Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

It all amounts to insults, which are what humans resort to when losing control of their expected or hoped for outcome.

Socialism is not communism, and communism is not fascism, and liberal and conservative do not mean today what they meant just a few decades ago. And a few decades ago, those terms did not mean what they meant in the 1920’s. As for collectivist regimes having killed so many of their own, it is not unique to collectivist societies by any means. The British treatment of India’s population under its rule became more and more violent as Indians struggled for Independence, many in non-violent ways, yet they died at the ends of British barrels for simply assembling peaceably.

And our own Civil War, there was certainly nothing civil about it. Our treatment of Blacks, lynching them, raping them, whipping them, and subjugating them in abominable squalor from slave ships to slave quarters, all under a democracy.

Jack, your article appears to have a good intent, but, your one sided view of good guys and bad guys is a hallmark in this column, and to me, it appears what you give with the left hand, you take with the right.

Jack,

Thank you. Despite your occasional dig at us, I appreciate the post.

So often we focus on our differences rather than our similarities…

I would suggest that the reason for associating liberals with communists (aside from the intent to insult) is the same reason that conservatives are associated with fascists (though less often). The narrowly defined left-right political spectrum is circular - communists and fascists are beside each other on this spectrum, as are liberals and conservatives. however, to the extreme left of the liberals are the communists, and likewise, to the extreme right of the conservatives are the fascists. While there are some vague reasons for grouping ideologies in this way, I personally don’t think that this one-dimensional spectrum is a particularly effective way of labeling oneself. There are, in fact, other labels which are far less used, but much more descriptive. I’m speaking of the Political Compass, and I would suggest that anyone who isn’t familiar with it should check it out. This ‘compass’ includes the typical Left-Right labels, but adds Libertarian and Authoritarian into the equation. You may find, after looking this over, that you aren’t as conservative as you think (though that doesn’t make you a liberal either).

I beg to differ jack. I would submit that the definition of the term liberal has changed from what it once meant, and those who call themselves liberal today believe in collectivism more than individual freedom. Particularily when it comes to economic rights.

Progressivism might be a better term to use, rather than liberal. Progressivism is, at it’s core, a collectivist ideology. Just as conservatism is, at it’s core, an individualist ideology. Radiating out from those cores are a variety of beliefs which vary and are sometimes even contradictory. Most people’s beliefs are in fact not comprehensively or completely internally consistant, including mine.

But the common denominator of progressive and liberal thought is collectivism. The idea that society as a collective should have political power over and above the individual — especially over economic matters.

Thinking about political docrines with reference to an imagined geometrical plane with a left and a right is part of the problem.

While Communism is an extreme form of Socialism, Fascism is ALSO an extreme form of Socialism (the Nazis were “National Socialists” after all), and neither has any of philosophical common ground with today’s American conservatives.

Who said the following?

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Michael Moore? Ralph Nader? No, Adolf Hitler. You can’t imagine ANY modern American conservative talking about their wish to destroy the capitalistic economic system, but it’s something we hear from the extreme left all the time.

And

Jack:

Thank you. I’ve been called a Socialist and worse on Watchblog. It’s good to know that I am only “misguided” and can’t recognize my enemies.

David Remer,

I had hoped you might explain how socialism will bring about a better world.

I think that for the most part both the left and the right want the samething. What’s best for this Country. We just disagree on how to get this.
The left seems to want government to take care of all the problems, while the right seems to want the indviuals to take care of all the problems. The answer is most likely somewhere inbetween.
There are those on both sides that are on the fringe. These I don’t call true liberials or true conservitives. I call most of them idiots.
Yaall might find this hard to believe but I have liberial friends. The thing we disagree on the most is how to solve the problems of this country. Not what form of government we should have. Or what economic system we should have. The liberials I know support our form of government and our economic system.

1. Dont feel sorry for yourself. Last year Jesse Jackson said that conservatives in the US and UK were the same as Facist in Italy and Nazis in Germany. Moveon.org and some NAACP leaders call the conservative president Bushhitler.
2. There are a lot of similarities between liberals and communism/socialism (althouth I usually say socialist not communist).
Large overly buricratic government thats intrusive and tells people how they should spend there money, live there lives, and raise there kids. hmm similar
Anit-bussiness & free interprise. Redistributing wealth artifically. simial
Nanny state where the government takes care of everyone an
The government/military being the only ones allowed to have guns? another similarity.
Hostle to religion and a tendencey to impose laws even if the majority of the population oppose it. There we go again.
One of the crowning jewels is Hillary Clinton trying to turn the US Healthcare system into a socialist system(which we’re still suffering the consequences of).

David

Violence is not unique to the collectivists systems, but they are really so much better at it.

Our civil war was the bloodiest episode in American history. More Americans died in that conflict than all the others we engaged in. Now compare it to civil wars other places. In April 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia Joe Johnston did the same a few days later and shortly everybody went home. The old rebels died of natural causes honored by the country they had fought against. How amazing is that? The Soviets would have wiped out their whole families. The Communist Chinese would have included their pets and the Nazis would have taken out all the surrounding villages.

Actually, David, we are better than that.

Paul & Lawnboy

This is as good as it gets. You know that I can’t write a whole paragraph without some backhand comment, even when it is something I support.

kelly
I would say that most our current crop of politicans are on the fringe. Hillary is on the fringe of the fringe.

Hi esimonson,

“those who call themselves liberal today believe in collectivism more than individual freedom.”

Those who call themselves conservative today believe that everybody who disagrees with them is an enemy of the state. This outlook, prevalent as it is, is anti-American and opposed to liberty.

Conservatives tend to be against individual freedom when they support judges who assert that the government has a right to outlaw birth control and masturbation (Bork and Scalia).

If the government can mandate against spanking the monkey (whipping the lizard, flogging the dolphin, slamming the ham, playing pocket pool, pulling the pud….) what sort of freedoms are we permitted?

Scalia asserts that the government can and should outlaw masturbation. Bork asserts that the government has the right to outlaw birth control (Griswald vs. Connecticut)

Governments can best be described as one side being complete anarchy and the other being total government control. fascists communists monarchys are on the control end where a republic stops short of anarchy with the rule of law. Our represenative form of government was formed to keep mob rule out of our laws. We were supposed to elect people to represent us and vote them out if they don’t. Both parties have moved away from the republic form of government. the left has only moved further. Their fringes are simply closer to the totalitarian regimes mentioned .

I suggest you Republicans stop revising history. Hitler was a Conservative who ran on restoring Christian Values against the immoral Liberals.

So it has never been true that sick discusting Liberals and Communists are not the ones to blame for the Poor and Low income in The United States Yes they are the rich get richer the poor and low income get more poor and low income.I hate the United States it is filled with scum if I was Hitler and I am in my mind I would murder all the scum that is keeping the good people down like me.

yeah and Hitler believed in abortion rights. uhh
and he started as a friend of commies and uhh he died an athiest or was it the reich religion I,m making this up as I go…

Economically, I believe in the free market, which does not exist in the US; the free market would allow anyone to sell or trade anything to anyone and if fraud or harmful products were involved, the courts would be used.

Remember “Let the Buyer Beware”. Libertarian is the only group that believes in the free market.

Socially, my views are liberal to radical. Any product or action between two (or more) consenting adults is between those adults.

So-called conservatives want to control womens birthing rights, marriage rights for non-traditionals and sexual practices in an outside of marriage. These same so-called economic conservatives protect large pharmaceutical companies from lower prices in the US, draft and pass legislation to protect the insurance industry and countless other industries that help keep the right politicians in office.

The US public’s attention can be turned away from issues that affect us daily by what should be non-issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, patriotism, and the sex life of a good, brilliant and popular president.

While the public’s mind sleeps, companies like Halliburton attain the spoils of a war that should never have been started, at the cost of thousands dead and billions wasted.

Considering the actions of the ‘conservatives’ since 1980, call me liberal; it makes me proud.

The Unites States is Crap they take care of the scum of the earth.

The labels of conservative and liberal seem to have specific meanings that are only relevant to the time and place where they’re used, and they can be easily applied to ideoligical positions which mean the exact opposite in different settings.

A “conservative” in North Korea, for example, would be somebody who wants to maintain a pure Communist state, and a “liberal” might be somebody who wants greater private enterprise and freedom of religion.

In American politics, I find nothing truly “conservative” about the idea that the State should dictate who gets to marry whom or which tries to force specific religious ideas into the schools. And there’s nothing “liberal” about demanding the right for one human being to be allowed to kill another human being in the womb out of personal convenience.

Nobody has cornered the market on virtue. So called American conservatives disgrace themselves with their attitude toward gays, and so called American liberals disgrace themselves with their attitude toward the unborn. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves but aren’t because they’re so blindly convinced of their own superior moral virtue.

Liberals aren’t Communists.
All I can say is: No Sh*t, Sherlock!

I hate the United States it is filled with scum if I was Hitler and I am in my mind I would murder all the scum that is keeping the good people down like me.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at November 29, 2005 08:02 PM

THEN LEAVE I’m sure you can find some thrid world country that would love to have you.

“Conservatives and Fundamentalist”

You write and I will read, ugh?

I have read some interesting posts on this topic, specifically regarding the differences regarding judicial and legislative philosophies of liberals and conservatives in this country. I’m going to be honest, as the labels are currently used, I can’t really see a distinct difference between the two sides.

The term “conservative” actually refers to the movement that is against government intervention in the daily affairs of the citizenry, or presupposing that the government capably administrates programs aimed at regulating life. True conservatives, such as myself, hold true to the Preamble of our Constitution, which we believe clearly delineates the role and purpose of the Federal Government. That is to say, the Fed Gov exists to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” There is nothing written by our august forefathers regarding expansion of governmental powers; in fact, the entire Constitution is written with the express purpose of limiting the scope of federal power!

Fast forward to modern times: both liberals and conservatives look to the federal government as a way to push their social aims. They look for activist justices and judges, who subvert the Constitution by being advocates, not impartial jurists. They provide huge sums to politicians, who spend their time legislating ways to interfere with our lives. I can’t find any historical context for the Patriot Act, the same as I can’t find one for “entitlements.”

Liberals, at one time, stood for pushing the social and economic envelope. The difference between American and European liberals, however, was that American liberals did not begin advocating government-sponsored socialism until the Great Depression. Who wouldn’t? If I had lived at that time in history, capitalism might have seemed like a dead elephant, too. Keynsian economics didn’t help, given that Keynes advocated increased government spending to offset private sector shortfalls. (One look at the current state of our national debt tells you how dubious that idea is.)

Current “conservative” philosophy is not much different than that of their “liberal” counterparts. Where they differ is in what their aims are. “Conservatives” are trying to create a federal bureaucracy that controls the ability of ordinary folk to enjoy the freedoms created by the Bill of Rights, and “Liberals” are (still) trying to create a bureaucracy that drains away private wealth for redistribution.

…I hope I haven’t confused anyone…

Republicans? As of of late my dear neocons, with all their miscreant social spending and pork-barrel. Spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. How dare you begin comparing us to socialists or even communists which is a different organism entirely.

House and senate Republicans LOVE THE CORPORATE WELFARE!!! If they really want to balance budgets why don’t they cull it back by thirty percent or more? Because they are laissez faire socialists, welcome to reallity republicans.

When the republicans cut welfare you thought you got your agenda across, right? Wrong 99% of all welfare is corporate only 1% went to single mothers. Did you know that your state taxes went up for those cuts in most states? Why because the cost was thrust onto the states to provide it. What a deal Newtie/Clinton gave ya’ huh? Looked like conservatism though didn’t it?

Why don’t republicans sell and privatize Amtrack then huh? Why don’t they? THE TRUTH IS THEY’RE SOCIALIST TOO. You just don’t research it but it is there trust me.

Dems do it, repubs do it and with all the outsourcing it will increase in the midwest. Republicans just think what they are doing is capitalist, scratch the surface sometime. Then scratch the surface of the state you live in under even the most republican governors, Senators and representatives. “Laissez faire socialist republicans”, try on that hat.

Jack,

“You can find pictures of Marx, Lenin, Mao and even Stalin in dorm rooms of American universities. T-shirts with pictures of Che Guevara are still popular.”

Because sometimes the dream is much better than the reality.

Is communism liberal or conservative? Both and neither. While some see similarities to liberalism, some see similarities to conservatism.

Kelly,

Large overly buricratic government thats intrusive and tells people how they should spend there money, live there lives, and raise there kids. hmm similar

Our government is biggest and overly bureaucratic under Republican control. It is the conservatives who are intrusive and tell people how they should live their lives by trying to regulate their idea of morality. They try to push their religious ideals on society, they are anti-choice when it comes to abortion, they are anti-marriage and anti-family when it comes to the personal lives of gays and lesbians. The Patriot Act is the biggest invasion into our lives ever enacted.

Hostle to religion and a tendencey to impose laws even if the majority of the population oppose it. There we go again.

Liberals are not hostile to religion. They are protective of diversity in religion, not putting one above another. Conservatives on the other hand are hostile to religions that are different than their own. Saying that someone is anti-religion equals communism is a misstatement at best.

In fact the idea of communism comes from the bible itself. “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need” (Acts 2:44-45)

Where I live, we have a rather large communist sect. It’s called the Immaculate Heart of Mary and it’s run by the Catholic church. Nuns from around the country live hear in a communal setting. Are nuns liberal or conservative? The ones I’ve met are pretty conservative.

At any rate, comparisons can be made all day, but in the end it’s a moot argument.

BTW: Socialism is an economic system, Communism is a political ideal. No government has successfully achieved a true communist state. The only successful ones have been run by religious organizations.

“Where I live, we have a rather large communist sect. It’s called the Immaculate Heart of Mary and it’s run by the Catholic church. Nuns from around the country live hear in a communal setting. Are nuns liberal or conservative? The ones I’ve met are pretty conservative.”

Jay,

You have fallen into the trap of believing that a moral conservative is a political conservative. Not quite. I manage to seperate my politics from my religion, since I understand that combining the two violates the First and Ninth Amendments, and possibly the Tenth, as well.

Too bad Karl Rove, et al. have denigrated and co-opted the conservative name.

Ray,

You have fallen into the trap of believing that a moral conservative is a political conservative.

I agree. The conservative leadership in Washington have been proving this point, almost by the day. I am happy to hear you are able to seperate your politics from your religion. Many cannot.

Aldous,
“I suggest you Republicans stop revising history. Hitler was a Conservative who ran on restoring Christian Values against the immoral Liberals.”
_____________________________

Hitler was a socialist, check it out:

http://webt.ask.com/fr?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2FAthens%2FOlympus%2F3012%2Fgerman_outline.htm&s=k5&bu=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.ask.com%2Fweb%3Fq%3DFormation%2Bof%2BNazi%2BParty%26o%3D0%26page%3D1&q=Formation+of+Nazi+Party&o=0&qt=0&ma=Great%20bitterness%20over%20this%20treaty%20lead%20to%20the%20formation%20of%20extremist%20groups%20such%20as%20the%20Workers%E2%80%99%20Party%2C%20a%20predecessor%20of%20the%20Nazi%20party.&mt=German%20nazi%20party&mb=e32c9a44e3b0e823a76393545d40c359

He was head of the National Socialist German Workingmen’s Party (abbreviated as Nazi).

“While Hitler was in prison he wrote volume one of Mein Kampf (My Struggle) which was published in 1925. The book detailed Hitler’s radical ideas of German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and anti- Bolshevism.

Linked with social Darwinism, Hitler’s book became the ideological base for the Nazi Party’s racist beliefs & murderous practices
After Hitler’s release, the Nazi party was resurrected and reorganized.

The Conservative military hero Paul Von Hindenburg was elected over Hitler in the presidential election, and Germany stabilized.”

Kelly, How exactly are we “still suffering the consequences of” Hillary and healthcare? Her plan never passed.

ROcky

I guess we have to make the distinction between communism, which could be a dream (albeit a very boring and limp one) and Marxism, which is nothing but a nightmare all the time. Lenin, Mao and Stalin are certainly as evil as Hitler. Che Guevara was just a screw up, so maybe having his picture is not as bad.

Rahdigly

Aldous has several lines he likes to use. We don’t know whether he believes them or not, but no you won’t get any satisfaction from responding.

The wheel is moving, but the hamster is evidently dead.

JayJay,

In fact the idea of communism comes from the bible itself. “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need†(Acts 2:44-45)

Not so fast there Jay. You honestly haven’t thought about this much have you? There’s distinction to be made between voluntary religious association and forced work camps. Otherwise, the prerequisite for being a communist should in fact be to be a believer.

The fact is that the ideas for communism go back even further to Plato and greek philosophers, to the Gracchi in Rome… there are a lot of threads to the idea of communism that have roots in classical philosophy and pagan religion that have nothing to do with Christianity except in how they were blended back in after Rome ceased to be a political power and became a religious one.

Aldous,

I suggest you Republicans stop revising history. Hitler was a Conservative who ran on restoring Christian Values against the immoral Liberals.

You crack me up, Aldous. You might want to study that a little deeper. Deeper than the ‘topical studies’ found at democraticunderground.com that is.

LouisXIV,

Those who call themselves conservative today believe that everybody who disagrees with them is an enemy of the state. This outlook, prevalent as it is, is anti-American and opposed to liberty.

I’ve heard this so many times. Loius, is it just that liberals can’t handle criticism? Or is there some other reason why any disagreement with the liberal point of view is automatically labeled as ‘hate speech’ and ‘questioning your patriotism’, and the like. As I’ve mentioned before this is a one way street for the left. Exactly what is calling Bush a criminal and a murderer rate as in your mind?

Conservatives tend to be against individual freedom when they support judges who assert that the government has a right to outlaw birth control and masturbation (Bork and Scalia).

If the government can mandate against spanking the monkey (whipping the lizard, flogging the dolphin, slamming the ham, playing pocket pool, pulling the pud….) what sort of freedoms are we permitted?

Scalia asserts that the government can and should outlaw masturbation. Bork asserts that the government has the right to outlaw birth control (Griswald vs. Connecticut)

Was Scalia on the Court during Griswold v. Connecticut? You’ll have to provide a little more detail about this. I frankly don’t believe you.

esimonson,

I agree with you. I phrased that wrong. It should have been that communist principles are taught in the bible, not that they originated there. The point of mentioning this at all was in response to Kelly’s assertion that people who are “hostle to religion” as she puts it, are communist.

People who are “hostile to religion” are usually that way when a religious belief is forced on them, not because they believe in communism.

esimonson,

There’s distinction to be made between voluntary religious association and forced work camps. Otherwise, the prerequisite for being a communist should in fact be to be a believer.

That is one reason that communism outside of religion or a cult, hasn’t worked.

Albert Garibay,

Ron Brown said it. I’ll say it.

LEAVE! TODAY! NOW! PRONTO! Americans do not want you here! We are proud of our country! We support our country! Pro Iraq war, or not! You’re wasting our space! You don’t deserve to stand on this soil! You don’t like the USA? Then do us all a favor and LEAVE!

“American liberals are often misguided and sometimes have trouble recognizing the enemy, but it is a mistake caused by their better natures. Franklin Roosevelt evidently thought Stalin was just a leader like himself who could be persuaded to give up his vicious ways if only he felt secure.”

Jack,

How ironic you make this statement about liberals.

Carolyn LW & Ray,

Well said.

Remember “Let the Buyer Bewareâ€. Libertarian is the only group that believes in the free market.

I think the Libertarian party is the only group that believes in the U.S. Constitution, pesonal responsibility & small and limited government as well.

esimonson,

You bring up a good point when you say “Otherwise, the prerequisite for being a communist should in fact be to be a believer.”

I think there are 2 possible definitions of Communism. Communism on paper, and Communism in practice. On paper, Communism is a liberal ideology. But in practice it is more conservative due to human nature. Part of Communism is social order. In the example of religions that utilize communistic practices, everyone involved believes in the cause. As you pointed out if they didn’t they could just leave. Things move along smoothly as everyone is working towards the same goal.

When a government puts communism into practice not everyone believes in the cause. This leads to social unrest. In order to reign in this unrest new restrictions are imposed. These new restrictions usually lead to renewed opposition and things start snowballing from there, until it collapses.

So, maybe you are right, one of the prerequisite for being a communist should be that everyone be a believer. The fact that no governed society has ever achieved true communism speaks to that. So, is it fair to say that American liberals or American conservatives are communists? No, because neither side believes in that cause. Both sides believe in the cause of freedom and protecting this country. We just see it differently on how to achieve those goals.

Jack, your relativism is hilarious. So, according to you, America’s past is so much better than communists past based on numbers and whether everyone got along after the cleansing or war. That would make Timothy McVeigh a much better person than Adolph Hitler. Too funny.

It wasn’t the Communism or Russians who were responsible for mass slaughter, Jack, it was ONE man, named Stalin. And, I loved the way you completely ignored the treatment of blacks after the Civil War as a way of whitewashing a fantasy that after the Civil War we all got along. BullShit, Jack. Facts and history contradict your ‘white’wash mightily. Everyone did not go home happy, equal, and friendly after our Civil War.

Esimonson, true and pure socialism has never been implemented in a nation on this earth, save for a few aboriginal tribes in S. America and one in New Guinea where it worked excellently for their stone age way of life and peacefulness. And wanting for nothing was, and in one case still is, the hallmark of their cultures.

And for that matter, the only instance of relatively pure capitalism and free markets that ever occured in modern history was in America prior to the 1929 stock market crash, which was a natural outcome of its unbridaled greed mechanism which precluded sufficient consumerism to sustain the markets.

That is why, today, in every modern successful society, you find the mixed economies, some socialist aspects in the form of gov’t. regulation and consumer safety nets to insure their continued consumer activities, and capitalism and very degrees of open and free market competition.

The only differences between China, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the US are the ratios in their mixed economies of socialist policy to capitalist policy. India’s incredible capitalist success over the last couple decades has created the inevitable and logical demand by its people and willing acceptance by its government to balance that success by growing socialist programs as a measure to protect their capitalist growth against revolution, civil chaos, and their growing consumer base which helps sustain their successful capitalist growth.

Your purist view of capitalism Good, socialism Bad, is a naive and simplistic view which exists in a world of ideological fantasy, NOT in the real world, for very real and practical reasons.

But the common denominator of progressive and liberal thought is collectivism. The idea that society as a collective should have political power over and above the individual — especially over economic matters.

Strange… I’ve always thought that conservatives were the ones placing the good of society over the individual. The concept of the Free Market is economic Darwinism — “survival of the fittest”. Competition culls the herd. Sure, the weakest individuals may fall, but the society as a whole will be stronger, and the strength of the SOCIETY is what’s important.

Socialism, on the other hand, stresses the individual’s needs. If an individual is underfed, or homeless, or out of work, then the society is responsible for taking care of that individual, even if it weakens society to do so. The needs of the INDIVIDUAL are seen as more important.

The hard part, of course, is preserving freedom in the process. Can you achieve a society that CAN take care of the individual, while still leaving the individual with the freedom to take care of himself? If some freedom must be sacrificed for society, then how much is too much?

As for communism — it looks great on paper, but no country has ever tried it. The nations we call “communist” (Soviet Union, Cuba, China) just used communist philosophy to install Totalitarian regimes. Hitler used Christian philosophies for the same purpose. The ultimate result was the same — loss of freedom for most, and power for a select few.

Although I worry about some individual politicians (who will remain nameless in this post), I believe that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in installing a totalitarian regime in this country. Both parties are committed to supporting democracy, freedom, and prosperity for the American people. They just disagree on how to get there.

It wasn’t the Communism or Russians who were responsible for mass slaughter, Jack, it was ONE man, named Stalin.

Well, I wouldn’t count Lenin totally out of the picture, David, but I agree with your sentiment. ;-)

It may be a bit off-topic here, but I think we single Hitler out more than he actually deserves. Compared to many of the kings and queens of Europe from the Middle Ages, several Dark-Age popes, countless barbarian leaders, and more than a few Roman emperors, he doesn’t really stand out much. Don’t get me wrong — the man was an evil bastard — but he was by no means an historical anomaly. The only real difference is that he arose in a day when he had the technology to turn his dream into everyone else’s nightmare. And he’s not even unique in that respect, as any study of the rule of Joseph Stalin will reveal.

Calling someone a communist is quite the insult.

However, communists in this country from the mid 20th century, regardless popular dogma, were drawn to it because of their concern for the average worker.

So perhaps their is some fibers of similarity there. But should liberals be ashamed of having their hearts in the right place?

Hi esimonson,

“is it just that liberals can’t handle criticism?”

Lying isn’t criticism. Lying is lying. The right frequently lies about Democrats being unpatriotic.

“Or is there some other reason why any disagreement with the liberal point of view is automatically labeled as ‘hate speech’ and ‘questioning your patriotism’”

You’re spinning out of control here. When right wingers say hateful things about Democrats and attack our patriotism that isn’t “any disagreement”….that is telling filthy lies and engaging in hate speech.

Ann Coulter is an example of someone who lies and says hateful things about Democrats. Coulter asserts that everyone who disagrees with her is guilty of a crime that carries the death penalty (Treason”).

“Was Scalia on the Court during Griswold v. Connecticut?”

I don’t think so and I didn’t assert it. Bork said that he’d have sided with Connecticut’s right to outlaw birth control.

Scalia has said that the government can and should outlaw masturbation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/28/findlaw.analysis.dorf.scalia/

The right believes that our genitals and our religion are very much the government’s business.

Do you agree with the right wing views on government dicating our religion and how we handle our genitals?

So perhaps their is some fibers of similarity there. But should liberals be ashamed of having their hearts in the right place?

Absolutely not. I’ve often heard it said, though, that liberals follow their hearts, and conservatives follow their heads. The struggle between them often seems like the struggle between compassion and practicality. What we need is a little of both

Scalia has said that the government can and should outlaw masturbation.

Where did you find this? In your article you linked, all I could find on the topic was:

In dissent, Justice Scalia complained that the majority’s ruling called into question “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.”

That isn’t a statement as to whether the government should outlaw anything. It’s simply a statement as to whether a state has the Constitutional authority to do so. There’s a huge difference.

Now, I don’t agree with Scalia on a lot of things, but as far as I can tell, he hasn’t actually expressed an interest in outlawing masturbation.

Hi Rob,

“That isn’t a statement as to whether the government should outlaw anything.”

Scalia disagreed with the ruling because it called into question laws that outlaw masturbation. Obviously he favors laws that outlaw masturbation otherwise he wouldn’t have said that.

Scalia has agreed that science is religion and religion is science. He has agreed with those who are stupid enough to assert that the Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion.

Scalia believes in government intervention in our private lives and he’s demonstrated that he’s a complete idiot.

Hi Rob,

“The struggle between them often seems like the struggle between compassion and practicality.”

Conservatives follow a fellow who advocated “retaliating” against the wrong country for 9/11. That’s pretty fricking stupid for a Secretary of Defense (I’m refering to Rumsfeld of course).

Rumsfeld also used “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” as a basis for invading Iraq. The man is the darling of Conservatives and he’s incapable of rational thought……He’s stupid beyond belief.

I don’t concede an inch of common sense in my disagreements with the right. These neocons are completely unable to comprehend obvious facts.

Jack,

“I guess we have to make the distinction between communism, which could be a dream (albeit a very boring and limp one) and Marxism, which is nothing but a nightmare all the time. Lenin, Mao and Stalin are certainly as evil as Hitler. Che Guevara was just a screw up, so maybe having his picture is not as bad.”

Sorry I wasn’t more specific. I was in a hurry and didn’t finish my thought.

Revolution often holds a certain attraction to youth. The heros of revolution (to some), even more so. As we grow up we leave much of this behind.

My statement should have included this;
The dream of revolution is often much more attractive than the reality……

Marxism (as opposed to the plain unworkable communism) is wrong in most of its aspects. The best sayings Marx stole from others (seeds of destruction, opium of the masses, from each according to his ability etc). Generally what is good in Marx is not original and what is original is not good.

Marx if left alone would be quaint. He would be in the same league as Herbert Spenser or Oswald Spengler: vaguely noxious but on the whole forgetable. But Marx was not left alone. As Lenin and others found out, Marxism turned out to be an excellent offensive weapon to destroy societies and subjugate people.

What you call relativism, I would just call pragmatic. We never have any “pure” system because such things exist only in the minds of theoreticians who don’t actually do much of anything. What we get is some corruption of the ideal and that is what we have to judge - by what it really does. How can it be misused?

When I refer the post-civil war situation, I know there are many problems. But those who propose utopias get a lot more people killed and do much more damage. Sometimes the difference in quantity is so great it becomes a difference in quality. Even among the most oppressed Americans life was better than among average Soviets. And it is unlikely you could find a prison in the U.S. where life was worse than in an average North Korean village. Consider the statistics on a very dark episode in our history, lynching. Look at these figures gathered by the Tuskegee Institute. In Soviet Union or Communist China they could easily murder that many people before breakfast on a slow day.

Marxism has lots of problems that were present at the creation. Capitalism, the use of the free market, doesn’t come with an instruction book, like Marxism does. There is no founder of capitalism (Adam Smith wrote about what he saw. He is descriptive not prescriptive) It is based on practice. You just can’t be accused of being a “bad” capitalist if you are successful. There is no political or academic requirement. That is precisely why the free market works and Marxism languishes in the garbage heap.

A good free marketer knows that general principles can’t decide specific cases. He uses the principles as guidelines as long as they work and changes them when they don’t.

That is why American never works in theory, but does really well in practice and why many of the theoretical heavens are really hell holes.

Ron Brown, Rick,

It is painfully obvious to me that neither of you understand the most basic principles on which America was founded. While I must agree that Albert Garibay’s comments are incredibly offensive, and personally wish that he would keep them to himself, it is his *right* to have and, yes, even to express his views. It’s called ‘freedom of speech’. Furthermore, America is great and unique precisely because you are able to openly disagree with popular opinion. Dissent is a very important part of democracy. I feel certain that two such apparently intelligent persons as yourselves don’t need to be lectured about something so fundamentally American, but I am thoroughly sick of hearing that dumbed down phrase aimed at avoiding intelligent discussion - “if you don’t like it, leave”. That is not how America works, and, if *you* don’t like it, tough. Learn to live with it…wherever you choose to do so.

Rahl
It is Albert Garibay’s right to say what he wants too. It is also his right to hate the US if he wants too.
It is also my right to invite ANYONE that hates this country to leave it and not let the door to hit them in the ass on their way out.
I’ve been places I hate and I got out of there ASAP. And didn’t let the door hit me in the ass.
If someone hates someplace then that means there is somewhere else that they like better. If that’s the case then they need to go there post haste.

While I don’t believe that being Liberial makes someone a Communist. I do believe that there are those that claim to be Liberial that are really Communist.
I have put 3 of 6 kids through college and have one currently in college. This has caused me to come to the conclusion that most college professors that fit my second statement.
My youngest child is a junior at the University of Georgia. In the three years she has been there she has been told to read ‘The Communist Manifesto’ a total of 10 times. She has not once been told to read ‘The Federalist Papers’.
She has a copy of ‘The Federalist Papers’ and has carried it to class with her and has brought up points out of it. She has been told several times that the book has no credibilty. She has also been told not to bring a subversive book like that to class.
Why would Economics and History professors require a book like ‘The Communist Manifesto’ and not even accknowledge that ‘The Federalist Papers’ is creditable? And call it subversive?
The only reason I can come up with is that they are Communist.

Ron

Don’t worry too much. When I started college, I didn’t think much about politics and vaguely thought communism might not be as bad a people said. A professor made us read Marx. After you reach through that incredible garbage, no intelligent person (knowing what we know today) can believe in Marx. Yes I know I am offending some people. YOu know who you are. Many people who claim to be Marxist, however, don’t really buy it either.

Ron,

It is subversive because she has retained independant thoguht despite her age.

LouisXIV
If you want the freedom to go jackoff somewhere then do it. To call any Supreme Court justice a complete idiot begs the question of what standard is used to judge anyone a complete idiot, save an opinion of the one doing the judging. Just because an individual thinks or does things different that you do is not a justification for labeling one a complete idiot. You also label anyone who disagrees with you as speaking hate. Again where is the standard used to justify that conclusion? People who accuse others of hate are usually the one practicing hate and therefore if I disagree with you then I am being hateful. That is not even logical on any scale.

Hi Tom,

“If you want the freedom to go jackoff somewhere then do it.”

Do you agree with Scalia that the government can and should regulate that sort of thing? I doubt you’ll give me a straight answer but perhaps you’ll suprise me.

“To call any Supreme Court justice a complete idiot begs the question of what standard is used to judge anyone a complete idiot”

Here’s a few examples of many that Scalia is a complete idiot:

“Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”

“Although creation science is educationally valuable and strictly scientific, it is now being censored from or misrepresented in the public schools”

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion.”-Edwards v. Aguillard U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Scalia’s dissenting opinion

Scalia has clearly Demonstrated that he’s an idiot.

Hi Tom,

“if I disagree with you then I am being hateful.”

I said nothing of the sort. I said that accusing everyone you disagree with of Treason (a crime that carries the death penalty) is hateful.

Ann Coulter accused everyone she disagrees with of treason and therefore and Coulter and those who agree with her are hateful.

I didn’t say that everyone who disagrees with me is hateful. Many on the right have said that (see above) but I never said it.

LouisXIV,

In dissent, Justice Scalia complained that the majority’s ruling called into question “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.”

Scalia disagreed with the ruling because it called into question laws that outlaw masturbation. Obviously he favors laws that outlaw masturbation otherwise he wouldn’t have said that.

By your logic, since you oppose Scalia’s dissent, obviously you are favor bigamy, incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity as well as same sex marriage and masturbation.

Hi Jo,

“you favor bigamy, incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity as well as same sex marriage and masturbation.”

I do nothing of the sort. There is nothing in my logic that indicates any such thing.

Do you agree with scalia that whether one masturbates is the government’s business? Do you see masturbation as a private or a governmental matter?

Jack, jo
Thank for the encouraging words.
One thing we tried to teach our youngins while they were growing up was to think for themselves.
I reckon they did listen to us at least once.

LouisXIV
You don’t make sense.
So, I guess its ok if the cook at Jack in the Box will jackoff and spread the fluid all over the cheeseburger he is cooking.
Maybe you think NAMBLA is cool to want to stick it in the rear of little boys and say they have a right to do that. It is just plain sick!!

Hi Tom,

“Maybe you think NAMBLA is cool to want to stick it in the rear of little boys and say they have a right to do that.”

You have me confused with your father. Please leave your perverted relatives out of this discussion.

Hi Tom,

If you’re too dishonest or too stupid to engage in honest debate why not just say so?

Telling filthy lies doesn’t make you look very smart and it sure as hell doesn’t make you appear honest.

Are you a lying scumbag in all of your discussions or is this a special occaision of some sort?

Yes, i agree it is the government’s business and that the states have the right to regulate whether one masturbates.

Hi Jo,

I think it’s a private rather than a governmental matter.

You favor laws that most people consider extremely repressive.

LouisXIV,

Yes, i favor laws that are extremely repressive. i favor laws which confine such acts as fornication and masturbation to private homes and bedrooms. Billboards, meida and today’s society of course disagree with me and rather set such acts that you suggest are private to the public square while such outrageously offensive behaviors as mentioning faith or God are to necessarily banned to the shadows lest children be corrupted.

Hi Jo,

“mentioning faith or God are to necessarily banned to the shadows lest children be corrupted.”

Religion isn’t banned. You are extremely confused.

Religion isn’t the govnerment’s business. It’s not up to the government to endorse religious beliefs but we are all free to practice them and speak of them.

You’ve indicated that you think what goes on in one’s bedroom is the government’s business.

You have an odd view of government. You seem to think that it’s the governments business to promote religion and prohibit private functions.

LouisXIV,

i think it is government’s business to be neutral on one’s religious/non-religious views and expressions. i think it is government’s business to prohibit ‘private’ functions from harming others.

Hi Jo,

“i think it is government’s business to be neutral on one’s religious/non-religious views and expressions.”

So you don’t believe in government sponsered religion?

“i think it is government’s business to prohibit ‘private’ functions from harming others.”

Of course it is. That’s not what’s being discussed though.

You think that the government can regulate what one does with one’s genitals in the privacy of one’s home which is an extremely repressive view.

Actually, Christianity and Communism have a lot in common. Think about it:

Hi Jo,

So you don’t believe in government sponsered religion?

No, i do not believe in government sponsored religion. i do not believe in government sponsorship of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, atheism, secular humanism or any other religioun/ideology. i think government should be neutral on individual beliefs of her citizenry.

“i think it is government’s business to prohibit private functions from harming others.”

Of course it is. That’s not what’s being discussed though.

Oh, but it is. You brought it up.

Do you agree with scalia that whether one masturbates is the government’s business? Do you see masturbation as a private or a governmental matter? -LoiusXIV

“It is also my right to invite ANYONE that hates this country to leave it and not let the door to hit them in the ass on their way out.”

I concede this - it is your right to say whatever you want, as per my point. However, don’t expect anyone to take it as anything but an insult a la “go to hell”. Furthermore, your request is a mistake. It is precisely those who question authority and the ‘norm’ that America relies on to balance out those of us who would make ‘ol W. the first American King. Our differences are our strengths.

“If someone hates someplace then that means there is somewhere else that they like better.”

Not necessarily, this is a major assumption, and we all know how accurate those are.

Now calm yourself. The main reason I bring this up is that your favored phrase “…then leave”, has become perhaps the single most used phrase of the W. generation. This statement says nothing of your intent or beliefs other than that you are not, in fact, willing to tolerate any opinion other than your own - while it is your right to hold this opinion, it is not in fact an “American” opinion. Try replacing this simple-minded phrase with an actual argument, such as, ‘if you don’t like America, what are you doing to make America into a place you *would* like?’ This shifts the burden onto the obviously immature Garibay without making yourself look ignorant in the process. Thanx.

The only opinion that I don’t tolerate is hatered of this Coountry. IF YOU DON’T LOVE IT LEAVE IT!
I’m tired of ALL these lilly livered ass holes that want to have all the benifits of this Great Country but hate everything it stands for.
We have a right to our opinions on the issues that face this country. And if those opinions don’t agree with mine I’ll still respect them. I’ll even debate them with you. This is why this blog exsist.
But hated for this Great Nation of ours IS NOT an opinion. And how anyone who claims to love our Country can tolerate it is far beyond me. Specially from the scumbags that are benifiting from living here.
Again IF YOU DON’T LOVE IT LEAVE IT. No one here except your fellow assholes.

LouisXIV
You mention debate. Do not confuse debate with debase. Your mixture of them sets a confused tone coming from you. And for you to mention my beloved father who has passed from this life and was noble while he lived, in a way which you did is not debate nor debase; it is part of the perversion which is being brought down on decent people by those who neither understand liberty or desire it for others.

Ron Brown,

There are days when I hate this country. There are days when I love this country. But overall, I’d say that I dislike America less than I dislike every other country. On a bad day (like today), I consider it akin to asking what my favorite form of cancer is.

Then again, that might just be because I’ve been stuck at home sick all day. Tomorrow, I might be wearing red, white, and blue, and playing Lee Greenwood on my iPod at work.

But, either way, I’ve never bought into that whole “My Country, right or wrong” mentality. If things suck, I’ll try to change them. If they suck too bad, I’ll move out. It’s the spirit this country was founded on — it’s what caused the Pilgrims to get on the friggin’ Mayflower in the first place. As Bill Murray said in “Stripes”:

We’re Americans… That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world.

Sorry if I don’t live up to your model of patriotism, but I had enough “Rah! Rah! Go Team!” in high school. I’ve outgrown blind patriotism.

But hated for this Great Nation of ours IS NOT an opinion.

Sometimes I hate my parents. This does not mean I don’t love my parents. It works the same with America as it does with parents. What is your OPINION is that someone does not deserve to live here if they say they hate America.

Again IF YOU DON’T LOVE IT LEAVE IT. No one here except your fellow assholes.

bltb
If you think it’s ingorants not to tolerate hatered for this country while enjoying all the benifit of living here then count me ingorant.
We live in the greatest country on the face of this earth. And for someone to enjoy the freedoms we have and hate this country is the real ingorants.

Rob,
I’m the last person that will say that the United States is perfect. There are serveral thing that need changing. I’m all for making those changes. But at the same time it is my country right or wrong. I support what is right and try to find solutions for the things that are wrong.
It’s like the love a parent has for their children. You may not love the actions of your children at time. But you ALWAYS LOVED THEM!
For me it’s the same with the United States. I haven’t always loved the actions of this county.
BUT I HAVE ALWAYS LOVED THIS COUNTRY!
Now if that’s ingorants I’m proud to be ingorant.

It is interesting that the only ones people can safely insult is Americans. Take Albert’s twisted statement and substitute (with proper grammar adjustments) for United States any of the following: gays, blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, or women. Is this a bigoted statement. If not, don’t complain next time someone says something lite that. If you think it is bigoted, stop treating Americans that way.

Free speech is great. But some free speech is hateful and stupid. Good people have the right and the duty to point that out. While asking people to leave the U.S. may not be appropriate, you do have to wonder why people who hate the place so much want to hang around. I assume it is because they are dishonest.

Please read some American Histor written before
1940. It has been rewritten by everyonesided idiot to down the US it’s heros it’s morals nad to
make the general public ignorant of tje truth. If
I offend you I appologise but facts are facts,
the average college sutdent is not educated in America or it’s history. The reason thet the United States is the greatest and strongest nation in the world is because we have been blessed by God. We are the only country in the western Hemisphere founded on judeo/christian
principles. READ history as it Happened, the first
words of George Washington at his first innaugeral was. We must thant the Creator of the Universe for his blessings. Do you know that by federal law no building in Washington DC can be taller than the Washington Monument? Find out why. You can not walk any whrer in DC without
reading plaques and monuments praisinf God,
Europe has been walking away form religion and
now they are falling apart. as powers and as nations. When a high school book in todays classes
devote one page to our first president and seven to Marylyn Monroe we have a problem. Do you know for instance that the GNP of California is larger
than Germany and France combined. I have been to
germany switzerland england canada mexico japan formosa viet nam thailand phillipines andin 43 of the fifty states and nowhere else in this world is better, cleaner more honest fairer and more giving than the USA, Love it or Leave it. If you love it fight for it if you don’t leave or shut up. Signed a vet of 23 years military service and proud of it.

Touche Jack,

Finally someone with sense - though we often criticize the most those we hold dearest, and hate and love are far more closely related than most think. The opposite of love is in fact apathy, and the majority of Americans are nothing if not indifferent.

Dear, Dear Ron.
I must say that the drunker you get, the meaner you get (sorry, that was a slam on your spelling - and uncalled for). Hatred for this country is a feeling, and one I do not share. However, I sympathize with those who do for the same reason that I sympathize with you = ignorance is pathetic. As for whoever was reveling in their ignorance, I’ve never heard anyone extole ignorance as a virtue, nor a value, and certainly not an American one.

Hating America is certainly the right of an American Citizen, despite your ignorant ranting banter. Furthermore, often when a person says they hate a thing, they really mean that they hate something about that thing (in this case, America). Here, I must concur. I hate the direction our country is headed, when we trade freedom for so called ‘security’ on a daily basis. Old school republicans (before your time?) believed in freedom - from oppressive people such as yourselves, and from good ‘ol W. It’s apparent to me that George Senior’s only true failing was in raising that unruly son of his.
How can you honestly ask why a person who is benefitting from living here wouldn’t leave if they hate (things about) America? I doubt that when Clinton was in office you took a leave of abscence from your job, packed up your belongings and ‘got your ass outa here, post-haste’.

So again, like it or not, some Americans do in fact hate America, and I welcome them as I welcome you, as fellow citizens - but perhaps you and your ‘fellow assholes’ should follow your own advice, and look for a country that allows biggoted self-described ‘assholes’ to suppress the valid, constitutionally protected opinions of fellow citizens - because THIS IS AMERICA, and despite your best efforts, ITS NOT GONNA CHANGE! (FYI - I hear Iraq has an opening for dictator.)

Oh lord….I can’t let this one go.

Historian -
You are so off from even coming close to nearly passing by the truth at a distance that all I can say is - perhaps you should take some of those college classes - you sound as though you need them.

Meaningless, nonsensical, random facts no more make the truth than a string of unrelated letters makes a sentence.
aldkjflajfdaf aeanenw adsfadfs
See what I mean? (looks kinda familiar though, doesn’t it :)

That is all the commentary that I think your post is entitled to.

Before you get all haughty and incensed about me disrespecting your years of service, let me say - any 13 year old with an internet connection can make such claims, and with no more proof than yourself. Leave the policy and law making (and constitutional interpretations) to those who have spent some time studying them.

Signed a vet of 90 years military service and proud of it (see how easy that is?)

Garibay approached his hatred of this country in an intence fashion. He received two responces in intence fashion. Yes his freedom of speech is appreciated, but not by some of us that cherrish this soil. Robert Redford said he would leave this country if George W. Bush is elected. Well, Robert didn’t leave. I wanted him to leave for making a statement like that about any possible future president. Like Bush, Clinton, etc. or not, they are our president. No reason to hate them. To hate this country and choose to live here is not right. Go to England or someplace and see if you like it better. Or try to make this country a better place. Either way, find a place you can be happy with. Hatred will wear you down and eat you inside-out. If you hate your job, try to find the job you will like, or love. I enjoyed my job as a daily paid laborer at minimun wage. I chose to enjoy what I am doing at the time. All the while, I had dreams of being a certified welder again. The oil plunge of the early 80’s took me out of welding. Over 800 certified welders laid off the same day as me. Now I remodel houses and love it.

I didn’t hate my country because of that, or because I didn’t like Carter, ( and still don’t like Carter ),. I learned from Carter, and started voting Republican.

Find a place in this life and be HAPPY!

Hi Tom,

“Do not confuse debate with debase”

If you don’t want “debase” don’t say: “Maybe you think NAMBLA is cool to want to stick it in the rear of little boys and say they have a right to do that.”

“it is part of the perversion which is being brought down on decent people by those who neither understand liberty or desire it for others.”

You’re the one posting perversion Tom. You post incredibly filthy stuff and then get high and mighty.

If you don’t want perversion why do you post it?

Hi Jo,

“No, i do not believe in government sponsored religion.”

Why did you bring up that nonsense about religion in the public square then?

“You brought it up.”

I did not. I said masturbation was a private rather than a governmental matter. You raised the nonsense about the billboards.

Rick,

exactly.

Rahl
Disliking a president and hating America is two different things. No I did not like Clinton, as President. He might be a fun guy to hang around with otherwise. He does know some interesting this to do with cigars.
Yes I love America. That’s on reason I served it for 20 years.
I’m not asking someone to leave the country because they don’t like Bush. If that was the case I’d have to ask 100% of the Liberials to leave. I’m inviting a person that says he hates this country to leave. And I’ll invite anyone else that hates it to leave. If you hate something you should get as far away from it as possible.
There’s enough people in other countries that that hate America without have to putup with them here.

rick,
I remember Barbara Stristan say she’d leave if George sr got elected. I was going to send her a one way ticket but my wife stopped me.

Rob:
“I’ve often heard it said, though, that liberals follow their hearts, and conservatives follow their heads.”

Thank heavens that real life is not as simplistic as catchy little axioms always are, don’t you think?

“The struggle between them often seems like the struggle between compassion and practicality. What we need is a little of both”

Yeah, that’s why a balance of power is always a good idea. Unfortunately, we don’t have that right now — and would you just look at this mess and all the disastrous results!

LouisXIV,

I agree. Clearly Rummy is quite appallingly stupid, and Scalia is constantly making idiotic comments. Indeed, the ones you’ve posted were quite stunningly so.
Btw, I admire your style of debate. Heavy on the logic, yet always with a drop of wit, and a little bitter sarcasm.
That’s just my cup of java — strong, a little cream, no sugar.

Jack:
“Free speech is great. But some free speech is hateful and stupid. Good people have the right and the duty to point that out.”

Well said. I’m personally offended by the hatred and utter stupidity of Garibay-style comments. Sure these people have a right to free speech, and everytime they exercise it, we all have the right to denounce them for everything they stand for. After all, since Nazi’s give no respect, they should get no respect from any of us.

“While asking people to leave the U.S. may not be appropriate, you do have to wonder why people who hate the place so much want to hang around. I assume it is because they are dishonest.”

Hitler and the Nazi’s were a murderous lunatics and complete losers. The KKK are murderous lunatics and complete losers. Those who praise Hitler and the KKK and promote those ideologies are murderous lunatics and complete losers.
Thankfully, after kicking Nazi ass in WWII and after the Black Civil Rights movement, their numbers have been reduced to a laughably silly and pathetic lil’ gang of trailer trash that has to hide behind the cops everytime they want to march down the street.

“jo:
obviously you are favor bigamy,”

No. But obviously some of the Mormons like it — it’s a religious thing for them, I believe. Kind of like those “sacred underwear” a certain percentage of them wear under their clothes.

“incest”

Eeww! No way.

“prostitution,”

Well yeah, why not legalize it? It’s not like it is ever going to go away — and besides the administration hired a man-whore to lob soft ball questions to them at press conferences, so prostitution obviously has received the presidential seal of approval!

“adultery,”

Sorry, that’s not going to go away either. Not that I think it’s a good idea, however, I am being realistic.

“fornication,”

Definitely. I fornicated with my husband for 16 years before we got married. Good times…

“bestiality”

Eeww! No way.

“and obscenity”

All in the eye of the beholder, I’d say.

“same sex marriage”

Yes, I’m all for love and fidelity.

“and masturbation.”

Freedom over what one chooses to do with ones own body? Absolutely.

Jack,

Can see you are aware that the National Socialist Workers Party is indeed Left Wing. That fact though obvious has been censored as much as possible. Hence the abrev to just NAZI in the media out of embarassment. An amazing documented proof of this is availible at http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/index.html a must see.

I challenge anyone to read Hitler’s total embrace of Socialism in his own words and try to deny it.

Why the linkage of Communists and Liberals (the alternative is linking Conservatives and Libertarians which is OK as Libertarians are even further to the Right), if you look at who supports the Stalinist lifetime military dictator of Cuba, you get the answer.

From CBS to Ted Kennedy to Chevy Chase (who said in an videotaped interview that Socialism “works” in Cuba, to Jack Nicolson (who said “Cuba is workers paradise” to Barara Striesand the big name Liberals have always supported hardline brutal Communist dictatorships. Things like elections and press freedom are obviusly unimportant to them, or they would criticize Stalinists, but they never have. They support them just as you note with Mao and Stalin t-shirts, they deserve linkage.

The most popular Communist, the one that swelled the ranks of Communist Party USA to record levels 100 times bigger than today (they came from and returned to the Democratic party primarily), that was worshipped by the New York Times and their top reporter Duranty, was … Joseph Stalin himself, the worst mass murderer at the peak of his murder when Liberals loved him the most.

Liberals are good and bad, but they like a lot about Communism whereas Conservatives do not like anything about Communism.

Liberals are about half way to Communists on the Political Spectrum from Conservatives, and Hitler’s breed which is almost identical to Red China’s breed of Socialism is about 85% of the way to pure Castro like Communism.

Cheers

Rahl,

I don’t think I have ever agreed with Ron, but I do agree with him on this. I thik one of the biggest problems with American society today is that people think nobody should have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Albert is certainly free to express that he hates this country, but he should be prepared to suffer the consequences of making such a statement on a blog with such patriotic contributors.

If Albert were to go to downtown Detroit and say that he hates N*****s, or went into a gay bar and proclaimed I hate f**s, he may have that right, but the consequences of saying that would be that he would never need to worry about hating anything ever again.

Former Secretary of Education William Bennett stated on his conservative talk show “If you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down” Was he free to make such a statement? Sure. Should he suffer the consequences for making such a statement? I think so.

Besides Albert has made “I hate America” a reoccurring theme of his. This is not the first time he has made such statements on watchblog. I don’t think he has ever said what it is that he hates so much about America. That makes the debate much shorter and to the point.

Albert: “I hate America”
Ron: “Then leave”

Fair enough, what else is to be said?

LouisXIV,

I have debated Jo at length about this. I thought we had found some common ground, but now I’m not so sure. Just be prepared, Jo has a tendency to talk in circle.

tomh said:

So, I guess its ok if the cook at Jack in the Box will jackoff and spread the fluid all over the cheeseburger he is cooking. Maybe you think NAMBLA is cool to want to stick it in the rear of little boys and say they have a right to do that. It is just plain sick!!

This might just win the award as the most idiotic rebuttal E-V-E-R. I think we are all adult enough here to know full well this is not what LouisXIV is talking about.

Hi Adrienne,

“Clearly Rummy is quite appallingly stupid”

His “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” really gets me.

We’ve got a Secretary of Defense who has justified invading Canada.

Hi JayJay Snowman,

“Jo has a tendency to talk in circle.”

I seemed to be getting a bit dizzy….I thought it was just me.

Ron, JayJay,

I understand, I agree. Actions have consequences, and it was surely not my intention to defend Albert’s statements, just his right to make them. You certainly have the right to berate him for being…well, for being dumb. It is simply the cliche that caught my attention. I join you both in challenging Albert to find any place better than America.

That is one of the problems of blogging - conversations are ongoing, so you must inevitably enter one in the middle.

Fair enough.

I am sick and tired of both liberals and conservative complaining and bickering who is right or wrong, I am an independent, not a moderate, I want goverment to keep out of my affairs, I don’t want their charity, I don’t want them to give my hard earned money to other worthless, lazy, leeches of society, I don’t want them bail every little country out of trouble, when we have our own problems to deal with, as for the war on terror, I think we should wipe them off the planet and not take prisoners and no trials they aren’t American citizens. I would not
be against a heathcare plan that we could pay into
an be to see any doctor or health care professional of our choice.

JayJay
There’s a first time for everything. It took quite awhile for me to agree with David Remer abut anything.

Rahl
Fair Enough

Adrienne,

“jo: obviously you are favor bigamy,â€

No. But obviously some of the Mormons like it — it’s a religious thing for them, I believe. Kind of like those “sacred underwear†a certain percentage of them wear under their clothes.

As the representative Mormon on this ‘blog, I’d like to set the record straight here. Bigamy and polygamy are NOT practiced by Mormons. They were acceptable practices over 100 years ago, but aren’t any longer. Engaging in plural marriage is an offense worthy of excommunication. There are fundamentalist groups in the West who still practice it, but they are NOT affiliated with the Church, and have long since been excommunicated if they ever were affiliated.

Historian,

… If I offend you I appologise but facts are facts … Do you know for instance that the GNP of California is larger than Germany and France combined

California is not a nation but a state, GNP don’t apply to california but GSP.
In millions dollars:

2004’s California GSP: $1,550,753

2004’s France GNP: $1,858,731
2004’s Germany GNP: $2,488,974
2004’s France + Germany GNPs: $4,347,705

Sorry, your claim is wrong.
So, please, check your *facts* first next time.

PS: notice that both France and Germany GNPs taken alone are both larger than California GSP. No need to cumulate them for that…

Adrienne, love your post!

“fornication,â€

Definitely. I fornicated with my husband for 16 years before we got married. Good times…

Hey, I hope you still do it since!
;-)

Your frenchly,

Ideals? I have never meet a liberal with ideals. Try ideas! Ideas are of the mind only. Ideals are a deep in the gut way of thinking, beleifs. This explains why so many Liberals become conservatives when they mature, get older, gain life experience, develope… ideals. Much the way you fall in love, as opposed to a crush. Yes, this can go the other way too (become a liberal), I know. It seems to be the exception, not the rule.

Louis XIV:
His “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence†really gets me.

Yeah, I consider that one to be the short and sweet display of Rummy’s unique style of befuddlement.
Another quick one would be this, which he said just before these fools took us to war with their lies:
“It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

But IMO, the most dazzlingly drawn-out display to date has got to be:

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

Rob
“As the representative Mormon on this ‘blog, I’d like to set the record straight here.”

I meant no offense to you or to the Mormon religion, Rob. I was just trying to point out to jo (because she’s so big on discussing religion) that her own views on what she might consider “licentiousness” may not always apply — that some people might actually consider bigamy or polygamy to be an expression of their faith.

“There are fundamentalist groups in the West who still practice it, but they are NOT affiliated with the Church, and have long since been excommunicated if they ever were affiliated.”

So, then they must be considered their own new religious group I guess. If these people want to consider themselves married, I don’t see what the big problem should be for the rest of us — as long as those involved are all doing so of their own free will, and are all of consenting age.

“Adrienne, love your post!”

Merci Philippe, j’admirent toujours ce que vous ecrivez aussi!

I wrote:�
Definitely. I fornicated with my husband for 16 years before we got married. Good times�

Philippe
“Hey, I hope you still do it since!”
;-)

:^) Yes indeed, but you see it isn’t considered fornication any longer. Now that we’re married, our good times are officially sanctioned by religious people. Well, except for a small percentage of who actually consider sex to be something naughty and dirty, rather than as an expression of love and intimacy. Those sad people believe sex is only acceptable if they want to produce children. I feel kind of sorry for them.

I meant no offense to you or to the Mormon religion, Rob.

Don’t worry about it, Adrienne. I’m not very easily offended (unlike many other members of my faith).

Definitely. I fornicated with my husband for 16 years before we got married. Good times

16 years! Wow! Didn’t want to rush into anything after only 15? Then again, I guess it’s better than fornicating with someone else’s husband for 16 years. :-) Or is that the reason it took 16 years? :-O

(Maybe now we’ll see if you’re easily offended.) ;-)

Adrienne

Lest you think your sex life is now boring because you’re no longer fornicating with your husband, note that the occasional practices of a majority of heterosexual couples are considered sinful by a majority of Christian sects and even illegal until very recently in many states.

So, I say, enjoy!

Rob:
“16 years! Wow!”

Well, it’s actually been 20 years we’ve been together, now. We knew each other a year (first year college), then lived together for 16, then decided to tie the old knot.

“Didn’t want to rush into anything after only 15? Then again, I guess it’s better than fornicating with someone else’s husband for 16 years. :-) Or is that the reason it took 16 years? :-O”

No, we were really already married in every way but the legal sense. Then we bought our house and decided it might be a good idea, so we went to Lake Tahoe and just did it. It was really lovely and non-fussy and romantic.

“(Maybe now we’ll see if you’re easily offended.) ;-)”

I’m not, and I’m glad you’re not either. :^)

Mental Wimp:

“Adrienne
Lest you think your sex life is now boring because you’re no longer fornicating with your husband,”

It’s not — whatever label it wears. I love my husband more than I could begin to say, and I consider him to be one of the least boring people I’ve ever met.
Sorry, I don’t mean to brag, but I’m afraid I can’t help it.

“note that the occasional practices of a majority of heterosexual couples are considered sinful by a majority of Christian sects and even illegal until very recently in many states.”

Yeah, but then people have always done all kinds of things, whilst hypocritically claiming they don’t, and moralizing like crazy to everybody who comes within earshot of them. :^/

“So, I say, enjoy!”

:^D Thank you sir, and the same to you, as well!

Hi Adrienne,

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.â€

I’d say he needs to lay off the crack except he’s obviously extremely amusing on the crack.

Thanks for the quote!

While I loathe the man, one quote that is often cited as an example of Rummy’s tortured communication skills is actually quite insightful and I have used it myself: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This is a succinct way of stating that the fact that you have no evidence of something existing is not the same as having evidence that it doesn’t exist. We have no evidence that there is life in other planetary systems, but this is not the same as having gone to other planetary systems and gathered evidence that none of them support life.

Nonetheless, he is still an incompetent, blathering toady and should be fired summarily. Even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally.

Hi Mental Wimp,

A secretary of Defense who uses the “absence of evidence” bit to justify going into Iraq should give everyone pause.

One could occupy Canada based on that “logic”.

LouisXIV,

A secretary of Defense who uses the “absence of evidence†bit to justify going into Iraq should give everyone pause.

There you are correct. Although there’s nothing wrong with the “absence of evidence” comment in an of itself, it fails to provide sufficient cause (or any cause, for that matter) for invading ANY country.

I think occupying Canada is a GREAT idea. It would make getting from Seattle to Anchorage a whole lot easier! And then, the FBI could wear those neat RCMP uniforms, so we could see them coming from miles away! And we wouldn’t have to share the Great Lakes anymore!

…Actually, there was a John Candy movie about the Canadians invading the US. I can’t remember the title, but it was hilarious. Still, we better not let the SecDef view it, or guess where we’ll be going next. It’ll be all the justification he needs!

Louis XIV:
“A secretary of Defense who uses the “absence of evidence†bit to justify going into Iraq should give everyone pause.”

No kidding. Yet I consider it a perfect example of the Neocon Straussian logic-twisting method. This really is a Neocon hallmark, and in my opinion only those who are at core either intrinsically stupid (such as W and Rummy, et al) or those who are truly cynical and diabolical (like Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al) are able to become true masters at this technique.

“One could occupy Canada based on that “logicâ€.”

Really, one could do almost ANYTHING by talking this way! But the key to success seems to depend entirely upon using it on people who are either too stupid or awkwardly self-conscious to question, or those too willing (because they’re in on the scheme) to go along with all the logic-twisting to ever call t