one example. At least there are some Dems that are working for the people of the United States.
Hey, blu, in case you missed it, I called you out over here.
And, heck, blu, I spanked you around on this one right here, too.
And, Dana, as is mentioned in the above piece by Lawrence Britt…
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each.
No, it is not mindless statement to acknowledge the fascism that exists in this country, sadly.
Blu, never let the facts get in the way of your paranoia. That’s a good girl. Never let the facts get in the way of your BDS. That’s a good girl. Never let the facts get in the way of your claim the MSM is conservative. That’s a good girl. Never let copyright law get in the way of your walls-o-text. That’s a good girl. Never let my daughter’s facts get in the way of your hatred for our military. That’s a good girl.
Speaking of fascism, which more than anything else is corporate power controlling politics, FreedomeWorks is merely an operation funded by the insurance companies, who put the whole cartoonish teabaggers up to their “protest”. It was just a way to dumb you all down, and think tyranny will follow.
“Oh my goodness! I just found out every news outlet is owned by a business!!! That means every news outlet is evil incarnate!!elventy!!“!!11!”
Earth to blu, anti-corporatism is commie talk, plain and simple.
Facts, I’m afraid you are too oblivious to know what it takes to verify a fact. The Dr. of Political Science has a better idea than you. Poor John.
Earth to blu, using the blue enuendo wins you absolutely zero integrity points.
I won’t be talking to cartoon characters. See ya.
blu, you’ve said ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN and the like are all right-wing propaganda machines because they’re corporate enterprises. Don’t back out of your leftist wingnut declaration now. And you’re totally avoiding the info at the thread header for your convenience.
How about this, blu? You’re a gay man trapped in a woman’s body and you know it. That isn’t at all over the top, is it?
John, YOU have said you will not look at any of my links I would leave here. You don’t believe me. You won’t look at any credible sources. You apparently KNOW EVERYTHING, which makes you worthless to have a conversation with. You won’t even consider expanding your mind. The Right wing gets proven as liars over and over and over, supporting corporate agendas, not the peoples’. Why should I waste my time even discussing anything with you? I don’t much respect you either. You don’t care about our country really. You are like Rush Limbaugh, who said he wants Obama to fail. It’s just a football game to you. Not about human beings’ lives. People die all around the world from United States Republican policies. You don’t give a damn. People die in this country from Republican policies. You don’t give a damn. Just pump out more FOX lies, and call it a touchdown.
Incidentally it has recently been shown that FOX lied about the surge in their ratings after Obama declared the bullshitters. What do ya know? They then bullshit about their ratings. You are a chump. Over and over you show that. I’m sorry.
blu, YOU have said you will not look at any of my links I would leave here. You don’t believe me. You won’t look at any credible sources. You apparently KNOW EVERYTHING, which makes you worthless to have a conversation with. You won’t even consider expanding your mind.
Just throwing out insults shows immaturity.
Another thing, just because your daughter had a different experience (I’m glad for her) than other soldiers that were there, does NOT mean that the other soldiers were lying. That is such an obvious fact, I find it astonishing you would be so childish to proclaim it, not to mention disrespectful to the other soldiers.
I have looked at your links, but more often than not, you only point to more comments by John Hitchcock. I’d consider them honestly if they were from credible sources.
And, blu, you know for a fact your use of “teabagger” is an outright filthy hate-filled dysphemism and yet you continue to use it instead of actually trying something new, like honesty and integrity, you filthy cross-gendered male homosexual.
And for the record, I am a woman. If I was gay, I would not be ashamed of it, but I’m not.
And, please, blu, my links to “myself” are links to link-surfing expos. And they are clearly not the only links I provide. It is amazing you can even say that on this thread, when 3 out of the 4 links I provided went somewhere other than “myself” and the one that did was specifically saying I cross-posted.
In baseball, 1 out of 4 is fair-to-middlin, but in school that is a dismal failure.
Now, the conversation is one scintilla above shooting spit wads, as in jr. high school.
I’ve been nothing but honest. Angry, at times, but honest.
I already told you, blu, you’re a man in a woman’s body, and you’re a gay man at that, and you are a cross-dresser. Besides, you have a secret wish to be Leif Garrett’s love interest.
Am I being over the top? No more so than your “teabagger” bovine byproduct.
You’ve been nothing approaching honest.
Telll me what I said that is dishonest. I will not care, unless you are willing to look at my sources, as to why I HONESTLY believe what I do. I’m not a liar! You, maybe unknowingly, are.
blu, you have rejected the truth; therefore, you cannot believe anything but the lie. In such, you cannot be honest because honesty requires truth.
And the fact you use a hate-filled blue enuendo-style dysphemism in your everyday lingo means you have absolutely no understanding of compassion, either.
And, since it’s past 1am for you, isn’t it past time for you to go to bed (as you so authoratively told me elsewhere)?
Time to laugh….
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3rbl3_the-physics-of-santa-clause_crea...
This is the same as NIST’s explanation of the twin towers pulverization, AND the “logic” you present.
Blu, it’s time for you to go back to your teabagging, since you love teabagging ever so much.
Hey, did you watch the little clip. You will laugh! You can even ignore all else, and just put yourself in a good mood. Tell me you watched it. You’ll want to send it around to friends too.
blu, like you said, I already stated I will not follow your outrageous factually void links as there is no truth to be found there. Now be a good little girl and go to bed.
Open note to Dana:
This thread marks an unfortunate deterioration in the quality of the CSPT blog.
This is not to say that there were not some intelligent comments made here, but there are several commenters here whose sole purpose is to bait their adversaries with outrageous, unsubstantiated statements and name calling.
I am not suggesting censorship of any kind, however, I do think more control should be exercised over one of the originators, who is overwhelming us with mostly inconsequential nonsense, in my view. Limiting him to one topic per week would be most welcome.
Perry, thank you for helping prove my point. When I use the same tactics as some of the leftist commentators around here, you get offended and you get authoritarian. Yet you never call out the leftists who use those tactics.
Yeah, John, and you bring us pieces that claim “Liberals have no morals” as an example (untrue, but as are both sides-equally imperfect). An insult as a title for example, arrogance, asking for it, typical.
Everyone would love the clip. It really is NOT political. I put a political statement under the link, in keeping with conversation, but the clip is funny for everyone.
Wasting our lives financially underwriting the costs of your dysfunction by force of governmental decree …
DNW, look back at the Republican policies of the past eight years that made the wealthy much wealthier, and the poor more abundant.
Watch the little clip I left. You’ll smile.
In the last sentence I left, I said “poor more abundant.” By that I meant MORE poor people, not more abundance for the poor.
And of course, the huge sucking noise of the war contractors, under Bush making it that way.
If ever you get a chance to watch a non-partisan movie called “Iraq for Sale”, you should. If you care about the US treasury, meaning OUR money, please google it up and watch it. I’m assuming you really do care about THAT over partisan points, don’t you?
Open note Dana:
Please ignore Perry, who says he isn’t “suggesting censorship of any kind,” and then says “more control should be exercised over one of the originators” and then offers his own prescription for restricting access on your blog.
Perry’s blatant hypocrisy comes from the same guy who denounces “several commenters here whose sole purpose is to bait their adversaries with outrageous, unsubstantiated statements and name calling.” Yet, Perry is, of course, the same guy who this week referred to “arrogant absolutist ideologues” and to “right wing purists otherwise known as wingnuts.” Apparently calling names is fine for Perry when he’s dishing it out, but not when he’s on the receiving end.
Such breath taking hypocrisy isn’t unusual among the self-appointed overseers of the public’s morals and ethics, they delight in denying to others what they reserve for themselves. I’d say what they’re called, but Perry might try to get control over my comments or limit my freedom of expression.
PS: That new guy John is doing yeoman’s work. 2 flashes.
Perry wrote:
I’m uncertain how “I am not suggesting censorship of any kind” and “Limiting him to one topic per week would be most welcome” work together.
When I started CSPT, I thought that Ken and I would pretty much be the sole bloggers. I invited Art Downs to add a few articles, which he did, then Yorkshire and Eric. I have never limited what they can post, and have no intention of doing so.
The freedom of speech does not, however, include the right to have anyone listen to you. The fact is that we really don’t listen to the vast majority of speech that exists out there. I hope this isn’t perceived as rude, but it seems to me that if you don’t want to read something by a particular person, the right way to do it is not to read it, far more than to ask me not to allow it to be posted.
I’d like to point out here that hosting this site does not mean that I must, inter alia, agree with everything that the main article writers post. The most obvious example would be Art’s articles in support of capital punishment, which I oppose. Private Pigg notified me of an article on his too-unappreciated site, and I asked him if he wanted me to link it or whether he wanted to cross-post it; he chose the latter, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it entirely. I’ve had some (slight) disagreement with a couple of things Sharon has posted.
Actually, the only person with whom I agree 100% of the time is me! And maybe not even me.
So be it Dana!
Stellar attitude, Dana.
How are we to know by the way where the lies emerge from? Or on what credentials is fact validated as a fact? If not links, in which the money from the back, on upwards gets the so called “story”. Often which benefits a particular organization, as you know. Industries are the money machines that control our thoughts, of which suck the peepees of Congress people, then the treasury. Also, they control television, because they own it, big industries of many sorts, more dangerous is the military industrial complex, of which Eisenhower warned so ominously of.
Seriously, on what criteria should one use to validate a truth or falsehood? How will any of us know, unless we share our sources regularly and all of us willingly put our preconceptions aside? I think we will all find through our lives that our preconceptions were not necessarily true after all.
But when time and time again, a source is recognized as conveying untruths, as FOX frequently does, when does one wise up? In fact their ratings going up after Obama’s dissing them, also a lie, if you check out the Nielson ratings.
Frankly, our government, sorry but mostly under R’s in recent years, the lying was as thick, dense as theives, which, if you do some research will conclude, yes thieves, that hide behind the cover of patriotism and the incapacity of humanity to fathom its level of soulless acts of aquisition, as hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in their multi-tentacled creature, the power infected in branches of government as far as one could imagine. Please recognize The 14 Characteristics of Fascism, which is posted above, and if you want to be pissed at Obama, okay, but why not clobber verbally his political position, by pointing out his unwillingness, to take action reversing the things Bush did?
Also, the historical account of how Hitler came into power, the incidents sequentially, the piece right next to it, is invaluable. Be honest with yourselves. What does actual tyranny look like?
ropelight doesn’t like this:“…“several commenters here whose sole purpose is to bait their adversaries with outrageous, unsubstantiated statements and name calling.” Yet, Perry is, of course, the same guy who this week referred to “arrogant absolutist ideologues” and to “right wing purists otherwise known as wingnuts.””
I stand by my characterizations of your comments as being accurate without hyperbole. And note well, I mentioned no names/monikers.
I was not reacting to my being called names, ropelight, but to yours and John’s incessant abrasive, polarizing, and unsubstantiated rhetoric aimed at several other posters on here who don’t happen to agree with you, and who give plenty of substantive information to back up their positions, therefore I plead innocent to your allegation of hypocrisy.
I personally don’t care if you choose to call me names, but I reserve the right to call attention to them and push back, just as you have done here yourself. If you don’t like that and can’t take it, then you should not be on here!
Hey, Perry, give me citations of all your false accusations which I won’t look at anyway and I’ll never acknowledge you gave. Because you just made that stuff up.
Well said, Perry.
So now, is John Hitchcock’s next statement going to be followed by a “nyah-nyah-nah-nah-nah” ?
nyah-nyah-nah-nah-nah, nope preceded by it.
[edit: and it took me a bit to get it written out correctly, doesn't "sing" at all.]
Perry, your hypocrisy is boundless, and your ability to reason is nonexistent. But, wait, stick with me, there’s hope.
Your claim you were, “not reacting to (you) being called names” that you were only calling for censorship as a way of protecting “several other posters” is nothing less than a childish attempt to evade personal responsibility, trying to cover your sorry ass. You know full well censorship is wrong, but since you intend to silence criticism of Obama, you tried to hide your shame behind the pretense of protecting others. That’s cowardly Perry, and your claim to innocence doesn’t pass the smell test.
What you really want to do is take a shot at me, you don’t like my calling Obama a Stalinist. It eats at your guts, because you know it’s true. Well, you got a problem, pal. You can face it now or face it later, but no matter how many phony claims you make, or how many names you call, the facts are there for all to see. Obama is running the US economy into the ground to set the stage for tyranny.
The American people see it, and they’re protesting at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings all around the nation, and in the recent elections. 2 million citizen voters marched on DC on 9/12, 20,000 rallied yesterday in front of Congress, and who knows how many millions are coming on November 12th to Orlando, Florida.
This is the real thing boys, a grass-roots movement of patriotic American citizens protesting the abuse of government authority by a cabal of Stalinist usurpers. You may have missed the 60s but the revolution is here and now. This is a golden opportunity to be part of what may prove to be the biggest social and political movement since 1776. Think I’m off my rocker…time will tell.
So here it is in plain English, You can support the US Constitution or you can support Obama. The choice is that clear cut. So, what’s it gonna be? Are you for the people, or have you been seduced by the dark side?
Perry, I personally don’t care if you choose to call me names, but I reserve the right to call attention to them and push back, just as you have done here yourself. If you don’t like that and can’t take it, then you should not be on here!
(Or is that an authoritarian attempt to censor you?)