Democrats & Liberals Archives

We'll Own Ours, You Own Yours

Since the working class stood up to Governor Walker, the Right has been pointing out our “thuggery” and terrible behavior.

Some of the behavior was disgusting. This video was provided as an example in one of the comments:

Liberals Not Being Nice

We have freedom of speech in this country. The polite thing to do is let them speak. You can refute all their crap later.

The thing is, even though we on the Left have said and done some terrible things, can people on the Right acknowledge that they have as well? The guy in this news clip below is clearly racist. And he's one of yours.

Bad behavior, in words and deeds, is not owned by any one party. We can go back and forth, tit for tat, forever. All it will prove is that there are sucky people on both sides of the fence.

Posted by Spinny Liberal at April 21, 2011 6:50 PM
Comments
Comment #322074

S.L. You are right there are idiots on both sides. At least your one liberal that acknowledges that fact.

Posted by: KAP at April 21, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #322076

KAP - Yup. You’ll find them on both sides.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 21, 2011 7:50 PM
Comment #322078

S.L. You know though some of the other liberals on this blog will challenge you on your Liberals not being nice link. They will probably tell you they were tea party plants.

Posted by: KAP at April 21, 2011 8:03 PM
Comment #322081

“You know though some of the other liberals on this blog will challenge you on your Liberals not being nice link. They will probably tell you they were tea party plants.”

KAP your bias is showing. It was the conservatives that tried to tell us the tea party incidents were due to lefty plants at the events.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 21, 2011 9:54 PM
Comment #322082

My bias J2, I did say both side had idiots, If that is bias so be it. I’ve been around long enough to know how some on this blog think. If it don’t go their way they blame the right and vis versa.

Posted by: KAP at April 21, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment #322091

I would prefer everybody stay polite, but some of this sort of argument is unavoidable.

Good to have balance. I would question on premise. The working class didn’t stand up to Walker. The people stood up to the power of the unions.

Posted by: C&J at April 22, 2011 11:16 AM
Comment #322092

The thing is, even though we on the Left have said and done some terrible things, can people on the Right acknowledge that they have as well?

At the end of the day the only actions you can control are your own SL. The whole “guilt by association” is generally a political tactic.

For me it’s the same as the whole media bias argument. You can find all sorts of bias on all sides as you can all sorts of bad behavior. Pointing it out in an effort to score political points and tar brush you opponent can be just as bad as the underlying act.

Posted by: George at April 22, 2011 12:25 PM
Comment #322093

C&J - That is your take on Wisconsin. I see it differently.
George - Very true on both points.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 12:45 PM
Comment #322095

Spinny writes; “Since the working class stood up to Governor Walker, the Right has been pointing out our “thuggery” and terrible behavior.”

I would reword your sentence above to read…Since the voters and taxpayers elected a new governor and legislature, let them govern. I still have roots in Wisconsin where I grew up. I know for certain that it could not possibly be the case that only others, besides the “working class”, put these folks in power.

Would anyone care to guess what percentage of the “working class” voted for the current leadership?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 1:59 PM
Comment #322096

Here’s a recent poll (McClatchy-Marist) on support for “Dear Leader” from Huffingtonpost.

“The poll offered more sobering news for Obama. Forty-four percent of the registered voters questioned said they definitely plan to vote against Obama in 2012, while 37 percent said they definitely plan to vote for him and 18 percent were unsure.”

Much of the discontent among voters regarding obama aligns with the battle in Wisconsin. Many are fed up with “interest group liberalism” on both a state and national level. And, most voters demand balanced budgets in both their state and on a national level.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 2:06 PM
Comment #322097
I would re-word your sentence above to read…Since the voters and taxpayers elected a new governor and legislature, let them govern.
RF, you seem to forget that a significant number of voters and taxpayers DID NOT vote for them, so what makes you think they should just sit back and allow the moron to run roughshod over everyone??? Posted by: jane doe at April 22, 2011 2:25 PM
Comment #322098

Thank you Jane for your comment. I think this way because that is the way elections work in Wisconsin. Winners govern until the next election. In your world Jane, how would you elect our state and national leaders?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 2:36 PM
Comment #322099

Yeah, they put him in power, but it was a serious case of bait and switch.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 2:48 PM
Comment #322100

OK Spinny, I’ll bite…what was the “bait”? :-)

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #322101

Jane

Americans have the right to petition their government in a peaceful fashion. There were a few nasty examples of leftist hate in Wisconsin, but generally they were okay. Nobody is saying they did not have the right.

But what RF and I (also born in Wisconsin) are saying is that the protesters do not represent “the people”. The people voted in the Governor.

My many relatives still in Wisconsin are all working people. A few support the unions, but most of them, even union members among them, supported the Governor. This is not a scientific study, but it tracks with the polls and the most recent election.

The time when unions spoke for “the people” is long past.

Your last sentence is very interesting. You say, “you seem to forget that a significant number of voters and taxpayers DID NOT vote for them, so what makes you think they should just sit back and allow the moron to run roughshod over everyone???”

This is exactly the idea that provoked the tea parties. You are right. Lots of people felt that way about Walker and lots of people feel that way about Obama.

As a society that believes in democracy and the rule of law, we have to accept that our elected representatives have the right to make rules with the law. Individuals have the right to protest, but not to command the elected officials to do anything in particular.

If they are unhappy with what the officials are doing, as was the case in 2008, they can vote out the old crowd and put in those they think are more likely to do a good job.

Currently, Walker is Governor of Wisconsin and Obama is president of the U.S. We don’t have to like it, but we have to give their offices the respect they deserve.

Posted by: C&J at April 22, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #322102


McClatchy-Marist poll: 80% opposed to medicare an medicaid cuts. 70% of tea party members opposed to medicare and medicaid cuts.

Do the people want a balanced budget? Yes, just like the one that Bush and the Republicans threw in the White House dumpster. It should be obvious that the priorities of the Republican Party and it’s far right constituents are not in tune with the people.

Have a nice Earth Day.

Posted by: jlw at April 22, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #322104


“but we have to give their offices the respect they deserve.” So, we won’t trash their offices.

Oh, I forgot about that tape that caused billions in damage.

With the possible exception of Washington, every president has been trashed by the opposition and often by his own constituents.

Posted by: jlw at April 22, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #322105

jlw

Everybody wants to get free stuff. Nobody wants to pay. That is the corrupting influence of using other people’s money, or even your own money filtered through bureaucracies.

At some point, however, there just is no more of other people’s money to spend.

It is a lot like asking a fat man if he supports giving up donuts. Of course not. But at some point additional donuts have to be cut.

Posted by: C&J at April 22, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #322106

RF - the real question is what was the switch? He didn’t campaign on gutting the union. =)

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #322108

Well Spinny…you were the one who said “bait and switch”. I would still like to know what the “bait” was.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 4:29 PM
Comment #322112

Royal it was a bait and switch by Walker it just took a while before he would admit to the facts.

“Asked if he had really campaigned on a plan to roll back collective bargaining rights, Walker repeatedly danced around the question, insisting he had campaigned on a “range” of promises to impose fiscal discipline. But Connolly kept pressing the point, and finally asked him point blank: Did you “explicitly” campaign on this proposal?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/scott-walker-admits-he-didnt-campaign-on-rollback-of-bargaining-rights/2011/03/03/AFZkUedD_blog.html


Posted by: j2t2 at April 22, 2011 5:01 PM
Comment #322117

Thanks for the link j2t2. I guess it’s kind of like running on a campaign of “change”.

So, now we know that Walker did not run specifically on public union reform. My question remains, if union reform was not the “bait”…what was?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 5:23 PM
Comment #322118

If you’re a fan of irony you had to be delighted by the juxtaposition of Sen. Pierce (sp?) refusing to answer questions about the whereabouts of his ticket invoice right before the footage of the Tea party organizer who said “We want to shine the light on our elected officials, we want accountability”. A classic!!

There’s definitely enough pigheadedness, ignorance and just plain rudeness to go around…..on BOTH sides. So, how can anyone dispute the validity of this post?

Posted by: steve miller at April 22, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #322121

All the good stuff politicans promise - jobs, a balanced budget, quality education (but no increase on taxes to pay for it), et. al.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 6:53 PM
Comment #322123

steve miller - Pearce saying “Your job is not to harrass” and “I don’t have to show you anything” at an accountability rally just cracked me up.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #322126

All the good stuff politicans promise - jobs, a balanced budget, quality education (but no increase on taxes to pay for it), et. al.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011

Good answer Spinny. But tell me how, in those areas you mention, could the Republicans promise more than the Democrats and be believed? Are you saying that the dems did promise those things with the additional promise of tax increases…and that defeated them?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 7:02 PM
Comment #322128

RF - Nope. What defeated them was the dissatisfaction across the nation with the economy. The GOP promised jobs, jobs, jobs. People rode with that, thus, the shellacking. Of course, instead of jobs, we got union gutting and abortion theater.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 7:13 PM
Comment #322131

Really Spinny? Am I to believe the dems couldn’t muster the troops running for office to suggest they might be interested in more jobs for the folks? Usually, when a dem or lib politician promises more jobs they mean more taxpayer funded jobs. Reps and cons on the other hand are always speaking of private jobs.

Hmmmmn…I may be on to something here. What do you think?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #322134

Nope. When you think the party in power is messing things up and the other party promises a solution, you’ll vote for the solution party.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment #322136

The real irony is anyone believing what any politician promises. What a politician is for and against fine, but when they start with “I promise to fill in the blank” LOOK OUT your in for a let down.

Posted by: KAP at April 22, 2011 7:42 PM
Comment #322137

KAP - Oh yeah. I buy it all the time. Hahaha

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 7:43 PM
Comment #322140

Good answer Spinny…I’ll buy that one.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 22, 2011 8:12 PM
Comment #322160

“What a politician is for and against fine,” No , not fine because what a politician is for or against is often defined by his opposition.

Example: Obama is for the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama is for Sharia Law, Obama is for socialism.

“but when they start with “I promise to fill in the blank” LOOK OUT your in for a let down.” I agree.

Posted by: jlw at April 23, 2011 2:30 PM
Comment #322165

LOL… I guess the answer to the title of this piece is a resounding denial by the right.

Posted by: LibRick at April 23, 2011 4:03 PM
Comment #322166

That is why we have elections jlw, if you don’t like what some politician is for or against, then don’t vote for him/her.

Posted by: KAP at April 23, 2011 4:56 PM
Comment #322183

“Nope. When you think the party in power is messing things up and the other party promises a solution, you’ll vote for the solution party.”

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 22, 2011 07:38 PM


So we have Obama who has messed things up royally, and now is running in the promise of having the real solution. Should we believe him? Or should we believe all the polls, which show support of Obama dropping like a rock, except for that liberal base who would support him no matter.

Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2011 10:23 AM
Comment #322184

Up to you to vote for who you believe more. *shrug*

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 24, 2011 12:34 PM
Comment #322186


“Up to you to vote for who you believe more.”

It may apply to the independent voter, but very seldom the partisan.

Mike, you should believe neither. Not that it matters to you since you have already decided.

I am not fond of Obama, but not because he messed things up royally. It is hard to mess up things more royally that it was when Obama took office and no one should think it would be easy to extract ourselves from that royal mess up.

Posted by: jlw at April 24, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #322188

Gas was $1.87 in 2007 and now after 2 1/2 years it’s $4 and going on $6 per gallon. Unemployed 9% and under-employed 17%, in 2007 it was 4.6%. National debt in 2007 was $9+ trillion, today it’s $14+ trillion, with the call from dems to raise it a couple mor trillion or we wil all die. After billions in TARP and Stimulus we are no better now than we were in 2007 except for the debt. So SL and jlw, it’s not rocket science to see we are worse off now than in 2007.

The left may be convinced everything is alright, but voters don’t believe so. And your right, it will be seen in the voting booth.

Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2011 3:38 PM
Comment #322189

Does this 95 year old patriot have the right to make these observations? And, is his opinions the result of right wing propaganda?

“Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
” We’re no longer a Christian nation”
” America is arrogant” – (Your wife even
announced to the world,” America is mean-
spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle…

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes”

http://ireporters.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/president-obama-gets-set-straight-by-a-95-year-old-pearl-harbor-survivor/

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 24, 2011 4:05 PM
Comment #322190

Yes Con, Harold is a victim of right wing propaganda. He evidently was led to believe misinformation and half truths by the conservative controlled media and wrote the letter based,in part, upon the misinformation circulated by propaganda.


http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/harold_estes.htm

Posted by: j2t2 at April 24, 2011 4:27 PM
Comment #322192

It’s not nearly the rabble-rouser when we read it in the original context, though….. damn, busted again.
Thanks j2t2 !

Posted by: jane doe at April 24, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #322193

The stupid old fart. He belongs in a rest home. What gives a 92 year old the right attack our president? His generation had their chance and blew it.

Posted by: tomcat at April 24, 2011 5:55 PM
Comment #322195

tomcat

Okay. A 92 year old man. His generation lived through the Great Depression, fought and defeated fascism, set the stage for the defeat of communism. Built the richest and most pleasant country in the history of the world, put a greater number of their kids through college and put a man on the mood and brought him safely home.

And you think they blew it.

That is really pathetic. If this represents the general view of a younger generation, our country is indeed in trouble.

Posted by: C&J at April 24, 2011 6:29 PM
Comment #322196

jlw - Definitely. I already know I’m voting for Obama. And I’m sure that Mike isn’t going to vote for Obama.

Regarding the letter. I don’t know if it’s old age, but he doesn’t remember that Bush made out with King Abdullah? I thought bowing would seem more tolerable to him in comparison. =)

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 24, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #322197

“He belongs in a rest home.”
When he wrote this he was in a rest home.

” What gives a 92 year old the right attack our president?”

The freedom of speech we have in this country does not have an age limit. We all have a right to criticize our elected leaders. It would be nice if he would criticize the president on factual matters not on misinformation and half truths, but with the lack of objectivity in the conservative media this is what we get. The problem lies with the conservative media and it’s inability to produce factual information for its followers.

I agree C&J this was a generation of a century. They faced the biggest challenges of the past century and beat them while modernizing the country. They then created the largest middle class in the world. The only blemish on their record is us, the baby boomers. We have screwed the pooch when we are compared to the previous generations,IMHO. Had more did less, destroying what they built,and are as selfish as they were selfless.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 24, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment #322201

“The only blemish on their record is us, the baby boomers. We have screwed the pooch when we are compared to the previous generations,IMHO.”

Exactly what are you talking about? Remember, the “greatest generation” was in charge up until the Clinton presidency.

Posted by: Rich at April 24, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #322203

Rich

We live in a great country, despite all the challenges. I am sorry if you think it is so bad that any past generation “blew it”. I wonder about your frame of reference. DO you get out very much?

Posted by: C&J at April 24, 2011 9:06 PM
Comment #322204

Rich the greatest generation were the parents of the baby boomers. I am a baby boomer. So when I say we screwed the pooch I am referring to the baby boomers. We had more yet we borrowed more and are in the process of leaving the future generations deep in debt, without medicare or SS which the greatest generation left to us. We haven’t put a man on the moon, nor have we built a TVA or a highway system. When I say this Rich I am referring to the boomer generation as a whole as much as I am referring to Politicians of the boomer generation.

My opinion is the baby boomer generation has not did as good a job as the greatest generation in what they have left for the next generation. We didn’t have the challenges of the greatest generation which is for the best considering what we have done with the challenges we have had.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/screw_the_pooch

C&J, Not any past generation, the current generation, the baby boomers. How much does one have to get out to see the writing on the wall? The baby boomers and our generation of leaders will not leave the future generations in better shape than the previous generation left us.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 24, 2011 10:09 PM
Comment #322206

j2t2

I think the world is in better shape now than it was in 1980, more of less the time we baby boomers started to be in positions of serious authority.

Of course, things could have been even better. That is always a possibility. We are a long generation, like the WWII generation, long in the sense of holding on. We are giving up now to the millennial, my kids ages. I am sure they will carry on.

I have great admiration for the WWII group. That was my parents and my uncles and aunts. My father landed at Normandy. One of my uncles died at the Battle of the Bulge. We - lucky for us - did not have such challenges. They made the world safer for us. I think we lived up to their expectations, in the long run, although in the 1960s it looked like we were going to ruin all their work.

So I do not think that ours was as great a generation. We didn’t have to be. But every generation has its heroes.

I just do not think the world is that bad. Communism and fascism are mostly bad memories. Our fathers killed fascism, but it was mostly us, led by our elders, who finished off the other great tyranny. Our economy has become so rich that a person at the poverty level today has access to more and better goods and services than a middle class family had in 1955. The Eastern forests have returned during the last half of the 20th century. We can swim in rivers and lakes that I couldn’t touch as a child. In my urban environment, I regularly see eagles, hawks, deer, foxes etc. These were all rare or even endangered when I was a kid.

If my father at 18 was transported to the America today, he would not believe the prosperity or the opportunities available to his children and grandchildren.

America is still a great country. There is certainly no other place I would rather belong (I tend to live in foreign countries so I have basis for comparison) and no other time I would rather live than now (except maybe 1999, that was a very good year, but it couldn’t last). Even the Democrats probably cannot screw it up that bad.

Posted by: C&J at April 24, 2011 10:36 PM
Comment #322207

I voted for President Obama because he offered change. Our younger generation is going to have free healthcare, work less hours, and own as much as any rich person. We are all going to drive electric cars and have free housing. Our generation will be the greatest generation ever. Just as soon as the thieving baby boomers and x generation are dead and gone, we will live in a world of peace and prosperity. Power to the people!

Posted by: tomcat at April 24, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment #322208

I agree with what you say C&J, up to a point. Although our generation is better off now, pertaining to a better life style, we have missed out on something the greatest generation had, and that was pride and patriotism. There was something that happened to the baby boomers in the 60’s, and the result was some who had pride and patriotism and others who had none. The group that protested the war in Vietnam, burned their draft cards, and fled to Canada; are the same group that has been teachers and professors in our schools and universities. These in turn are responsible for filling the children of the boomer’s heads full of mush. So today we have a group of 20-40 year old generation who say they support America, but do not; they are the generation represented by the likes of tomcat. Tomcat’s mentality is normal for this generation, always looking for the free ride. I like to call them the generation who never knew what personal responsibility was or how to claim it. It is the generation of SD, who believes mankind cannot survive without the aid of government. They have never seen an entitlement or a tax they did not like. They can’t comprehend the idea that the gravy train has reached the station.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 24, 2011 11:03 PM
Comment #322210

The older generation always complains about the younger. WWII generation complained about the Boomers. Boomers complain about the Xers & Yers. And when Xers (like me) and Yers reach the Boomers’ ages, we’ll complain about the next generation.

“Entitled, spoiled, doesn’t know personal responsibility” It’s the same song, different generation. And you know what? We all end up fine in the end.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 25, 2011 1:02 AM
Comment #322218

SL, the personal responsibility comes in the sense of believing it is someone else’s duty to take care of you. Personal responsibility in the great generation (those who lived through the depression era) knew that if they didn’t take care of themselves, no one else would. The boomers grew up in a generation who were taught it was government’s responsibility to take care of you and the x and y-generation don’t know anything else but free handouts from the government. Then we deal with morality; as each generation passes the morality degenerates and as a result, we do not have the morals of the greatest generation. And lastly, there is a case for patriotism; the newer the generations, the less patriotism we find in the nation as a whole. I realize there are always exceptions to the rules. It is a well known fact that the country is divided into liberal and conservative demographics. If one looks at a map of red states and blue states, you would see a direct correlation between the red states (who provide more men and women to the military) and the blue states (who provide less). The all volunteer military receive more recruits from better educated areas, more whites than minorities, more areas known as the Bible belt rather than non-Bible belt areas, and the south and Midwest states rather than east, west coast, and upper Midwest liberal states. The conclusion is that most military volunteers come from conservative areas, whose parents and schools still promote patriotism, rather than liberal areas who believe it is government’s responsibility to care for the masses. I will include this link that provides all the states; it only took me a few minutes to discover this and I’m sure a deeper study would provide more info. The point being, in areas where Americans have managed to “cling to their guns and religion” and whose upbringing still promotes conservative ideals, there is more patriotism; but in areas where liberalism has permeated the masses, there is lack of patriotism.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 25, 2011 8:44 AM
Comment #322219

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/E8F05D884C7E78E45A200DC953ED3854.gif

Sorry, forgot the link.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 25, 2011 8:46 AM
Comment #322222

Conservativethinker-
Yes, let’s let multitrillion dollar economies become dependent on fraud, speculation, and the predatory encouragement of unsustainable lending.

And guess what? I’ve got a 91 year old WWII vet grandpa who has a much different opinion on the politics of all this. What the heck makes you think that trotting out one member of the greatest generation lets you speak for all the members of that generation?

Personally, every generation has its failings and its successes. The Greatest Generation lead us through the Great Depression, and WWII. But then they lead us into Vietnam and the Economic troubles of the 70’s.

But are the Baby boomers that much better? No. They had their Gulf War, and then their Iraq war, their Bill Clinton, and then their George W. Bush. But they have far outshined their forebears in terms of race and gender issues. Their leadership might have lead us into the collapse of 2008, and the great Recession, but it also helped us modernize this country with the computer and internet revolutions.

I’m of the radical disposition that every generation has its own flaws, it’s successes and pitfalls, its triumphs and disappointments. Each will correct for the failures perceived in the previous generations, and each will have the opportunity to make their own terrible mistakes.

It helps if you admit you’re fallible, if you admit that if you want to think long term, plan for the long term, you’ve got to be willing to take some risks and depart from the safe comfort of what your parents gave you as a legacy. A person of my generation, and the generation that follows mine will have to confront the legacy of the Reagan revolution.

As far as the politics go?

I think Obama’s in pretty good shape. I think he better can answer the question, and provide an answer that a policy can actually take us toward. All the Republicans can do is once more make, and then break, the promise that if we lett the oil companies go wild drilling, that we can lower gas prices. Given that this was the plan for the Bush administration, and that had $3-4 gallons of gas going in its last year, we ought to be more skeptical.

Republicans burnt themselves out, I think, trying to recapture the glory days of the last couple decades. Obama’s not going to face the brightest bulbs in the compact flourescent box this next election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2011 12:03 PM
Comment #322223

The all volunteer military receive more recruits from better educated areas, more whites than minorities, more areas known as the Bible belt rather than non-Bible belt areas, and the south and Midwest states rather than east, west coast, and upper Midwest liberal states.

Hmmm. I don’t know if I buy that.

Heritage Study Claiming Rich, Educated Troops is Fantasy

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 25, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #322224

Spinny that has to be the worst rebuttal article I’ve seen in a while. I like this one especially: “Which is “true”—but not True.”

You might not know if you buy the Heritage survey or not, but that article isn’t going to help you.

Posted by: George at April 25, 2011 1:19 PM
Comment #322225

OK thanks?

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 25, 2011 1:31 PM
Comment #322226

SL, this is how we do things…I offer a link from Heritage with facts and figures and you accept the facts and figures or you prove the facts or figures are wrong. Perhaps the problem is that I didn’t give you enough info and you were not able to Google it properly; so I will include this link:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/10/Who-Are-the-Recruits-The-Demographic-Characteristics-of-US-Military-Enlistment-2003-2005

Anyway I stand behind my facts.

SD; since you are an x-er and believe you have all the answers to the world’s problems, let me explain something to you also. Along with age comes wisdom and I would much rather take the word of a 95 year old WWII veteran, who has seen politicians come and go, as I would an x-generation who sounds like tomcat. Yes, every generation has its faults and I believe I presented a pretty good definition of where these generations have come from and where they are going.

As for Obama; politically he is in terrible shape and getting worse…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 25, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #322227

Aside from that quote, I think the article provides enough statistics to question Heritage’s findings. Anyway, I thought it was common knowledge (and sense) that people who come from economically depressed areas, like some red states, and can’t get jobs, they would turn to the military as a career. Or, a way to get money for college.

If people want to believe that military personnel come from better backgrounds, they’re going to continue to do so, despite findings stating otherwise. *shrug*

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 25, 2011 2:47 PM
Comment #322228

It’s unfortunate that you didn’t check the raw reports on this.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7626/10-05-Recruiting.pdf

The military’s ability to maintain the force levels required to continue conducting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan rests on its ability to recruit and retain service members. Some military analysts and policymakers have expressed concern that the ongoing operations could detrimentally affect both recruiting and retention. The proportion of youth who say that they may join the military increased after September 11, 2001, but according to the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) surveys of parents and other adults who influence youths’ decisions, a majority in 2005 said that they were less likely to recommend military service because of the war in Iraq. In addition, some military services, including all of the Army components, faced recruiting shortfalls in 2005, although some components, including all of the Army ones, have had a turnaround in 2006, approaching or meeting their quantity goals, albeit sometimes at the expense of their goals for recruits’ qualifications. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that the current combat operations could negatively affect retention in some segments of the active-duty military.

More:

CBO found that the active Army’s overall continuation rates were lower in 2004 and 2005 than they had been since 1996 (see Figure 1-1 on page 14). In addition, continuation rates for initial enlistees in their fourth year of service (the point at which many face their first reenlistment decision) were more than 3 percentage points lower in 2005 than they had been in either 2000 or 2001 and lower than they had been since the mid-1990s. Despite increases in pay and the enforcement of stop-loss policies, continuation rates dropped to levels not observed in over a decade.33

Eager beaver research is not typically a good idea. Republicans are spoiled by a whole industry built to come up with elaborately designed reports meant to provide that quality Conservative Bias you need to shout back at the liberals with full confidence.

I will base my conclusions on as firm of fact as I can find, regardless of the age, generation, or shoe size of the person in question.

As far as politics go on Obama, You’ve been saying he’s been going downhill for months now. Have you cared to examine the actual numbers, and make comparisons? if you look at the gallup tracking poll, he was at 49% at this time last year. He’s seen his numbers go up a little bit over the last year when he reached that deal in December and got all that stuff done, but for the most part his numbers are stable.

You got to watch words like “plummet”, and “dropping like a rock”. They make for good drama, but you got to back them up. Republicans need to believe Obama is in terrible shape so they can muster the courage to once again handicap themselves with a frustratingly generic or mindbogglingly esoteric set of candidates.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #322229

Oh, and Conservativethinker? I’m Millenial. I came of age around the turn of the century.

Frankly, I find it obnoxious the way some conservatives feel they have to take a baseball bat to their opponents character every time they argue.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2011 4:30 PM
Comment #322230

Con proudly claims “The conclusion is that most military volunteers come from conservative areas, whose parents and schools still promote patriotism, rather than liberal areas who believe it is government’s responsibility to care for the masses.”

But CON, If your conclusion were factual or logical why would North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri be under represented on your map? Are they part of the areas that “believe it is government’s responsibility to care for the masses.”

Further, on your map the south is over represented leading us to believe they live in conservatives areas “whose parents and schools still promote patriotism,” Yet many of these states are very high in the number of people who receive food stamps according to the link below. Wouldn’t that fall under the ” government’s responsibility to care for the masses.” description?


http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=651&cat=1

My point is your hypothesis is wrong. Your descriptions of liberal and conservative areas are biased and nonsensical. It is like believing that representatives in Congress who wear American flag lapel pins made in China are somehow more patriotic than those who don’t.

” The point being, in areas where Americans have managed to “cling to their guns and religion” and whose upbringing still promotes conservative ideals, there is more patriotism; but in areas where liberalism has permeated the masses, there is lack of patriotism.”

Perhaps Con what is lacking is not patriotism but nationalism. It seems easy to get the two mixed up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eC4AiGjSHM

“this is how we do things…I offer a link from Heritage with facts and figures and you accept the facts and figures or you prove the facts or figures are wrong.”

Not necessarily Con, Your hypothesis is wrong regardless of the facts and figures, which were disputed by CBO figures in SL’s link BTW, so you have not proved anything, IMHO. In fact when you consider the Heritage Foundation has an axe to grind but the CBO just provides information to those with an axe to grind, the facts and figures from Heritage should be considered corrupted.

“since you are an x-er and believe you have all the answers to the world’s problems, let me explain something to you also. Along with age comes wisdom and I would much rather take the word of a 95 year old WWII veteran,”

Seriously, Con, If your old enough to say that you must be old enough to realize that age is not the only requirement for wisdom. In fact the WWII veteran you refer to is probably wise by years yet he was mislead by misinformation and half truths. In fact he wrote a letter to the President of the United States berating him for his actions based upon this misinformation and half truths. How wise is that?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2011 4:40 PM
Comment #322232

“The all volunteer military receive more recruits from better educated areas, more whites than minorities, more areas known as the Bible belt rather than non-Bible belt areas, and the south and Midwest states rather than east, west coast, and upper Midwest liberal states.”

But the north east has the highest rate of graduation from high school Con! How can it be both better educated areas and Bible belt areas?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2010/06/02/graduation-rates-by-state-and-race/


Maybe because the country is more purple than you care to admit?
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Maybe the right belt is the stroke belt and the correlation between military service and states is food related. There is a startling overlap between the Heritage map you link to and this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_Belt

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2011 5:09 PM
Comment #322233

Thanks Stephen for your tripe, but evaluation of the military stats had nothing to do with filling a quota. I said most enlistees came from red states rather than blue states, because there is more patriotism in red states than there is in blue states. Then I backed it up with facts from Heritage. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you refer to enlistment quotes. Perhaps you could quote me where I spoke of quotas, or perhaps you should spend more time reading before you give your nonsensical “eager beaver” answers.

“As far as politics go on Obama, You’ve been saying he’s been going downhill for months now. Have you cared to examine the actual numbers, and make comparisons? if you look at the gallup tracking poll, he was at 49% at this time last year. He’s seen his numbers go up a little bit over the last year when he reached that deal in December and got all that stuff done, but for the most part his numbers are stable.”

Yes Stephen and he is at 44% approval last week. That is a 5% drop. And a drop is not a rise in the polls no matter how many ways you spin it. In fact, let’s look at the polls for this month:

Rasmussen Reports
4/22 - 4/24 52 disapproval
Gallup
4/20 - 4/22 47 disapproval
CBS News/NY Times
4/15 - 4/20 45 disapproval
ABC News/Wash Post
4/14 - 4/17 50 disapproval
McClatchy/Marist
4/10 - 4/14 49 disapproval
Democracy Corps (D)
4/10 - 4/12 50 disapproval
CNN/Opinion Research
4/9 - 4/10 50 disapproval
Reuters/Ipsos
4/7 - 4/10 49 disapproval

Congressional disapproval is between 65-75% on the same polls.

J2t2, perhaps you didn’t read my statement, there are exceptions to the rule. So you pull the same old liberal trick, if you don’t like the facts then just attack the source. I don’t find a problem with Heritage’s facts, perhaps you could take them one by one and prove them wrong, instead of making a blanket statement that the facts are wrong. Your YouTube video, stroke, and food stamp stats are not relevant to what Heritage said. Instead of claiming I’m wrong because you don’t believe it, why don’t you just overlay an enlistment map with a red state map and see what happens. Then ask yourself this question, “how can these things be”?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 25, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #322234


Both of the maps were based on 2006-2007 stats, you tell me what they mean?

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/03/prweb508270.htm

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/E8F05D884C7E78E45A200DC953ED3854.gif

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 25, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #322235

Conservativethinker-
If you really want to play the game of “Who loves the country more,” be my guest. I was just saying that your conservative think-tank research paper (which it is) forgot to mention that the quality of the recruits was dropping in the same period, and that the Army and other groups were seeing problems in retaining and recruiting people for volunteer service.

The Paper itself was about how there was no need for a draft. Well, the CBO, a nonpartisan organization said that while that may be true, there were recruitment and retention problems, especially among the parts of the armed forces that were primary in the Iraq war.

I went looking for the facts, and didn’t overextend myself trying to vindicate my party and seize the banner of TRUTH for myself.

I lead with the information. if you didn’t understand it, that’s your problem, but what it basically said was that the good opinion of people about serving in the military and the retention rates and quality of the recruits were down. And this is before 2006 and 2007, when things really got dicey in Iraq.

You want to wrap yourself in the flag on this, trumpet the virtue of your side, fine, but I lead with the objective reasons not to trust your think-tanks subjective conclusions.

As for your drop? I never characterized it as a big drop, but you did. Five points over a year, a year in which the fluctuation was much greater, and mostly higher. But the point would be, that something like 44% approval, while not marvelous, is certainly not catastrophic, and he’s been in that territory for some time now. I know you need to build a narrative where his popularity is plummetting like a rock, but if it’s yo-yo-ing around 45-50%, if some polls have him north of it, and some have him below, you’re not really talking real unpopularity Look at Bush’s poll numbers, if you want examples of extreme unpopularity.

I can’t buy stories that depend upon poll results that have never really dropped below 44-46% in most polls to support a narrative that says that his support is collapsing.

Nor can I buy a narrative about military recruitment that is in flat contradiction, with its conclusions, to the facts that an independent government agency, not beholden to any party, offers about military recruitment.

You’re just out of luck, because you didn’t get your facts straight.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2011 6:17 PM
Comment #322240

The military tends to be more rural, more southern, more black AND more white (i.e. fewer other minorities) than the nation as a whole.

Recruits tend to be more patriotic, as a whole, than non-recruits, but there are other factors.

There is a danger. The military comes more and more from families and areas with military tradition. It is less and less resembling the whole country. In a democracy, it is important that the military represent the nation.

Posted by: C&J at April 25, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #322242

We’re a republic, but why should it matter anyway? It’s voluntary.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 25, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #322243

SD, you can’t deal with the subject of my post, so you try to change the subject. Why do you try to change the subject when you have no answer or rebuttal?

“As for your drop? I never characterized it as a big drop, but you did. Five points over a year, a year in which the fluctuation was much greater, and mostly higher. But the point would be, that something like 44% approval, while not marvelous, is certainly not catastrophic, and he’s been in that territory for some time now. I know you need to build a narrative where his popularity is plummeting like a rock, but if it’s yo-yo-ing around 45-50%, if some polls have him north of it, and some have him below, you’re not really talking real unpopularity Look at Bush’s poll numbers, if you want examples of extreme unpopularity.”

Dated January 26, 2009; since you like to use Gallup Polls, then hat is what I will use:

“PRINCETON, NJ — With a 69% job approval rating in the latest Gallup Poll Daily update, Barack Obama continues a strong start to his presidency. That rating follows his initial approval rating of 68% — based on Jan. 21-23 polling and reported Saturday — and ranks him near the top of the list of presidents elected after World War II.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113968/Obama-Initial-Approval-Ratings-Historical-Context.aspx

It is now 44% according to Gallup; this is a 25 point drop in 2 years and 4 months. This is a 37% drop in the polls in 28 months or an average of over 1% drop per month.

Let me tell you something Stephen, if these were a Republican presidents poll, you would most certainly call it plummeting in the polls. So spread your (you know what) somewhere else.

Thank you C&J for appearing to understand the facts I presented. They are not my facts; they are simply facts. But I have a couple of questions for you C&J. You say:

“The military tends to be more rural, more southern, more black AND more white (i.e. fewer other minorities) than the nation as a whole.

Recruits tend to be more patriotic, as a whole, than non-recruits, but there are other factors.

There is a danger. The military comes more and more from families and areas with military tradition. It is less and less resembling the whole country. In a democracy, it is important that the military represent the nation.

Posted by: C&J at April 25, 2011 07:15 PM”

1. Why do military recruits tend to be more patriotic?

2. Why do the military tend to come more and more from families and areas with military tradition?

The Heritage charts show that military recruits come from certain geographical areas. Which do not represent the whole nation.

I have a theory; tell me if it has any validity: military families tend to be more patriotic simply because they understand service and sacrifice and in turn teach their children these same principles, which in turn cause the children to grow up with more respect and love of country. All children in the public school system are prone to learn anti-American ideals, but conservatives believe it is the responsibility for parents to become part of the teaching process and teach their children certain principles. On the other hand, most liberals believe it is the responsibility for the government to train their children: hence Hillary’s “it takes a village” to raise children.

My grandfather was English and a WWI veteran aboard British subs and saw a lot of close up action. My dad was a WWII vet who served in Europe. I was not drafted, but enlisted in the military in 1966 and served thru 1970. The only reason I say this is because I was taught about the freedom we have in America and the price it cost in blood. I did no different than thousands of others, but there were also thousands who fled the country and ran to Canada to escape their duty and responsibility. Some of them were friends and relatives. Had I not been taught by my dad and grandfather of the responsibility and sacrifice for freedom, my life may have turned out lot different. I believe the area and circumstances you are brought up in, determine what you become. Hence, military families produce more men and women willing to serve their country.

Posted by: Consevativethinker at April 25, 2011 8:34 PM
Comment #322244

“We’re a republic, but why should it matter anyway? It’s voluntary.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 25, 2011 08:10 PM”

SL, perhaps you should go back and read he posts. It was you who gave the idiotic response to the Heritage link. Yes, the military is voluntary, but the question is, why do some volunteer and some don’t?

Since when does a progressive believe we live in a “Republic”?

Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2011 8:45 PM
Comment #322245

And so it continues:

The old ‘my side is right, yours is evil’ thrives in today’s political atmosphere.

Myopic at best, blind more likely.

Posted by: LibRick at April 25, 2011 8:53 PM
Comment #322246

Actually, Mike, I was responding to this:

There is a danger. The military comes more and more from families and areas with military tradition. It is less and less resembling the whole country. In a democracy, it is important that the military represent the nation.

I wasn’t addressing you, but I guess you saw my post as an opportunity to call one of my responses “idiotic.” Congratulations. You seized it.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 25, 2011 9:12 PM
Comment #322247

“Recruits tend to be more patriotic, as a whole, than non-recruits, but there are other factors.”

C&J they may well be but that is not Con’s point. Con is trying to make the false claim that conservatives are more patriotic because more people in Texas enlisted in the military in 2007.

“perhaps you didn’t read my statement, there are exceptions to the rule.”

Con, yes but your hypothesis, your basic premise is still wrong. Your claim is this “And lastly, there is a case for patriotism;….

The link to the Heritage foundation doesn’t prove the level of patriotism in any state, region or person. It doesn’t tell us the political leanings of any of the recruits. In fact the Heritage map only shows 18 to 24 year old males when the maximum enlistment age is 35. How accurate can it be?

What you are asking us to believe is the only definition of patriotism is military service. Which is ridiculous on it’s face.
“Patriotism-Love of and devotion to one’s country.”, nothing about military service as a requirement of patriotism.

“So you pull the same old liberal trick, if you don’t like the facts then just attack the source.”

And you Con pull the same old conservative trick of using false statements such as this in lieu of responding to the discussion.

” I don’t find a problem with Heritage’s facts, perhaps you could take them one by one and prove them wrong, instead of making a blanket statement that the facts are wrong.”

The Heritage statements, not facts, really don’t make much of a difference to this discussion Con. Your basic premise is wrong. The heritage link doesn’t prove anything about you nonsensical comments such as ” The point being, in areas where Americans have managed to “cling to their guns and religion” and whose upbringing still promotes conservative ideals, there is more patriotism; but in areas where liberalism has permeated the masses, there is lack of patriotism.” Yet you attempt to avoid this fact , why is that Con?

“Your YouTube video, stroke, and food stamp stats are not relevant to what Heritage said.”

Neither is your thesis/hypothesis/premise Con., Yet you would ask us to believe that it is.
The food stamp stats seem to conflict with your red state mythology, as the number of food stamps in the same state you consider red would show the government does help them as well.
The You tube video may help you to realize you may be mistaking patriotism and nationalism when you claim conservatives are more patriotic.

“Instead of claiming I’m wrong because you don’t believe it, why don’t you just overlay an enlistment map with a red state map and see what happens. Then ask yourself this question, “how can these things be”?”

I can overlay the stroke map and get the same results Con. Yet it still has nothing to do with patriotism. The fact is your wrong. While a person serving or who has served in the military can be patriotic, military service is not a requirement of patriotism. Your misguided suggestion to overlay an enlistment map with a red states map does mean a thing unless we are discussing enlistment quotas Con.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2011 9:30 PM
Comment #322252

Well, you know what j2t2, you still haven’t answered why enlistment is higher in red staes than it is in blue states.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 25, 2011 10:19 PM
Comment #322253

The only place you get apples and oranges to mix is in a salad, that is: Simply A Liberal And Dimocrat

Posted by: tom humes at April 25, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #322255

Con, enlistments rates in red or blues states is a red herring when you are attempting to falsely portray liberals as unpatriotic. This is a type of McCarthyism that conservatives need to own, as the title of this thread states.

People, I would imagine join the military for many different reasons. Family tradition, financial, patriotism, seeking adventure, seeking training being 5 reasons off the top of my head.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2011 11:40 PM
Comment #322256

So j2t2, how much time did you spend in the military?

Posted by: Bill at April 25, 2011 11:51 PM
Comment #322259

The problem for the military are attitudes among some of the liberal elites. ROTC is returning to some liberal campuses after years of exile. Of course, it should be welcomed. Educated officers are a blessing to themselves, their schools and their country and it was shameful for anybody ever to exclude them. There simply is no downside. But if you read the news, you see that many on these campuses are still unhappy. It is a leftover from the Vietnam era, so long ago.

It is also true that a large segment of our modern society has rejected virtues associated with military. We live in a nation with too many cry babies. The idea that a person would do something difficult out of a sense of duty is lost on too many.

John Kennedy said “ask not what our country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” I think that seems quaint and old fashioned to many people. I am afraid that for many it means taxing someone else to be for benefits they they will receive.

I wonder sometimes what the average person has done for his country. Nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay net Federal taxes. We have defined duty down to standing up for your own rights and privileges. It is like defining farming as eating the fruits and demanding a bigger share.

Posted by: C&J at April 26, 2011 5:12 AM
Comment #322262

C&J, How could the liberal elite have such attitudes that it would bother the military. Popular consensus here on WB pegs the liberals at 20% of the voting public. By definition the liberal elite must be only 1% of that 20% yet it’s attitude is the military problem? Are you saying military leadership is lacking due to a lack of uber-liberals from the elite colleges?

I would look elsewhere were it I hunting for supposed problems with the military. I would start with the privatized forces popularized by the Bush administration. The ones that electrocuted several in Iraq with faulty installations of equipment. Those that get paid the big bucks for doing the same job as our military.

I would look at the waste and corruption, the sad treatment given to wounded military when they return home. But to blame military problems on those fighting for peace in this country seems rather partisan and without merit.


“We live in a nation with too many cry babies. The idea that a person would do something difficult out of a sense of duty is lost on too many.”

Perhaps so C&J. I have often said the tea party types are cry babies myself. Their focus on their own costs and their unwillingness to pay taxes permeates the headlines today. The lack of a sense of duty is as profound as any amongst the “liberal elite”. Is it any wonder the constant braying about our evil government confiscating taxes and “to dumb to do anything right” attitude take it’s toll on the younger generations?

“I wonder sometimes what the average person has done for his country. Nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay net Federal taxes.”

Well it seems for one thing,they have created conservative mythology such as this statement C&J. The tax obsessed, the selfishness portrayed in this comment reeks of the “it is all about me” attitude you speak of. The rich pay a smaller percentage than those they hire to work, yet it is still too much! Yet we wonder what the problem is.


” We have defined duty down to standing up for your own rights and privileges. It is like defining farming as eating the fruits and demanding a bigger share.”

Exactly right, The tea party motto it seems to me. It is all about the individual and screw everybody else, right? Yet we wonder. It is our own actions that cause this attitude. It is the mythology built up over the years, starting with the JBS types and permeating the culture as “conservatism” that is leading the way to this sense of a lack of duty,IMHO. The average American (who those in the Tea Party claim to be) needs to look at the 3 fingers pointing back at them as they point their finger at the “liberals” IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2011 9:14 AM
Comment #322263

j2t2
Perfect example of a strawman argument. You build the target then shoot it down. What you interpreted what C&J said is an equal to go and stop meaning the same thing. That is the typical liberal approach.

Posted by: tom humes at April 26, 2011 9:51 AM
Comment #322272

Tom If the shoe fits…. If you have been keeping up with this thread you will see the strawman of Con’s, the questioned patriotism of liberals. Why would you not mention that yet look at my response to the supposed liberal elite problem of the military as being a strawman


You seem to epitomize the typical conservative thinking of the coin only has one side. Well get over it, my friend, because the selfishness demonstrated by the baby boomers of the tea party is as big a problem when it comes to the attitudes of the next generation as anything you may think is the result of liberal elites.
Like the title says You own yours.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #322275

CT,

Your attempt to brand the Left as unpatriotic amounts nothing other than the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Correlation does not mean causation.

C+J

The problem for the military are attitudes among some of the liberal elites. ROTC is returning to some liberal campuses after years of exile. Of course, it should be welcomed. Educated officers are a blessing to themselves, their schools and their country and it was shameful for anybody ever to exclude them. There simply is no downside. But if you read the news, you see that many on these campuses are still unhappy. It is a leftover from the Vietnam era, so long ago.

I have friends who attend schools that prevented the ROTC from using campus resources as long as it discriminated against homosexuals. The general attitude I’ve recieved was that these schools were very enthusiastic about letting the ROTC return to their campus. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Personally, I think putting military service up on a pedestal to test one’s patriotism is a fallacy. I’m of military age myself, but I chose not to serve, but I don’t think that impugns my patriotism. When I was 18, I had a full tuition scholarship to study atmospheric physics in college; I think my country is better served by having one more scientist than by having one more soldier. If the country really needed more soldiers, there would be a draft. If I was ever conscripted, I’d gladly serve, but I don’t think I’ll ever be the sort of person to enlist.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 26, 2011 12:55 PM
Comment #322282

Conservativethinker-
You said that his popularity is dropping. Present tense. I am not going to, and wasn’t disputing that his popularity’s gone down earlier. The notion, though, that he’s still dropping, or is as unpopular as you claim is inaccurate according to the results we’ve seen lately.

You want a drop, Look at Bush’s poll numbers. he had over 90% at once point in the polls. He dropped to twenty percent by the end of his term in office.

That’s bad. Obama’s numbers went down, but he’s been under constant attack so harsh that half of all Republicans think he was born in Kenya. But that indicates something else: the disapprovals are on a bit of a bubble, artificially maintained by an incredibly hostile party in opposition.

I don’t think its time for him to rest on his laurels, but Obama’s doing better at this point than Reagan.

As for the rest?

I think it’s just crass the way the right puts everybody else down as being unpatriotic, unwilling to sacrifice for our country. I look at the data from the CBO report, and I see a nation of people willing to sacrifice their lives to protect their country, but not particularly willing on all sides to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a heavily politicized war. People came not to trust Bush’s judgment, so they made the rational decision not to put their lives in his hands.

Can’t Republicans make points anymore without pissing on somebody’s reputation to do it? At what point, do you think, that people just roll their eyes and walk away?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2011 2:48 PM
Comment #322284

It seems a raw nerve is struck with liberals when you question their patriotism. It is sad that our country has come to this point, but the facts are the facts. There can be no doubt that America is ideologically split, but not 50/50. Only 20% of America is liberal and I suggest it is this 20% that screams the loudest when the question of patriotism comes up. Let me point out a few things:

1. It was not conservatives who spit and called Vietnam vets baby killers, when they passed through airports ( way before your time WR).
2. It was not conservatives who accused Iraq vets of war crimes.
3. It was not conservatives who booted the ROTC off college campuses, as C&J pointed out.
4. It is not conservatives who want to cut spending the military, while at the same time saying how much they support them.
5. It is not conservatives who want to take God out of every aspect of our public lives.
6. It is not conservatives who want to refuse to say the pledge of allegiance.
7. It is not conservatives who refuse to call Muslim extremist who attack America, terrorists.
8. It is not conservatives who want to take away America’s 2nd Amendment rights.
9. It is not conservatives who want to divide the American people into classes.
10. It is not conservatives who want to re-distribute the wealth of America.
11. It is not conservatives who want to create a welfare state.
12. It is not conservatives who apologize to the rest of the world for America’s evils.
13. It is not conservatives who want to open the southern borders to illegal aliens.
14. It is not conservatives who want to give amnesty to 14-17 illegal aliens already in the country.
15. It is not conservative union leaders who have formed an alliance with the communist party in America.
16. It is not conservatives who want to trample underfoot the Constitution of America.
17. It is not conservatives who want to destroy America by refusing to allow us to use our own fossel fuels.
18. It is not conservatives who have destroyed our public education system.
19. It is not conservatives who want to use tax payer dollars to bail out union pensions, liberal states and cities, and corporations by taking them over.
20. It is not conservatives who want to tell Americans what they can eat, smoke, where they can live.
21. It is not conservatives who are trying to take over the healthcare system, thus putting anotrher 17% of America’s economy in the hands of politicians.
22. It is not conservatives who want to…etc, etc, etc, just fill in the blank.

These things are the things that liberals hold too and in my book that makes them unpatriotic and bent on the destruction of the country.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 26, 2011 2:56 PM
Comment #322286

Mr. Daugherty, do you think it will ever be possible for the left to defend Obama, without attacking or comparing him to Bush?

“You want a drop, Look at Bush’s poll numbers. he had over 90% at once point in the polls. He dropped to twenty percent by the end of his term in office.”

Yes, and guess what, he would have been sent packing if he had been running for office again. I believe this is a bad comparison.

“That’s bad. Obama’s numbers went down, but he’s been under constant attack so harsh that half of all Republicans think he was born in Kenya. But that indicates something else: the disapprovals are on a bit of a bubble, artificially maintained by an incredibly hostile party in opposition.”

And since you love to throw the name of Bush around, let me ask you, was Bush attacked from the left, with the aid of the MSM, for 8 years? Oh, let me answer, yes he was. The left created this atmosphere with an unrelenting 8 year attack on Bush and now you cry, “It’s not fair”… Well, I suggest you put on your big boy pants and suck it up. Hey, all Obama has to do is release his records. He is the one who has spent millions trying to keep his info secret. We knew everything about Bush; his school and military records. Why is Obama hiding his?

“I don’t think its time for him to rest on his laurels, but Obama’s doing better at this point than Reagan.”

You appear to be suffering from messiah worship. To compare this idiot to Reagan!!! Obama has no idea what he is doing… or… he is intentionally trying to destroy America. In any case, he is in way over his head, and his Chicago mob and union thugs who make up his cabinet, are less than idiots.

“As for the rest?

I think it’s just crass the way the right puts everybody else down as being unpatriotic, unwilling to sacrifice for our country. I look at the data from the CBO report, and I see a nation of people willing to sacrifice their lives to protect their country, but not particularly willing on all sides to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a heavily politicized war. People came not to trust Bush’s judgment, so they made the rational decision not to put their lives in his hands.

Can’t Republicans make points anymore without pissing on somebody’s reputation to do it? At what point, do you think, that people just roll their eyes and walk away?”

Mr. Daugherty, you can walk anytime you want. You didn’t have to respond to my post. The problem is; the left cannot stand anyone questioning their patriotism. But I believe it’s time to call a spade a spade. There are people who are trying to destroy America and I believe the left is involved up to their eyeballs. Perhaps you could tell us Mr. Daugherty, what have you done for America? What uniform did you wear, what battle did you fight in, when did you sacrifice by leaving home and country to serve on a foreign soil? I have, what about you? I’m sure you have personal experience in these matters.

Concerning liberals willingness to “sacrifice for country”; I aw them doing it by the thousands in the 60’s and 70’s as they fled across the border into Canada. You Mr. Daugherty weren’t around, but I saw them run as cowards with bright yellow streaks up their backs. And when they were given amnesty and allowed to come back into America, they got jobs as teachers and professors and statrted filling the heads of our youth with mush. They should have been shot as traitors.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 26, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #322291

Conservative Thinker
Now would it be right to shoot a patriot who goes awol? Would it be right to shoot a patriot who loves his country so much he leaves it? Would it be right to shoot those mush ball teachers who fill our youth with unAmerican thoughts and ideas? It goes on.

My answer is HELL YES!!!!!!!

They are traitors. The only difference between Benedict Arnold and them is the name.

Posted by: tom humes at April 26, 2011 5:06 PM
Comment #322294

A frequent response back in the late ’60s to the cowards who ran off to Canada was that we should round them up and sent them to VietNam. My response was HELL NO!, I don’t want the sorry SOBs next to me.

Posted by: tdobson at April 26, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #322297


Why don’t you conservatives talk about who is not required to be patriotic.

In 2016, China is expected to become the largest economy.

Be a patriot, invest in China.

It is pretty easy to be a patriot when you can exempt business.

How long will it be before the military industrial complex moves to China?

The wealthy have no use, other than rhetorical, for patriotism.

Posted by: jlw at April 26, 2011 6:22 PM
Comment #322298

“It seems a raw nerve is struck with liberals when you question their patriotism.”

Con are you suggesting conservatives would approve of being wrongly accused of being unpatriotic?

It seems a raw nerve was also struck when you were unable to make your case against liberals . As you attempt to convince us of the superiority of conservatives you have instead shown us that it is nationalism you have confused with patriotism. I can understand your confusion Con but cannot agree with your inability to distinguish the two.

Your “It is not Conservatives” comments bring to mind, once again, the thinking of the German people in the late 1920’s and into the ‘30’s. This nationalism you preach is the same nationalism the German people fell for in the ‘30’s.


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” (Quote by - Charles de Gaulle)

“A patriotic person tends to tolerate criticism and tries to learn something new from it, but a nationalist cannot tolerate any criticism and considers it an insult.”


Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #322299

Tom Humes: Amen Brother

“Why don’t you conservatives talk about who is not required to be patriotic.

In 2016, China is expected to become the largest economy.

Be a patriot, invest in China.

It is pretty easy to be a patriot when you can exempt business.

How long will it be before the military industrial complex moves to China?

The wealthy have no use, other than rhetorical, for patriotism.

Posted by: jlw at April 26, 2011 06:22 PM”

Give Obama and the libs time, and all this will come true.

j2t2:

“Your “It is not Conservatives” comments bring to mind, once again, the thinking of the German people in the late 1920’s and into the ‘30’s.”

Yawn, Ho-hum; whenever libs don’t have anything intelligent to say, they bring up 1920’s and 30’s Germany. Borrring

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 26, 2011 7:07 PM
Comment #322302

Hmm. Being liberal doesn’t automatically disqualify you from being patriotic. Conservatives don’t own patriotism. I’ve been hearing the unpatriotic stuff for a loooong time now. I love America. But not blindly.

Anyway, a blog comes to mind when this issue comes up - The Gun Toting Liberal

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 26, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #322307

j2t2

The German people fell for extreme nationalism. They also fell for the idea that a big government could manage the society. The lesson is not to trust leaders who promise government can do too much, no matter what.

Posted by: C&J at April 26, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #322309

Good point C&J

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 26, 2011 9:23 PM
Comment #322314

“The lesson is not to trust leaders who promise government can do too much, no matter what.”

I agree C&J and Spinny Liberal. I say, government get out of my life, my wallet, and my business.

Posted by: Mike at April 26, 2011 10:00 PM
Comment #322315

“Yawn, Ho-hum; whenever libs don’t have anything intelligent to say, they bring up 1920’s and 30’s Germany. Borrring”

Con it may be boring but it is increasingly hard to argue with it.

“Capitalists and conservatives in Germany feared that a takeover by the Communists was inevitable and did not trust the democratic parties of the Weimar Republic to be able to resist a communist revolution. Increasing numbers of capitalists began looking to the nationalist movements as a bulwark against Bolshevism.”

http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology/

Your embrace of nationalism is but another indication of the similarities between the German people of the 1930’s and followers of the conservative movement in the US today.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #322317

j2t2 - I’m glad you’re pointing out the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The latter is very scary, and there should be a huge line drawn between them.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 26, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #322318

“The German people fell for extreme nationalism.”

C&J isn’t that how you would describe Con’s misguided “patriotism”? He would have us believe military service is required for one to be patriotic. He would have us believe that we should not apologize for our actions, clearly nationalistic.

BTW who was the last conservative president that didn’t grow government and the debt? That would be two for two for the conservative movement followers, nationalism and big government, right C&J?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #322322

J2t2

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei that is what it was called. It means national socialist German workers’ party. So the Nazis had both the aspects of socialism and nationalism.

The Nazis did not trust the free market, nor communism, nor democracy. They did trust big and intrusive government. They did believe that government should set the rules for how the economy should run. They did believe in the wisdom of the collective state over that of the individual.

Communism and Nazism are heresies of the same totalitarian religion. We bought the communist crap that they are somehow opposite, but their behavior is difficult to tell apart. They were both enemies of freedom.

They were also both revolutionary socialist movements with nothing to do with conservatism in the American free market sense. And actually nothing to do with American liberalism either. We had our revolution a long time ago. It wasn’t as destructive as those in France, Russia or China. Since then, we like to talk revolution and the American market-system is very dynamic, but we have stayed away from the political revolutions.

Posted by: C&J at April 26, 2011 10:35 PM
Comment #322323

What is this j2t2, divide and conquer? Why would you ask C&J to back you up? In case you forget, my original statement was to overlap a red state map with a map showing enlistment. He results are that conservative red states have a larger number of military enlistments. You guys on the left are the ones who went nuts over patriotism, or the lack thereof. I fear “thou dost protest too much”, when it comes to patriotism. Why don’t you go back and read the threads and you will see how things progressed.

“Examples of NATIONALISM

Not relevant; conservatives do not feel downtrodden and we are not suffering from humiliation.

But, the left is suffering from th humiliation of a shellacking last November.

“Examples of PATRIOTISM

You may not agree with him politically, but no one can question his patriotism.

They supported the war with a fierce patriotism.”

I have never seen a liberal support any war in my lifetime. In fact they openly uppose war.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 26, 2011 10:46 PM
Comment #322324

Nice to meet you. I am a liberal who supports war if we’re attacked. Self-defense.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 26, 2011 10:54 PM
Comment #322325

Nice to meet you too. But, your playing word games: do you support the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia? Did you support the Vietnam war?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 26, 2011 11:08 PM
Comment #322327

Iraq - no
Afghanistan - yes
Libya - no
Vietnam - no

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 26, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment #322328

SL, why do you support the Afghan war? Is it because democrats were for Afghanistan and not Iraq? Here’s a good link for you to read since you are in favor of the war in Afghanistan. 2009 was double the deaths in 2008 and over triple 2008 in 2010. And for what? What has Obama accomplished since he has been in charge? The MSM had a running tally of how many troops were killed when Bush was president. Yet, they are silent about Obama’s 1000+ troops killed since he took office. Tell me, why are we there?

http://icasualties.org/oef/

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 26, 2011 11:39 PM
Comment #322329

Whatever happened to “We’ll Own Ours, You Own Yours”?

Instead we just invoke Godwin’s Law.


CT, Obviously some liberals did despicable things during the Vietnam Era. Those traitors were very lucky to receive amnesty. The same can also be said for the conservative traitors who took up arms against this nation 150 years ago. Both of those groups were fortunate that America is a forgiving country.

Your other “It is not…” statements (for the most part) go against the liberal ideals laid out by our founders, but this isn’t the time or place to argue those.

Not relevant; conservatives do not feel downtrodden and we are not suffering from humiliation.

Since WWII, conservative nationalism has fed upon fears regarding communism. In the late 1940s, the US was somewhat humiliated by the failure to prevent the fall of the KMT as well as the failure to adequately safeguard top military secrets including the process for creating nuclear weaponry. I have observed that the failure to win the Korean & Vietnamese wars is also a source of angst amongst the Right. Obviously, many of these feelings are quite well justified given the circumstances; however, it must be recognized that if these feelings are not properly managed, they can lead to the same variety of Nationalism that is prevalent in fascism (I can’t believe I’m falling victim to Godwin’s law as well). In Germany, the NAZIs blamed the Jews and Socialists for Germany’s loss in WWI as well as its interbellum economic woes(Dolchstoßlegende). The difference between the Patriot and the Nationalist is that the Patriot is able to forgive his predecessors for mistakes committed in the past, whereas the nationalist cannot accept any fault in his predecessors and must scapegoat someone else to explain failures of the past. I accept that no matter how hard America tries, it will still remain a nation ruled by man and not a nation ruled by God; errors in judgment will inevitably occur and the only choice I have is to simply accept the results and move on.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 26, 2011 11:45 PM
Comment #322330

Nobody actually “supports” war. The distinction is how much justification you need to go to war. I supported the war in Iraq because the available evidence indicated that Iraq was a looming threat. President Bush never called it “imminent” BTW. With information available today, I would probably have made a different choice.

But there is the problem of war once you are engaged. Maybe the original reason you went in was a mistake, but once involved you have to support your country and do your duty. In Iraq, for example, I strongly supported the surge because sometimes you just have to win. And the surge turned the situation around. In 2006, Al Qaida was claiming Anbar province as the capital of their new caliphate. By the end of 2007 we had defeated the insurgency and people on the streets of Hadithah or Al Qaim were thanking our Marines for getting rid of the bad guys.

The thing I thought was terrible about the opposition to the war in Iraq was that opponents couldn’t get over their hatred of Bush. By 2006 it mattered much less what had happened in 2003 than what was going to happen in 2007 and beyond.

War is never nice. Young men die; stuff is destroyed; lives are ruined. But we have to recognize reality. War is among the most human and emotional of pursuits. It brings out altruism and humanity, but also cruelty and savagery, and it is always unpredictable. Each side goes in with the moral certainty that it will achieve its goals through war. At least one side is wrong. So much for predictions.

Unfortunately, the alternative to war is not always an acceptable peace. If our enemies think we fear violence, they will inflict violence and achieve their goals w.o war. Wars break out and continue sometimes because some people are too aggressive and sometimes because some people are not aggressive enough. There will never be a world w/o violence or w/o war. In the past, when too many people have come to believe a big war was impossible, a big war broke out. The best we can do is avoid conflicts when possible and/or try to keep them limited and somewhere else.

So I don’t think we can make distinctions between those who support war and those who don’t. Any good person who knows war hates it. Don’t mistake feelings of community, purpose or excitement for a love of war. Realistic good people take steps to limit its horrors and scope, and to keep it as far away as possible. Others claim they love peace, but continue to live at the mercy or under the protection of others.

Posted by: C&J at April 26, 2011 11:45 PM
Comment #322331

I supported it because some psycho named Osama decided to send his minions to fly planes into our buildings. I had no problem with this war. Sadly, it was forgotten because Iraq became center stage.

I think it’s too late at this point. Obama doesn’t think so and gave Afghanistan the attention it deserved (too little too late, though).

Honestly, I have no idea why we’re there now. Whatever chance we had to win this war we blew a loooong time ago.

Time to wrap it up and go home.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 26, 2011 11:47 PM
Comment #322332

I accept that no matter how hard America tries, it will still remain a nation ruled by man and not a nation ruled by God; errors in judgment will inevitably occur and the only choice I have is to simply accept the results and move on.

Very nicely put. It’s not unpatriotic to acknowledge those errors either…even to other countries.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at April 26, 2011 11:58 PM
Comment #322333

“So the Nazis had both the aspects of socialism and nationalism.”

C&J That seems to be what many on the right would have us believe. They would have us believe the capitalist and conservatives flocked to the Nazi’s because they were one step away from communism according to the conservatives.

However what we know to be the truth is they were far right wingers, capitalist and conservatives, very nationalist capitalist and conservatives, who were also associated with the fascist.

“Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. Among these supporters in the 1920s and early 1930s was the Conservative Party in Britain.”

http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology/

BTW C&J the constant rewriting of history that is so prevalent in conservative movement think tanks this past 30 years is another reason we need to, at the least, consider the similarities between the German people of the ‘30’s and the conservative movement of today.

“What is this j2t2, divide and conquer? Why would you ask C&J to back you up?”

Didn’t ask for back up Con. C&J pointed out extreme nationalism as a reason for the German peoples actions in the ‘30’s. I pointed out your nationalism.

“In case you forget, my original statement was to overlap a red state map with a map showing enlistment. He results are that conservative red states have a larger number of military enlistments.”

Whatever Con. Your original statement was to slander all liberals by insinuating military service is the measure of patriotism. Your wrong.


“You guys on the left are the ones who went nuts over patriotism, or the lack thereof.”

Not nuts Con we just didn’t buy into your nonsensical premise that confused nationalism with patriotism. Your false accusations that the left is trying to destroy the country is yet another comment seeped in the distrust of others that is a trait of far right extremism that has its roots in nationalism.

“I fear “thou dost protest too much”, when it comes to patriotism.”

I don’t think so Con. I didn’t protest I proved your thesis to be incorrect. I have no doubt about who is patriotic and who uses patriotism as a propaganda tool for their extremist nationalistic comments.


” Why don’t you go back and read the threads and you will see how things progressed.”

Why? What do you think will change? I responded to your comments as they progressed.

“I have never seen a liberal support any war in my lifetime. In fact they openly uppose war.”

Nationalism at it’s worse Con. Liberals have fought and died in each and every war this country has been involved in. Look at it this way Con, your boys Bush, Cheney, Armey and Norquist, “chicken hawks” the lot. Don’t mind starting a war but won’t go fight it themselves. Nationalistic or Patriotic? Just because you are against going to a nation building war in Iraq doesn’t mean you are not patriotic, although you are probably not nationalistic. Just like your boys are not to be condemned for not going to war themselves and are more than likely nationalistic although some of them maybe patriotic.

The belief that one has to blindly accept war as a measure of their patriotism is just plain wrong Con. It is your problem not those that disagree with a particular war.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2011 12:22 AM
Comment #322338

j2t2

It doesn’t matter who “flocked” to the Nazis. The system they imposed was state driven. They called themselves socialists and the state owned or controlled the major aspects of the economy. There was not a free market in Nazi Germany. There were “capitalists” in the sense of rich guys who owned big things, but they were either part of the state or subordinated to the state. It was, at best, like China is today.

Marxists, who are the ones who actually bother with these distinctions, made up names for these things. The bottom line is that if the state owns or controls most production, it is not a free market.

re rewriting history - when it comes to Nazis and communists, a lot of it needed reinterpretation. I was taught in school the communists and Nazis were opposites. Indeed they hated each other. But it was not until I saw the comparison that they were “heresies of the same religion” that I understood it properly. In the Medieval Church, the various heresies and orthodoxies hated each other often more than the non-believers. But they were still more a like than different and still came from the same roots.

Communism and Nazism caused great evil. For a generation, we gave communism a bit of a pass, first because we were allied with the Soviets and then because leftists wrote a lot of the history. The fact is both communism and Nazism were deadly poisons to freedom. Both resulted in concentration camps with millions killed because of their “category” (it tended to be ethnic categories in Nazism and economic ones in communism, but there was lots of overlap)

I judge not by what people call themselves but by what they do. Nazism and communism both used the power of a large state. They both were revolutionary. They both were socialist. They both were murderous. they both glorified the collective over the individual. Neither allowed free enterprise or a market economy. Neither respected property rights and neither felt bound by present or established tradition.

Generations of half-educated college kids (as well as some of their professors) have misused the term “fascist” to as a pejorative to describe people who were anything but. Think of what Nazis actually believed.

In America, if you find a person who believes in revolutionary political change, big government, state control over private enterprise, collective/group rights and a planned economy, he is not a conservative.

Posted by: C&J at April 27, 2011 7:59 AM
Comment #322346


C&J, the majority of Germans loved Hitler and were pro-Nazis. That is the historical facts of Nazi Germany.

That is right Conservative thinker, blame Obama for the Reagan Revolution. The New World Order is at hand and it is business driven. Of course, corporations and their investors are exempt from patriotism because it is bad for business.

The conservatives that voted for Reagan and Bush, the liberals that voted for Clinton and Obama, supported this New World Order of international rules and open borders with their vote.

So, go ahead and play your little conservatives are patriots game while you vote to sell your country down the road. Blame the liberals and blame the poor and vote for another tax break for the wealthy.

All that is left for the New World Order to accomplish is the destruction of the American social programs, the unions and the workplace rules that will make Americans competitive with their third world counterparts. And who is echoing the call of corpocracy and it’s New World Order? Why the patriotic conservatives of course.

Posted by: jlw at April 27, 2011 10:29 AM
Comment #322349

Once again C&J which great conservative leader actually cut the size of government? As the title of this thread states it is time to own yours and let us own ours.

As far as your refusal to admit it the Conservative party of Britain supported the Nazis as did conservatives in France and Spain. Were they secretly commies as well. I look at it like this. The commies were threatening during this time frame so politics make strange bedfellows. The parallel in this country is the unions and organized crime back in the day. The capitalist had private security forces and the local police, the unionist had the gangsters.

“Many historians such as Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that Hitler and the Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-Communist movement and, eventually, of the German state. Further, they assert that fascism and its German variant National Socialism became the successful challengers to Communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (the lumpenproletariat). The Nazi’s use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested “socialism” of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” or worker control of the means of production.”

http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology/

Another interesting point from the same link is the Nazi ideology of Social Darwinism. Do we notice the same ideology in the Conservative movement of today. It goes under the guise of freedom and liberty now. Ryan’s budget plan is one recent example.

Today we have Tea Party patriots who claim the title of free enterprise when they actually mean corporate control of the markets. These conservatives tea party “patriots” claim they are for smaller government but won’t get rid of corporate subsidies while cutting the social safety net to shreds. They continue to build up the military to record levels while telling us it is for the defense of the country. Yet we are still spread around the world fighting for corporate interest while cutting taxes and carding the costs of the war.
They claim they are for liberty and freedom but they mean “just us” not justice. They are authoritarians, exactly like the communist and Nazi’s you refer to. They are in league with the fascist just the same as the Nazi’s were in the 1930’s. They are controlled by the capitalist/fascist aristocracy and every bit as gullible as the German people were. They are the ones fighting communism by calling everything and everyone socialist and denouncing “outcast” the same way the NSP did in thew 1930’s. Using patriotism as the means in this particular thread to minimalize those that disagree with them.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2011 12:47 PM
Post a comment