I was accused of reading a book by Jonah Goldberg the other day when I linked liberals to fascism. I am not now reading, nor have I ever read, a book by Jonah Goldberg.
Not that I have anything against him or anything. But I don't know much about his book.
But it is hard to think of words other than "fascism" and "communism" when reading about a bill to require that all daycare workers be unionized, and that their dues be subject to being given to Democratic politicians against the will of the workers, especially when the bill has the emergency clause tacked onto it to prevent the people from exercising their Constitutional right to challenge it.
But don't worry, you owners of other businesses, if you feel left out. They'll be coming for you eventually, too. It's only a matter of time before laws are passed to abolish all private employees in this state, and to force all of us to fund the campaigns of Democratic politicians against our will. And fear not: you won't get to challenge any of those laws, either.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 05, 2008 12:41 AM | Email ThisAre we talking about fascism fascism or Bizarro fascism?
Posted by: brent on February 5, 2008 02:20 AMThis is assuming that Pudge accurately described what the bill will do.
Posted by: ScottM on February 5, 2008 05:20 AMJust look at the restrictions on smoking. But with a only a minority left smoking most didn't really notice or care. Now we see the same thing with trans fats, recycling, and all sorts of things - small and large.
The really big ones will come with global warming as the excuse.
Posted by: deadwood on February 5, 2008 05:47 AMOpposition to this bill and others like it just about guarantees that you lot are well on your way to marginalizing youself as an ever-dwindling reactionary minority in Washington state. Please keep up the good work.
Posted by: ivan on February 5, 2008 06:06 AMBut go ahead, call it fascism all you want to. Just don't be surprised when you become objects of ridicule.
..and/or retreat to their locker room and pout giving the Giants little if any credit and refusing to participate in the Pro Bowl! :)
Posted by: Duffman on February 5, 2008 06:58 AMHitler did supress the unions to keep wages low. But Mussolini, Franco and Peron just purged them of Socialist members and subsumed the remainder of the membership into state-sponsored unions, which became cornerstones of the regime.
(Pretty much what Stalin and that rogues' gallery did. Didn't want any revolutionaries around, you see.)
Anyway, that record comes to mind as the State forms a compulsory union.
There's room for disagreement, no need to invoke words like "ignorant." As to the ridicule, well, right-wingers are used to that.
Posted by: Jay on February 5, 2008 07:04 AMIt wasn't until years later that I learned that fascism was actually a collectivist, i.e. left-wing, ideology.
Hey Ivan, as long as you're correcting folks about the meaning of fascism, why don't you go on some left wing blogs? Their prevailing def of "fascist" seems to be "one who disagrees with us."
Posted by: russell garrard on February 5, 2008 07:45 AMIn Soviet style communism, by contrast, the state owns virtually all property and controls all of industry, offering a few crumbs to those who collaborate and fewer to those who accept employment with the state. The government and economy are controlled by a few elitists, who live lives of privilege while urging the masses to sacrifice for the good of the state.
Washington state's government is moving towards the latter, bleeding businesses and citizens by oppressive taxation, imposing incredibly restrictive land use and anti-business regulations and hiring state workers en masse to regulate and enforce laws, collect fees and (in effect) control the masses.
From the power broker left's perspective, Duffman said it best: "you either change or get out of the way and watch it go by."
He is speaking of freedom, of course. Soon we wil look up and wonder where it went. God help us.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 5, 2008 07:51 AM"It's time to put to rest the fantasy surrounding the left's idea that right-wing equals fascist. The term right-wing was first used by Stalin. He used that term to differentiate between international Socialists, as in Russia, and national Socialists, as in Germany. If some of you liberals would bother to research, "Socialist" was part of the name of the Nazi party. Stalin used this differentiation between international and national Socialists in Russia to perpetrate part of his "purges" and purify his Socialist party. At that point, liberals in the United States, who openly supported Stalin, by the way, adopted the phrase right-wing as a descriptor for American conservatives.
Are you liberals clear now? I'm getting fairly sick of being called a fascist and Nazi, simply because you don't understand the history of the term, and have bastardized it to your purposes."
Posted by: katomar on February 5, 2008 07:52 AM"Are you serious Clark. You are making a giant leap in assuming the American public knows what's good for them. This is WHY we have government (at all levels)"
In the words of your other half: support of that position, where leftist clowns believe we're too stupid to know what's good for us, "and others like it just about guarantees that you lot are well on your way to marginalizing youself[sic] as an ever-dwindling reactionary minority in Washington state."
So, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Hinton on February 5, 2008 08:13 AMI just wonder if some of your foolish statements, say the real truth about you.
Sad.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 5, 2008 08:34 AM"Child care center" means a child care center licensed by the state under RCW 74.15.030 that has at least one child care slot filled by a child for whom it receives a child care subsidy
So, if you work in any industry that receives any form of state funding - in this case, one child who's daycare is subsidized by the state - you should belong to a union. If you don't join the union, then you can't be employed in that field - by law.
The majority of unions lean heavily Democratic and supply the Democrats with a huge amount of campaign cash. (Payola extracted from the worker used to bribe the politicians to create laws more favorable to the unions so that they can increase their worker base so that they can extract more funds from the worker used to bribe the politicians to create laws more favorable to the unions so that they can increase their worker base so that they can extract more funds ...)
Ergo, if you receive state funds, you must support the Democratic Party. If you don't want to join the union, either you still pay the Union Boss enrichment and Democratic Party support fee, or you find another job.
The emergency clause is necessary because if the politicians don't enact this law immediately (the immediate preservation of the public peace), they will offend their biggest supporters and they cannot afford to do that, in more ways than one.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 5, 2008 08:37 AMAnd yes, it is the same people who are pushing us to destroy elections, by not identifying who is voting, by forcing us to vote via the most fraud-capable method possible.
And they are trying to destroy the legislature, too: that is what the emergency clause is about. Remember, in our state, the people are the ultimate legislators. Article II, Section 1: "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature."
The Democrats are trying to destroy the power of the people to pass laws and to reject or approve the laws passed by the formal legislature.
And the Democrats do this by trying to instill in us a "heightened sense of ... belonging." Because, as ivan said, we should work to help "the lowest-paid workers in our state." By taking away their money and their freedom, by force, apparently. Liberal policies are all about belonging. The French word for this concept is "fraternity," which directly implies belonging to a "family." You don't get much more "belonging" than that.
So I submit, Duffman, that you are only making the case for me. The part of your description that doesn't fit, so far, is leading to millions of deaths, but that is obviously irrelevant: that is a potential result, not a necessary characteristic. If Mussolini's Italy had for some reason never gone to war or killed many people, it doesn't follow that therefore it wasn't fascist.
Further, as you should know, Belichick left because the clock read zero, and he gave Coughlin a hug before leaving; many players don't play in the Pro Bowl (and I am always glad when my players don't, because too often players get hurt); and the Patriots have done nothing but heap praise on the Giants for their performance.
Brady said that the Pats played their best and just got beat by the Giants. Contrast that to Warner after Super Bowl XXXVI, where he said, "we beat ourselves."
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 08:39 AMMay I go to the bathroom now?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 5, 2008 08:43 AMLOL.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 5, 2008 08:52 AM
You see, it's not that I disagree with you here. This bill is absurd! It's just that it's really tough to feel sorry for you when you call liberals fascists and then support warrantless wiretaps or other such government programs.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 5, 2008 09:03 AM************BINGO*************
This is the left for you. Facts... "hell no" it's how I feel.
I wonder how many of them would feel if my *&^%^ union for fire fighters wanted to go on strike and the people I protect get zero protection.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 5, 2008 09:03 AMSHOW us just one person (American) where this so called program took away their rights. Instead of just shooting off your mouth. PROVE IT!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 5, 2008 09:08 AMWe would likely feel that former Pres Reagan was right in the way he fired all air traffic controllers and started over...or, at least I would. :)
Posted by: Duffman on February 5, 2008 09:12 AMThe union I'm most familiar with was the "soviet" one---and they weren't too big on rights of the individual.
Posted by: Andy on February 5, 2008 09:16 AMLiberals / Progressives are the antithesis of the founding ideals of this country. And frankly, that's a lot worse than being facists.
So called program? Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 5, 2008 09:19 AMThere is 750.000 fire fighters in the US. Less than 1/4 is union.
Our history goes back much farther than our union does.
But we are forced to join in this state.
Unionize daycare workers. Increase their pay to "living wage". Daycare costs rise and families can no longer afford it.
Families stop paying for health care so they can afford daycare. Families sign up for state health care plan.
More people signed up to state health care than originally planned and cost skyrocket. Taxes must be increased to pay for benefits.
Increased taxes make daycare less affordable.
Maybe an oddball scenario, but families that are on the edge right now will be hurt by increased daycare costs. How will the legislature "fix" that?
Oh, right.... Pre-K education.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 5, 2008 09:35 AMIf you agree that the program exists (your previous post cast some doubt on this conclusion, but perhaps I misunderstood), then the next logical step is to look at the fact that what happens with it is super secret (since we're comparing the US to soviet russia, there are actually striking similarities between the warrantless wiretap program and things the KGB and other internal security agencies did in the USSR).
Because it's super secret, we'll never know for sure WHO was affected, but it has already been admitted that it affects calls that have one terminator outside this country. So for instance, if I called my good buddy Achmed in Iraq, I would be subject to this wiretapping.
Now it so happens, I'm an American citizen, living in Washington state. I like football, shooting my guns, BBQing with buddies, and muscle cars. I am certainly not into explosive vests, flight simulators, and improvised explosive devices, and yet I'm still subject to this warrantless wiretap.
Ok? Have we established that a citizen could be subject to this warrantless wiretap yet? Without any oversight?
Hopefully we agree so far.
Now, the next thing to consider is this. If I'm calling my buddy Bob in Spokane, it's a call within the borders of the United States, and *supposedly* not subject to this warrantless wiretapping program. If a local police department wishes to wiretap my phone, they are forced to get a warrant to do so, because case law has held that the various laws of the land protect our phone calls as private communications.
Yet by merely calling someone who is not a citizen, this right can be infringed.
Still with me?
So, you want me to point at a single American whos rights have been infringed by this program, knowing full well that the secrecy and lack of oversight over this program make that impossible.
Yet somehow, you can speak out against this unionization bill while simultaneously burying your head in the sand while your government runs secret programs with no oversight that CAN tap your communications without due process.
Now you can focus on the fact that I can't point at any single person and say "they have been tapped without a warrant for sure", or you can focus on the fact that your government is exhibiting the same traits as the Soviet government circa 1980.
It's up to you, bud.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 5, 2008 09:39 AMParticularly Ivan, who ducks in here occasionally with a disparaging comment about "you lot" and then disappears through the ropes before he can be hit with a right cross.
The last time I asked him a specific question he replied, "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Pathetic. And don't forget the guy is a Democratic Party official.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 09:41 AMYou see, it's not that I disagree with you here. This bill is absurd! It's just that it's really tough to feel sorry for you when you call liberals fascists and then support warrantless wiretaps or other such government programs.
Andrew, well, I wrote this post, and I am on record criticizing Bush immediately after the wiretapping thing happened. I was pretty blunt: The bottom line is that I think what Bush did was wrong, and should be illegal, and is unconstitutional usurpation of power. But then again, I think the same thing about the No Child Left Behind Act and most federal social programs, so don't read too much into this statement.
So ... feel better? :-)
Andy: nice revisionist history- the first thing fascists do is kill their enemies.
Andy, no, it isn't. The killing often comes later. Again, violence is not the most important characteristic of fascism, it is about the manipulation of the public through ideology to not only give up their rights to the state, but to take away the rights of others by force, and destroying democratic means of change.
Jeff B. is right that it doesn't really matter what we call it. I think of "fascism" first and foremost when propaganda and force are used to take away liberty on a broad scale, across the board. I think of "communism" when the government tries to seize control of private enterprise. The Democrats in WA are doing both, so, duh, those words come to mind. But what we call it is largely irrelevant: what they are doing is bad.
That does indeed make me feel a lot better. Folks that speak out against wrongdoing like that are what gives me hope for the Republican party. Good on you, sir.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 5, 2008 09:46 AMSo name one single person Andrew that has had their "rights" infringed by "warrentless wiretaps". Surely by now our prisons should be filled with these people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 09:59 AMFirst, collectivism is often used to refer to any doctrine which argues for the priority of some version of 'the public good' over individual interests. In particular, collectivism is associated with the goal of equality among citizens. Secondly, the pursuit of these goals is seen to require the extension of public responsibility and state intervention in the form of regulations, subsidies, or public ownership. Thirdly, the substitution of market allocation by administrative decision-making has generated an association between collectivism, bureaucracy, and the centralization of power.
Liberty? Independence?
I wrote back and pointed out that this is only going to increase the cost of childcare, thus denying it to those who need it most.
I sincerely doubt I have swayed anyone, though. :(
They have all been good at getting back to me in person, however; I have no doubt I'll hear from Senator Hobbs and Rep. Dunshee soon as well.
I actually got a phone call from the Senator last night on my way home regarding a letter I sent him awhile back telling him I'm against HB 6860. That caught me really off guard and I wish I would have had the presence of mind to discuss it in more detail. Did not expect a phone call at all, but it was very welcome.
Unfortunately, both of my representatives are cosponsoring (or authoring, I think) the bill in question, which is why I suspect I won't be able to sway them.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 5, 2008 10:32 AMChildcare is important enough to our society that I think it is reasonable for government to help make it better and more accessible. Tossing around phrases like "fascist" won't persuade anyone of anything. On the other hand, it's not clear that this bill will produce the desired results. It might be more effective for government to help with childcare subsidies, training, referral, etc., perhaps by better funding organizations like Childcare Resources (www.childcare.org), which seems to do good work.
Posted by: Bruce on February 5, 2008 10:39 AMHas Puget Sound followed the ways of the Libs in squelching dissent?
Posted by: John Bailo on February 5, 2008 10:41 AMGo back a bit: "Solely for the purposes of collective bargaining and as expressly limited under subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the governor is the public employer of family child care providers and of child care center directors and workers who, solely for the purposes of collective bargaining, are public employees."
The specific feature you are referring to may be optional, but unionization is not. This is forced on all such businesses and employees of those businesses.
Childcare is important enough to our society that I think it is reasonable for government to help make it better and more accessible.
I don't. On the contrary, I think it is so important that we should make sure government has nothing to do with it.
Tossing around phrases like "fascist" won't persuade anyone of anything.
I don't intend to persuade anyone of anything. I intended to inform people about what was going on: that the liberal Democrats in our state government are making yet another power grab of private business, to force business owners and employees into arrangements they may not want, and preventing the public from exercising its right to reject it through initiative.
On the other hand, it's not clear that this bill will produce the desired results. It might be more effective for government to help with childcare subsidies, training, referral, etc., perhaps by better funding organizations like Childcare Resources (www.childcare.org), which seems to do good work.
Or they could trust the people to do what is best for themselves.
Naaaaaaaaaaah.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 10:49 AMWho is "you"? If you mean me, I never do. If you mean Sound Politics, no, Eric Earling has railed against McCain more than once, and comments are wide open.
It is true that Stefan has shut off comments; I don't know why, but my guess is because he doesn't want to spend time monitoring the discussion for abuse and spam, as each poster is responsible to do that for the stories he posts. But as there are other outlets to talk favorably of McCain (including Eric's posts about McCain, and the Public Blog section), I don't think this constitutes squelching dissent.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 10:53 AMIt is especially amusing that Stefan thinks Ronald Reagan "can make complex arguments understandable" (no, actually he made really simplistic arguments understandable) but a far more intelligent Barack Obama, when he inspires people, is called "vapid".
Posted by: Bruce on February 5, 2008 10:54 AMForget the labels for a second and just do a point by point comparison of them - they all line up perfectly. While the rhetoric and reasoning behind their actions may differ wildly, the end result is the same.
People seem to forget that fascists are "national socialists"
Posted by: John Galt on February 5, 2008 11:15 AMKnee-jerk conservatism resulting from the misreading of this stuff does more harm than good. If you are against it then defend that stance by pointing out how the exisiting law has been a failure, not by pretending that the whole concept is new.
Posted by: ITK on February 5, 2008 11:32 AMITK: yes, I know it does that, and if I had noticed it before, I would have complained about it then (and you may notice above that katomar, in particular, has had experience with this already).
to allow daycare centers the same right to organize and collective bargaining that home daycares now have with the state
That is a complete and total mischaracterization: it FORCES them to do it, not "allows."
Union representation is not required of anyone.
Of course this doesn't establish a union. But generally speaking in this context, this is what it means to "unionize": to force them into the union system. Which is precisely what has happened. So let's lay out the specifics.
As a worker, under this bill, you are now, for the sake of collective bargaining, forced to be a public employee, forced to abide by the state's rules for public employees, and you can be forced to either join the union or pay nonmember dues (or quit your job) if a union is established. As a business owner, your right to bargain directly with your employees is completely removed, because they are no longer your employees, but the governor's.
If you are against it then defend that stance by pointing out how the exisiting law has been a failure
It is by definition a failure, because it steals our liberty.
not by pretending that the whole concept is new.
I never pretended it was new. Indeed, I portrayed it as one more step in the slide toward full government control of all businesses.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 11:51 AMTake a look at Hillary's campaign website where, "she will invest heavily in proven strategies to get all children ready for school, including:
"Nurse home visitation programs to help new parents develop parenting skills." (Who needs families when you can have a government nurse tell you how to raise your child?)
"Quality child care and Head Start.
Pre-kindergarten for all four-year olds."
I don't know if you can call these people fascists...I prefer to call them socialists.
They can't wait to get their politically correct hands on our children at the earliest age possible and start their work turning them into Democrat voting zombies by the time they are 18.
And liberals work themselves into a froth about "wiretapping". Oh brother!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 01:11 PMAnd this is why we homeschool, because you're exactly right: Hillary and Christine both want total indoctrination of our children to start early and end late. Gregoire also has plans to have state-controlled preschool and so on.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 01:23 PMThe difference, Duffman, is that nothing we're talking about here isn't demonstrated fact. Our freedom to work, our freedom to hire, our right to reject laws, actually are being taken from us, and it is more and more each year, as ITK unwittingly pointed out.
And to the extent the GOP is fragmenting, it is because many Republican electeds have been participating in the process, helping it along. And that is going to stop.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 01:38 PMhttp://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics
By Edwin Black
Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.
Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."
But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.
******************************************
Let them deny the connections that bind Nazism and Facism to the American intillectuals of that time, but all you have to do is "google" Margaret Sanger and a few others to see that the movements they started are still part and parcel of today's leftist dogma.
I've asked liberals many times to name a single right conservatives have taken away from them. I can't ever recall getting an answer. Usually the answer consists of something along the line of "F...Y.." Or they simply don't respond at all. They know they are full of crap, but we are not supposed to be allowed to remind them of it. That's why they want to take away the rights of people like Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity to air their views on the radio.
If you want to talk about taking away rights, that is demonstrably a specialty of the left. We can start with helmet laws, seatbelt laws, the annual war against Christmas, telling people what lightbulbs they can use, restoring the "fairness doctrine" in hopes of silencing our views, and on, and on.
I've said it before but I'll repeat it here. The Democrat Party and the left in general attracts the kinds of people we all couldn't stand when we were growing up. The controlling, unpleasant creeps that love to tell other people what to do because that's how they get their jollies. These are people that have no interest in debating issues. They lie about conservatives and "evil corporations" constantly, calling us every name in the book and half the country believes them because their media and educational monopoly leaves us virtually unable to present our case. I
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 02:16 PMAre you trying to imply in post number 59 that I am a liberal worked up into a frenzy over wiretapping?
If so, unbelievable.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 5, 2008 02:21 PMFirst, yes, if you are referring to Andrew Brown, I think you're way off base.
Second, pretty much the rest of what you say, I agree. The last time I asked a liberal the same question, he responded by talking about how I (in his view) opposed restrictions on pollution. Now, we can talk about the merits of such restrictions, but such restrictions that he favors ARE taking away rights of people.
He had it completely backward in his mind: to him, opposing the taking away someone's rights IS an example of taking away someone's rights. I agree with some such restrictions on pollution, as most of us do, but to claim that it is not taking away rights is just amazing. It's hard to imagine how they could convince themselves of this.
Maybe it's the public schools. :-)
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 02:29 PMYou can call them bananas if you want, but you're showing you don't have a clue what the word "socialist" means. See any dictionary. Please.
Posted by: Bruce on February 5, 2008 02:43 PMSorry, no. The unfortunate deaths of those people does not imply that their right to live was revoked, especially our soldiers, who all served willingly, knowing fully that they might die in service of the nation.
There's a difference between dying, and losing the right to life. That is, your life, and your right to life, are not the same thing.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 02:50 PMNo, they are textbook socialists, in fact. Not sure what dictionary you are referring to. First, dictionaries are poor places to find definitions for words like these, but if you insist, I'll pick the very first one I find, from Oxford: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Sounds exactly like the liberal Democrats to me. What DON'T the liberal Democrats want to own or regulate through government? I am having a tough time thinking of something. Can you?
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 02:55 PMIt was when I served!
I have a figure for you 8033. That is deaths in the military during 1992-1999. This is during the time I served and during Clinton's administration. Why do people ignore this fact?
That is the problem with people on the left. They think people should be protected from thier own decisions. That is why they make all these laws to take away freedoms. To protect them from themselves. It's because they know what is best for you.
I tried to get my children in head start but made to much money. So my wife started home schooling and I worked an extra job for her to be home. We than put our kids in co-op and they have done a lot better than any of the kids that went to head start. I have three friends that are teachers and they despise the union but love teaching. The union is detroying our schools. Plus limits what points of view are allowed to be taught in class. Even when stuff in the text books are proven wrong they still have to teach it. Just love that one!
Posted by: Jim on February 5, 2008 03:00 PMAndrew at #67, "Are you trying to imply in post number 59 that I am a liberal worked up into a frenzy over wiretapping?
If so, unbelievable."
Lighten up, Andrew. I didn't mention you by name. You did bring up "wiretapping" in an earlier comment and appeared to oppose it. If you are opposed to it that does not automatically make you a liberal. I was not referring to you specifically in my commentary.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 03:05 PMHow about the millions of unborn innocent children murdered since Roe V Wade? Did any of them volunteer like the folks who make up our military?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 03:16 PMI don't think you can argue that the millions of unborn children that have died since 1973 died for any cause other than selfishness.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 04:37 PMAnd it's a sad reality that some parents are woefully unequipped to be parents. Would you prefer to take away their kids, let their kids and society suffer the consequences, or at least try to nudge them in the right direction?
Posted by: Bruce on February 5, 2008 04:39 PMActually I never said anything of the kind Bruce, and my post you are referring to was at #59.
I didn't refer to those child care programs advocated by Hillary as socialist. I do believe however that Hillary and most other Democrats are socialists. Again, when Hillary yells about "taking oil company profits" what would you call her?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 05:04 PMBruce, long before any of us were born, Frederic Bastiat said, "Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism." Or in the original French: "qui prend le nom de Socialisme," or "which take the name Socialism."
You and I may disagree on what government's role should be in this sort of childcare, but we're not talking socialism.
I disagree.
The label doesn't really matter, but you're wrong to say this use of the word is invalid. Bastiat was using it over 150 years ago.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 05:08 PMIs it possible to have a rational discussion with leftists that spout this boilerplate nonsense? My experience tells me that it isn't.
I thought you were capable of better Bruce, but you revert to the hysteric rhetoric you can see on signs at any lefty protest march. All that's missing are those cool puppets you people make.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 05:14 PMInsert Duffman instead of Bruce and I stand by what I said.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 05:29 PMIn the USSR the surveillance was based on domestic political affiliation. As opposed to the US where it's specifically oriented toward foreign terrorism.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 5, 2008 09:14 PMThat stung, didn't it?
For the record, I did not write that you'd read his 'book' (I did not even use that word). I wrote that you'd read excerpts, not the entire thing. The drivel you provided formed an image of you quickly reading a few really stupid, disjointed and contradictory 'ideas' from a really bad source, and then running about, vomiting this half-digested swill on any target within range.
If you like, I can withdraw my accusation that you've ever read anything at all. The evidence you've provided will easily support such a retraction.
(I really must rid myself of this cold, before Lee sues me for turf violation.)
Posted by: tensor on February 5, 2008 11:22 PM