So do you see....Republicans are not fascists. Sure we like the military and on occasion it might be misused...but Queen Victoria liked the military and her Reign has never been compared to Fascism (except, perhaps, by the likes of that idiot, Zinn).
Feel free to debate my ideas....but dont resort to specious arguments that draw away from my points or to ad hominem (which is what i expect on these boards).

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to runin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation of all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

Teddy Roosevelt in a speech before the Knights of Columbus

quote:

---

1: Republicans believe in Thought, not feeling.

---

No, they believe in a synthesis of both. Democrats do too. Morals are a matter of feeling, always, and Republicans are not without morals.

quote:

---

Emotions are easy to manipulate, active rational thought is not.

---

Yes. Try watching Reagan's 1988 campaign ads sometime. We float over golden fields of wheat, over waterfalls and through forests, the flag flies proudly...how is this not an appeal to emotion?

Do you honestly think Dubya won because he out-argued Gore? What about all the religious righties that love the Republicans - do they do that for rational reasons? Is it rational to want to ban the teaching of evolution?

quote:

---

I would argue that it is the left, particularly the far left that encourages feeling rather than thought/analysis.

---

The far left and the far right are both extremely emotional. But as for the rest, of course you think the right is more logical. That's why you're on the right.

quote:

---

2: Republicans abhor state control.

---

No, they abhor state control of industry. They seem quite pleased to have the state monitor and control individuals. Check out the Homeland Security bill if you don't believe me.

quote:

---

In fact it is the Socialist left that pushes for state intrusion into private business, on all levels.

---

On all levels? Nay. You are thinking of all monetary levels, and even there, I doubt the accuracy of what you're saying.

quote:

---

The Left pushes for state intrusion into every portionof life.

---

That is utter and total bullshit, and you know it. The Left gives people personal freedom with financial constraints. The Right offers financial freedom (if you can afford it) with personal constraints (no gay rights, no welfare for single moms, etc.).

As for freedom, well, how about you give away all your money and possessions, sit on the street and see how free you feel when you start to get hungry and tired and cold. The Right thinks it's okay for people to be in that position. The Right thinks it's okay for little children to be in that position. Freedom is not a simple concept.

quote:

---

4: Republicans tend to think of people as individuals with individual rights.

---

Especially if they have money. Republicans assume we're all on a level playing field. Leftists want to help us get there.

quote:

---

This is VERy similar to the left's policy of blaming the white male for the evils of the world today.

---

HOLY shit. The left has NO such "policy." Stereotype much?

quote:

---

Republicans hold that you have one one to blame but yourself for any shortcomings in Modern Day America.

---

So if you are born in a trailer and at the age of five you develop a brain tumour but you can't get an operation for it because your mom and dad can't afford to pay and you die, you have no one to blame but yourself?

You paint with a broad brush, my friend.

quote:

---

6:Republicans want a small efficient government that is as transparent as possible.

---

Which is why everyone knows what's going on in it right now. Bush has no secrets, right?

quote:

---

So do you see....Republicans are not fascists.

---

I don't recall ever making that argument, but fine, I'll give it to you: Republicans aren't fascists. Yet.

quote:

---

Feel free to debate my ideas....but dont resort to specious arguments that draw away from my points or to ad hominem (which is what i expect on these boards).

---

quote:

---

Well The Republican party (not counting the usurping Religious Right which may or may not exist as a bloc in any case)

---

That's rather convenient, but not very reasoned. The religious right is an undeniable component of the Republican Party, and is as much, or more concerned with the government interfering with the individual, particularly in areas of freedom of conscience (pushing the 10 comandments)and fundamental areas concerning our bodies. (reproductive rights, sexuality, euthenasia)

That's pretty heavy handed interferance with the individual.

quote:

---

In fact it is the Socialist left that pushes for state intrusion into private business, on all levels.

---

Funny, when the money is going from the people to the industry, it's never seen as "state intrusion".

Strangely enough, the impetous for left to "intrude" into business is to effect what libertarians see as "responsibility". Be responsible for the crap you put in the air. Be responsible for the design saftey of your processes and products.

quote:

---

Republicans tend to think of people as individuals with individual rights.

---

Republicans? The people who think Miranda is a "technicality to allow criminals back onto the streets"? The party that gave us tail gunner Joe and Roy Cohen? The party that has made the war on drugs a war on the people?

quote:

---

This is VERy similar to the left's policy of blaming the white male for the evils of the world today.

---

Straw man. Give me a source for that.

quote:

---

Republicans want a small efficient government that is as transparent as possible.

---

Ever Visit Salon.com or indymedia? or how about read Michael Moore? "Stupid White Men" anyone? yes blaming male euro-descendants is very en vogue in leftist circles ( Environmentalists, Feminists, Racially composed activist groups).

yeah, commercials appeal to emotions....they are commercials....they are not real arguments which are nearly impossible to make in the span of 15 seconds. I suppose i should have said that Republicans tend to rely less upon emotions...i appologize.

And yeah, Gore lost all three debates, and thats not just my opinon, check on Lexisnexis or just do a Google search.

Lets recall that warfare does colour all things. i am rather appalled that neither homeland security nor the patriot act have sunset clauses. Well thank God for the judiciary.

quote:

---

Well thank God for the judiciary.

---

Ah, the chant of Republicans everywhere, Nov. 2000.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]

quote:

---

Yes...and your point?

---

This, in a review of "Wealth and Democracy," by Kevin Phillips, a former Nixon aide:

quote:

---

The current celebration of wealth in this country is nothing less than an abdication of the philosophies of some of the greatest Republican leaders, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, who were the most unrestrained in their condemnation of excessive concentrations of wealth, of its capacity to corrupt true democracy and of the need to rein in its excesses and to pay more attention to the country's social fabric. In his preface, Phillips quotes from a stunning Nov. 21, 1864, private letter from Lincoln in which the president sounds eerily like George McGovern or Ralph Nader when he confesses his worry and trembling that "as a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people...."

---

Thanks for mentioning Teddy Roosevelt for me...

quote:

---

Phillips has a similar field day in quoting statement after statement from Roosevelt reiterating the opinion that labor is more deserving of support than capital and that too much wealth in the hands of a small minority is not only offensive to the American sense of fairness, it is dangerous to the republic itself.

---

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arch Stanton ]

quote:

---

in fact i begged for it in my original post...but i suppose you ignored that?

---

quote:

---

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country … corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
-- Abraham Lincoln

---

quote:

---

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.

---

That's a real inclusive Republican for ya.

quote:

---

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done ... Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.
--Theodore Roosevelt

---

quote:

---

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860.

---

quote:

---

The great bulk of my wealthy and educated friends regard me as a dangerous crank. - Theodore Roosevelt

---

quote:

---

We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to Sir Edward Grey
November 15, 1913

---

What's next? Resolved: Bush is not Hitler?

Just a couple of points. Thanks Arch and Adam for pointing out to our friend positions taken by TR that do not square with the current GOP philosophy. I really don't count Lincoln because he was pre-industrial age.

I don't know what hyphenated Americans has to do with the premise of this thread. One can be on the left and believe in the melting pot.

Gore didn't lose all three debates. In fact polls taken right after the first debate clearly showed that he "won." It was only after the right-wing network took matters in hand that that view changed. See Bob Sommersby's "The Daily Howler."

Finally, the Gore side did not "consent" to the Supreme Court's hearing of the matter. The Supreme Court should have not agreed to hear the matter. And its decision usurped the political process. Congress could have resolved the matter under the Constitution. The likely outcome of that would have been a Bush win in any event. Thus, the matter would have been resolved in a democratic fashion.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

"brain tumours" are not "shortcomings"...that is a strawman....

---

No, I don't think it is. Your position is extreme. The USA does, at this point, have some degree of socialised medicine; as it stands now, the hypothetical five-year-old with a brain tumour would be able to get care by going to an emergency room. That care is paid for by taxes, which you believe are wrong and a form of state control, albeit necessary in some cases. But you believe people should be responsible for themselves, always. Now explain these statements:

quote:

---

Republicans prefer for people to be self sufficeint...The Left pushes for state intrusion into every portionof life.

---

Socialised medicine is "state intrusion." It is funded by taxes.

quote:

---

4: Republicans tend to think of people as individuals with individual rights.

---

Republicans clearly do not believe that health care is a right, but they do believe people have a right to their own money.

quote:

---

Republicans hold that you have one one to blame but yourself for any shortcomings in Modern Day America.

---

It was this that really did it for me. Modern-day America has many problems that are not the individual's fault.

How about I change my example. Say the person is not five, but twenty. Say that a poor twenty-year-old is walking down the street in the evening, and s/he is mugged and beaten to a pulp and several bones are broken. The culprits can't be found, or when they are found, they are as penniless as the victim. Who pays the victim's hospital bills? As you see it, asking the taxpayer to do it is wrong. So what do you suggest?

quote:

---

again i ask the the Question from above.
you are pointing out partcularities when i am speaking in general terms.

---

Yes, that's how one debates. You make a generalization, a statement of principle, and I point out what I see as errors in that principle. One cannot argue about politics in such abstract terms. We are discussing people's actual lives.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]

quote:

---

The Left pushes for state intrusion into every portionof life.

---

“Rights are something that exists simultaneously among the people. A right confers no (positive) obligation upon another”.

Your rights do not have be supported by another person’s good will, charity, or taxation. Welfare ( and social healthcare derived from welfare), since it requires coercion, alienation from rightfully earned property, and a legal form of theft, is therefore not a right and thus is not included in the Bill of Rights (in the USA) for just such a reason.

Life is a right....you are born with it, no one confers life to you except in a biological sense. once you are born ( some might argue concieved) your life is your own. This is not to say you are free to do with your life as you will but that "Living" cnnot be taken from you and your life may not be extinguished without violating your rights.
Some may argue that such a right to life must, inevitably, include healthcare. Why?? Already the hypocratic oath is understood that Doctors should do what they can to aid the ailing. its illegal to turn away emergency victims, regardless of insurance.
Do i not have a right to my possessions? my earnings? Do you have a right to your earnings? Possessions are not stolen nor coerced, they are awarded or earned.
If you do have a right to possessions then when is it ok to violate this right? Whenever someone is in need? Do i have the right to threaten others so i might deliver one's goods to another who might be more in need?
Can i come to your house and Squat on your property and eat your food and take your money to buy cigarettes ( oh wait, you guys want to take away my cigarettes)? Should i expect..nay, FORCE you to foot my bill for my cancer?

i have no problem with communalism ( not communism which is state driven), wherein participants WILLINGLY take a common cause and aid one another. i feel that is highly noble. i do take offense, though when people try to impose their will upon me so they may take what i have rightfuly fought for and earned.

About the Left not calling the Right "Nazis" check out http://www.ocolly.com/ on Nov 25, 2002 head to the "opinion" tab and look for Steve hunt's article "Wasted on the Apathetic". That is the typical dogma we get from the left around here.

oh..and ther isa theory that Lincoln might have gone Socialist due to his stance on fiscal policy. But that is unlikely. Far more likely is the idea that he might have supported religious communes...but hey, who cares.

Theodore Roosevelt would not be a Democrat. McCain is the closet thing we have to a modern TR and he is not a Democrat, merely progressive.

i am the sheep among wolves here and you guys accuse me of trolling?? i come here under the aegis of free speech ( although i know only the government can take that from me...if we let them) and the open exchange of ideas. it seems this board is just a place where the Lefists can recoup their losses at the hands of those who are correct ( Conservatives and Libertarians). rarely do i seea dissenting view...and often any opinon given by someone on ( in) the right on this board placates teh leftist agenda so you guys will honour him/her as one of your pets.

quote:

---

Your rights do not have be supported by another person’s good will, charity, or taxation.

---

Like your right to your precious property, for instance? How the hell do you think the police and courts are able enforce your claims to personal property if not through taxation?

quote:

---

Notice how its a troll when i disagree with the majority....welcome to democracy where the majority rules, even if it undermines my rights.

---

What a crock of shit. You're entitled to say what you want. No one is required to give you a forum to say what you want, but you have one here, at least for now.

We're also entitled to say what WE want, no? Or does freedom of speech only apply to you and other "rightists"?

"those who are correct."

Okay, great. You show up and tell us "you're all wrong" and get pissed off when we don't fall at your feet? Who the hell do you think you are?

You're right, the others "placate" us. That's to say, they don't come out and call us idiots. You know why? Because that's RUDE. You are RUDE.

quote:

---

Already the hypocratic oath is understood that Doctors should do what they can to aid the ailing. its illegal to turn away emergency victims, regardless of insurance.

---

The Hippocratic oath is not a law, as far as I know. Anyway, emergency victims' treatment? Costs money. Even if the doctors aren't paid for it, there's still the cost of drugs, implements, machines, the electricity that runs the machines, etc., etc., etc. - health care is NEVER free. What about the victim who has to spend days or weeks in hospital? Do you have any idea how expensive that is? Should doctors cover that out of their own pockets? Why is it all right to take away their money and property?

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]

Republicans not fascist?
If it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck,
Shouts "Hiel to the Chief!"....

Looked like a duck
Walked like a duck
Quacked like a duck

I wouldn't say that Republicans aren't fascists, as much as we may be seeing some level of affinity lately. However, while Bush's GOP ran on a mantra of "compassionate conservativism", while we have seen plenty of the latter, the former has certainly been lacking.

And might I add...

quote:

---

Notice how its a troll when i disagree with the majority....welcome to democracy where the majority rules, even if it undermines my rights.

---

quote:

---

Do many intelligent Rightistas post here ?

---

quote:

---

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

---

The Libertarian, who of course is actually a Republican, needs to embark on some education in the actual meaning of human rights, which are not only civil and political, but also economic, social and cultural.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Bill of Rights does not apply here, we have our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power."
-Henry Ford's good buddy Mussolini

quote:

---

But he did get them trains running on time.

---

quote:

---

2 chicken breasts (6 ounces each), boneless & skinless
12 ounces smoked andouille or keilbasa sausage
2 tablespoons peanut oil
1 medium onion, diced
2 stalks celery, diced
1 small clove garlic, minced
1 small bell pepper, diced
1 (28-ounce) can diced, peeled tomatoes
1/2 teaspoon TABASCO® sauce
1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
1 teaspoon filé gumbo powder
1 tablespoon Cajun spice blend

Heat a large, heavy dry pan over high heat.

Slice sausage into bite sized pieces and brown. Remove sausage from pan with slotted spoon and reserve drippings for next step.

Wash chicken thoroughly, cut into half-inch cubes and brown in remaining oil.

Return sausage to pan and add onion, celery, garlic and peppers. Sauté until vegetables are cooked through.

Add liquid ingredients, including tomatoes and their juice. Stir to combine.

Add filé gumbo powder and Cajun spice and simmer over low heat for at least an hour.

Season to taste with TABASCO®. Serve with cooked rice.

Chef's Notes: You may add 8-10 ounces of peeled & deveined shrimp to this recipe to make seafood jambalaya.

---

quote:

---

But i also used to be a far left communist...until i realized how big of a dumbass that made me.

---

I hate to break it to you, but nothing made you a dumbass...

And going from one extreme to the other doesn't help much, does it?

You come and make brave pronouncements to which posters have challenged you, and yet we see few substantive responces on the points.

You seem fixated, instead, with blathering on about free speech on this board-- ad nauseum.

You have it. Use it.

So far though, you're a poor player, strutting and fretting his hour upon this stage. You are full of sound and fury-- but so far you signify nothing.

"Freedom of speech," in his world, means freedom to speak without being challenged or contradicted. None of the founding fathers, none of the constitutions, none of the declarations ever guaranteed that.

My fellow posters have been polite enough to try to find sufficient points in this absolute non-starter of a post to turn it into a real discussion, as Mr. Libertarian seemed to want! (we are very polite to our newbies here) We seem however, to be discouraged at every turn. He seems to take offense at every effort to establish a debate.

I refer my fellow babblers to Mr. Libertarions original foray into this board on another thread, which amounted to ....well, I'm not sure, some sort of a personal manifesto or something, like we were all supposed to care. Couldn't be bothered making the link.

We're fairly forgiving about honest stupidity around here Libertarian, but you've commited the unpardonable sin of wasting my time. This is the ideas thread. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ONE!

May I close by drawing attention to Libertarions final statement in his opening post.

"Impress me"

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Walter E. Williams defines Rights as such,
“Rights are something that exists simultaneously among the people. A right confers no (positive) obligation upon another”.

---

quote:

---

Well piss on my head and call me George,

---

Well Irene, I usually have to go downtown and pay to do that sort of thing, so thanks for the offer. (so you know George too?)

The only reason I wrote that bloody thing was because I thought you might be sincere in your quest for debate. A total jackass, but sincere. From this thread, however, I can see that my fellow babblers' instincts were right on the money: you are incapable of or uninterested in rational discussion. Either way, there is clearly no reason to go out of my way to pick apart your rather sophmoric viewpoints.

Despite what you believe, dissenting views are very welcome here (by me, at least) and we tend to dissent on quite a bit. The reason you never see this is because you only take part in threads you create and on the subject of you we acheive a rare, unified concensus: we all think you're an idiot.

Intelligent right-wingers are met with intelligent debate (most of the time). Dumb-ass right-wingers are ridiculed or ignored. Sorry if this is playing a bit rough for you but babble isn't your mother. You're only responsible for yourself, remember. It's your dumb philosophy (and I do mean dumb. All the reasons why are in that original thread) but you do a poor job of representing it.

quote:

---

Swallow, who is clearly a moron (..)

---

quote:

---

Never was an insult the likes of "moron" directed by Swallow at The Libertarian

---

More's the pity.

I enjoyed this little gem:

quote:

---

uhm....this Forum is called "ideas". Are you stupid?

---

"Are you stupid? Because there are so few of us on this board, and I could really use a friend."

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]

quote:

---

I ama Registered Republican because Libertarians do not generate enough interest in Oklahoma to get on the ballot. i am a Conservative Libertarian. yes i do tend to vote Republican. But i also used to be a far left communist...until i realized how big of a dumbass that made me. Granted, it takes time for epiphanies to occur.

---

Here's a tasty recipe, courtesy one Dr Robert Pearce. University College of St Martin, Lancaster...

Facism
1 1/4 Cup of an extreme form of nationalism which insists that human beings are sub-divisions of a larger national whole which alone could give meaning to their lives

1 Tbsp social Darwinism, which insists that struggle between nations is natural and inevitable

2 tsp of the 'science' of racism, which constructs a hierarchy of races and branded some, including the Jews, as inferior

1 dash of anti-positivism, the idea that human beings are motivated not by logic and reason (as the philosophers of the Enlightenment had said) but by myths, intuition and emotion (as Romantic thinkers had believed).

For additional flavour,you can add the notion of the heroic, all-wise leader who embodies the will of the nation and a pinch of the concept of the 'corporate state', that is, while capitalism pitted owner against worker,communism, deriving from this class antagonism, insisted that workers should rise up against their exploiters. But proponents of the corporate state insisted that every industry should be governed by representatives of the owners and of the workers, under the benevolent eye of the State. Such an arrangement would be neither capitalist nor communist, but a constructive 'third way'.

Throw into a pot. Bring to boil. Serve cold-hearted.

Now, based on this recipe, Republicanism, as espoused by the Oil Junta, may not be facism, but it does play it on TV. And anyone who thinks the Republicans, with their flag-waving, God Bless America-singing bullshit aren't governed by their emotions is out to lunch.

*PLONK!*

quote:

---

But i also used to be a far left communist

---

quote:

---

Just another shallow and arrogant fool who goes from one extreme to the other.

---