David Postman has taken a lengthy look into the details of a controversy you may have heard of, in which a BIAW's newsletter delves into the environmental record of the Nazi Party.
For the record, it doesn't appear the short association article in question does a solid job of backing up all of its assertions, especially ones so naturally controversial. In truth, Nazi leaders were probably personally more extreme in a lot of their views - including the environment - than all of the policies they actually implemented. Just because they believed it doesn't mean their policy record actually supports the charge in full.
Nonetheless, one component of Postman's coverage leaps out to this recent reader of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism (also discussed in the post):
The article struck a nerve with me. If you read my blog regularly you know I dislike rhetorical excess, whether from the right or the left. It rarely serves the interest that the author claims. And I believe that historic analogies should not be made haphazardly, especially when dealing with events such as genocide or slavery. To say something - particularly something in the political world or, say, storm-water regulations - is akin to either one of those is a losing argument from the start.
Therein lies much of the problem Goldberg laments at length in his book. The indescribable horror of the Holocaust and related evil perpetrated by the Nazi regime tends to negate rational consideration of what fascism was and wasn't - especially prior to World War II. Postman has an understandable aversion to the historic analogy - which again, isn't very well presented. But that doesn't mean that Hitler's Germany, as well as Mussolini's Italy and Stalin's USSR for that matter**, didn't engage in a number of domestic policies - totally unrelated to genocide, anti-Semitism, gulags, etc. - that were cheered by the intellectual forefathers of today's self-described "progressives" and "liberals." The Nazis were rabid populists, artful practitioners of class warfare, and serious fans of government mandates in all walks of life ranging from macroeconomics to everyday living. Any student of modern liberalism knows this sounds more than faintly familiar.
Goldberg doesn't speak much to environmentalism and fascism, though does mention that "environmentalism in particular offers a number of eerie parallels to fascist practices." More importantly, he presents the research to support his point that the intellectual leaders of the Progressives and the New Dealers cheered much of what fascists were doing domestically in the pre-World War II era (again, Nazi racism aside). Indeed, Hitler likewise had much praise - stated in the New York Times no less - for many New Deal policies.
The point, as Goldberg says repeatedly, isn't to say modern day liberals are fascists, let alone Nazis. The truth does remain, however, that the intellectual roots of modern day liberalism/progressivism have a lot more in common with pre-World War II fascism than most liberals care to admit. Unlike conservatives marching the John Birchers out of their movement, or more recently encouraging the departure of the David Dukes and Pat Buchanans from the mainstream of the conservative cause, liberals have not yet confronted the skeletons in their own intellectual closet.
But, as they say, read the whole thing.
**Yes, I am lumping fascism and communism into the same idealogical pot. If by chance you question why it is appropriate to do so, then I seriously encourage reading a basic book on political ideologies before digesting Goldberg's work.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 03, 2008 09:39 PM | Email ThisWhat exactly do you mean by this?
Possible examples of this:
1. Nazi views favored killing all the Jews in the world. Nazi policy was only implemented to actually kill only about 5.9 million Jews, leaving around 10 to 12 million still alive.
2. Nazi views favored the Germans conquering all of Europe (including Britain) and most of Asia. Nazi policy was only implemented to conquer the major portion of Europe (not including Britain) and none of Asia, and that policy was only successful for a few years.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 3, 2008 10:34 PMI was talking about their domestic policies. They didn't actually re-make as much of Germany internally as they envisioned in their twisted visions. And that's even aside from the genocide and world domination on which you seem stuck.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 3, 2008 10:46 PM"How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment and Nation in the Third Reich (Ecology and History)" by Franz-Josef Brueggemeier, Mark Cioc and Thomas Zeller, Ohio University Press, 288 pages, $22.95
"The Green and the Brown: A History of Conservation in Nazi Germany (Studies in Environment and History)" by Frank Uekoetter, Cambridge University Press, 246 pages, $23.99
Nazism and ecology? The Nazi party as a green movement? At first glance such analogies seem ridiculous, absurd, outrageous. In 1985, historian Anna Bramwell published a book in which she claimed outright that the Nazi party was a "green party." She focused on Richard Walther Darre, the agricultural minister of Nazi Germany, and his "Blut und Boden" ("blood and soil") ideology. Darre, wrote Bramwell, was the head of the "green" faction of the Nazi party, which greatly influenced the thinking of leading Nazis, among them Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. Bramwell called Darre the "father of the greens" for his support of organic agriculture, restrictions on the use of mechanized farming methods, and so on. In its time, if I am not mistaken, the book was quite esoteric.
In recent years, however, a growing number of articles and books, primarily academic texts, have been written on the subject. One of the more dominant titles is "How Green Were the Nazis?" In other words, the question "Were the Nazis green?" has already been answered. Another book with a no-less- provocative name is "The Green and the Brown." Brown, for those who have forgotten, was associated with the Nazis because it was the color of the shirts worn by their stormtroopers.
So this is clearly a difficult and emotional subject, like all historical and historiographic issues related to Nazism. Were the Nazis "green," and if so, how green? What does that say about them? Does it change our perception of their crimes? In what light does this place the green movement and ecological activism in the 20th century?
In July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law. It was one of the most progressive laws of its time. First of all, it was a federal law that applied to the whole country and not just a local ordinance, as had been customary in the past. It was also unprecedented in scope: The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake, and prevented damage that might have been caused by economic development in undeveloped areas. Anyone whose actions were liable to harm nature or alter the landscape in any significant way, such as developers and building contractors, had to obtain permission from the Reich nature protection office. This legislation also protected bridges, roads, buildings and other landmarks perceived as having German historical-cultural value. It imposed restrictions on advertisements that marred the landscape and, in some cases, banned them altogether. In Britain, legislation of this scope was only introduced after World War II, and in France, as late as the 1960s.
Above all, the phrasing of the Reich Nature Protection Law allowed for various enforcement options. It included a clause, for example, that denied legal recourse to people who could be harmed by the law - such as those who had lost the right to build on private land. After all, in Nazi Germany, the good of "the public" always came before the good of "the individual." Also noteworthy is the fact that the Reich's law, which sounded progressive, included clauses that were unmistakably Nazi in tone. It claimed that the landscape of Germany was the foundation for the superiority of the Aryan race. The law was clearly permeated with a "blood and soil" ideology.
The Reich Nature Protection Law was only one of the pinnacles of Nazi "ecological" and "green" legislation. There were laws and ordinances that protected forests and animals, laws against air pollution, and more. The Nazis banned slaughter without stunning the animal, restricted hunting and experimentation on animals, and introduced wildlife study and conservation programs.
A few months after the Nazis rose to power, Hermann Goering threatened over the radio that anyone found guilty of torturing or conducting experiments on animals would be sent to a concentration camp. The Nazis' attitude toward animals, and what appears to be the paradox (although it may not be) between their approach to animals and their approach to human beings, is a worthy subject on its own.
A trivial claim?
So were the Nazis really "green" and "ecologically minded"? First of all, it must be emphasized that they were not, in the sense that we use those terms today. Until the 1960s and 1970s, there were no "green" parties or movements of the kind that imposed a "green agenda" on everything from politics to the economy. You will not find an "ecological agenda" in the platform of the Nazi party - neither in "Mein Kampf," nor any other programmatic Nazi text. But there was, indeed, green legislation. So what was its significance?
One could argue that there is no connection between the two movements, and the fact that green and ecological laws were passed by the Third Reich is coincidental. In practice, however, many individuals, political lobbies and nature-loving societies sought to promote such legislation from the early 20th century. There were some local successes, but none on the federal level. The realization that the enlightened Weimar Republic was politically impotent was a tremendous source of disappointment. The establishment of the Third Reich was perceived as an excellent opportunity to move this kind of national legislation forward - not because it was a Nazi regime, but because it was totalitarian. In a totalitarian regime, getting things done is always easier than in liberal parliamentary regimes. In this respect, the connection between the German "ecology " movement and the Nazi regime may be seen as opportunistic.
But it takes two to tango: Without the cooperation of the Nazi administration, this kind of legislation would not have come about. The Nazis were interested in promoting green laws, but more for propaganda purposes than anything else. It was a way of enhancing the status of the new regime in the eyes of the German public. But that is not all. The Nazi movement was not "green" or "ecological" in itself, but as an ultra-nationalist movement; it was sensitive and open to ideas for safeguarding and conserving die Heimat, or the homeland. Germany's natural resources, landscape and soil were part of that. When you think about it, is there any modern nationalist movement that has not sanctified nature and land as a symbol of the people's inner spirit?
But there is also an entirely different possibility. It doesn't really matter whether the Nazis were green and ecologically minded. In real life, this monstrous regime destroyed the environment. In 1936, it announced a four-year plan for an autocratic German economy in preparation for war. This plan, together with arms-development programs that were already under way, made a laughingstock out of anyone who attempted to protect the environment from over-exploitation of resources and systematic destruction. In the long run, all this was nothing compared to the environmental catastrophe created by Nazi Germany in World War II. Green movements and conservationists do not support "scorched earth" policies, destroy the lives of millions of people and murder millions more.
Is this claim that the Nazis were greens trivial and anecdotal at best? Is it not merely an outgrowth of contemporary public interest in ecology, inflating an issue that was marginal in the Nazi era in a totally disproportionate way? I would like to suggest a different way of looking at the issue that not only allows a connection between Nazism and "ecology," but reveals another facet of the criminal nature of the Nazis - on condition that the term "ecological agenda" is expanded beyond flora, fauna and the natural landscape, to include human beings: The Nazi obsession with Lebensraum, or "living space," was an ecological project that extended to the proper "handling" of people.
In December 1942, Heinrich Himmler issued a "General Directive on the Shaping of the Landscape in the Annexed Eastern Territories." Ostensibly, this was a "green" order par excellence. Himmler offered guidelines on how to deal properly with flora and fauna, and how to conserve the landscape while building streets, villages, cities and even industrial zones. At the same time, he asserted that the countryside and natural surroundings had been largely destroyed by local, nonnative populations. Settling the "living space" with ethnic Germans, on the one hand, and getting rid of these foreign populations, on the other, was thus an integral part of Nazi "ecology." It was no coincidence that the Nazis sought to "cleanse" and "purify" their Lebensraum first and foremost of Jews. It was no coincidence that Jews were identified as a genuine environmental threat, and called "polluted," "diseased" and "parasitic."
German historian and philosopher Peter Sloterdijk recently argued that the Final Solution to the "Jewish problem" - sending the Jews to the gas chambers - was solid proof that the Nazis were indeed green, in that they did everything they could to preserve and shape the landscape by environmental means. Sloterdijk, I might add, is using the term "ecology" in a much broader sense than is conventionally used today. To protect the German Lebensraum, he says, the Nazis developed a method of mass murder based on killing people by destroying the victims' Lebensraum.
In the gas chambers, the Nazis did not physically mutilate the human body: They destroyed the environment that allowed human beings to live. That, I think, is precisely what is so horrifying about the idea of a gas chamber. It not only wipes out human life, but also the conditions that make life possible - all in the name of "proper" conservation and shaping the environment, namely the Lebensraum. What we learn from this, in my view, is that ecology cannot be limited to the relationship between people and place. It must also - perhaps even more importantly - address the relationship between one human being and another.
Dr. Boaz Neumann is the author of "Being in the Weimar Republic," published by Am Oved (in Hebrew).
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East.
© Copyright 2008 Haaretz. All rights reserved
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961717.html
'..NONE OF YOU are qualified intellectually to act as Pat's lavatory assistants.'
Thank goodness! I'll leave that duty to Larry Craig. :)
Pat needs to 'lighten up' or he'll continue to be discounted.
Let me put this in plain and simple terms -
militarization of the economy is entirely consistent
with fascism, there is no way to dance around that.
She has been given oportunity to back away from the
statement and has not.
Where is the mainstream media on this?
Is the country so poorly educated that something as
fundamental as this does not register?
http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=79060&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=TopNews
I have suggested that to concede "good intentions" to leftists is idiocy - given the historical record IMHO those who subscribe to a fascistic worldview are simply evil.
I don't see the desire to murder and slaughter, but I do see the desire to stop dissent and go relentlessly after those who tend to disagree with the leftist or the Nazi agenda.
I liked Goldberg's analogies. I really don't think he really is linking Naziism with the extreme leftist agenda, but is merely pointing out that liberal fascism (as he calls it) and Naziism have a lot in common.
You know, it takes a village, national health care, the government needs to do this and the government needs to do that. It's all about the 'collective'.
Posted by: swatter on April 4, 2008 07:29 AMWOW. Mr.Pope do you sit up all night and think of this crazy crap to write?
I guess not only are you a bad lawyer, but you must of failed high school history class too.
You one sorry person.
I said that given that during the recent increase in global warming (1820-1998) the number of humans had increased from 1 Billion to 6 Billion. By that measure, Global Warming is a stunning success.
He argued that 1 Billion is more than enough and that we should "get rid of" the other people.
Case closed.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12998
I need to puke.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 4, 2008 09:05 AMI guess racism must be a "real" Republican ideal to you, then.
Nice regurgitation of a popular myth though.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 09:32 AMThis is only true if you believe that the Lou Dobbs wing of the Democratic Party represents the intellectual roots of modern day liberalism/progressivism. But they don't. They are a fringe that modern day liberals/progressives are appalled by.
Posted by: thehim on April 4, 2008 09:37 AMEric, I'm going to assume at that point that you've never actually read Mein Kampf because if you had, you would know why this is an odd statement to make.
The only "twisted visions" that Nazism was based on had to do with race and war. Everything they did was motivated by their desire to "purify" Germany and to augment its power over the rest of Europe. Yes, they did things related to the environment, but so did the governments before and after them. The things that set the Nazis apart have nothing to do with environmentalism, or social welfare. It helps to remember that the first people the Nazis started locking up were Socialists and Communists. Their "intellectual roots" had nothing to do with economics, and I know you're smart enough to know this. Why you pretend not to be is something I'll likely never understand.
Posted by: thehim on April 4, 2008 09:47 AMGlad to oblige. From Pat's own book: State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion:
"America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived. Only whites have the appropriate "genetic endowments" to keep America from collapsing."
Pure, unadulterated racist sewage. Is that what you subscribe to?
The Growth Management Act has artifically raised housing prices by roughly $100,000, encourages sprawl in the periphery, and encourages less environmentally friendly development. The GMA is an all around loser and if the regular dopes on the street were educated to the damage it has done (visit Yelm), then we could remove this fascist institution and finally bring housing and environmental relief to the Puget Sound region. The BIAW wins, the people win, and the environment wins. The only losers if we dump the GMA are powerful landowners like Weyerhaeuser and fascist government.
Posted by: AP on April 4, 2008 10:19 AMthehim, having a hard time at introspection? Come on, there is truth to Goldberg's comments.
Posted by: swatter on April 4, 2008 10:20 AMSo Ivan~ you supply the source and then don't get the quote right?
The first 3 sentences are indeed in the source you provided, but nowhere is the 3rd sentence of:
"only whites have the appropriate 'genetic endowments' to keep American from collapsing".
But nice attempt at a lie.
Also, where in the first 3 sentences is Buchanon incorrect? Most of the collected data does indeed back up his claims. Try reading this for help.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 10:27 AMDamn those Canadian immigrants...giving up their free health care for freedom and a better life!! =P
1. This article takes passages from Mein Kampf and compares them to Buchanan quotes:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/090799MacArthur.html
2. This is Salon:
salon.com > News Sept. 4, 1999
URL: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/04/pat
Who's afraid of Pat Buchanan?
His spineless Republican rivals and the political punditocracy, that's who.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper
Pat Buchanan is back in the presidential campaign saddle again, leaving a trail of racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic rhetorical dung behind him wherever he goes.
But unlike in his two previous runs, this time around virtually no one seems willing to call him on it. Not the press, not the commentators and, most significantly, not his fellow Republicans. This week, as rumors intensify that Buchanan may bolt for the Reform Party, thereby becoming a significant factor in the presidential race, the silence has become deafening.
"There's no doubt he makes subliminal appeals to prejudice," says conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, one of the few members of the news media willing to speak out about Buchanan's bigotry. "He tries to be subtle, the comments are not direct appeals to prejudice, which is one of the reasons he gets away with it." But the subtle appeal, Krauthammer argues, "is very much heard by his audience."
Subtle, but not too subtle.
You knew who Buchanan was talking about, for example, during the week of the Iowa straw poll when he blamed the farm crisis on "New York bankers" and "the money boys up in New York."
He didn't say "money-grubbing kikes," but it was there, lurking in the subtext.
Or, in a radio interview, when Buchanan justified his anti-immigration policies by insinuating that the character of Mexicans was generally criminal -- "60,000 of them are in our prisons." The "railroad killer" is the kind of person we're going to have more of unless we build up the border patrol, he said.
The really interesting part of this post is that it points out the two extremes of the republican party will not be able to coexist and the republican party will have to build a new coalition. The extremes are represented by the libertarianism exclusion of Dr. Paul and the ultranationalism xenophobia of Pat Buchanan AND the fiscally conservative more moderate on other issues of what many here call RINOS. There will be some sort of divorce, the only question is which side gets to keep the title, "republican."
I read most commenters here; now, I may have to exclude anything you write. In fact, future comments will include you had previously deliberately and purposefully misquoted a quote.
That, old boy, is below despicable.
I've always said that Buchanan is so far right he is coming out the other side- the far left of the Democrat party. I have also said I never understood why he wasn't a Democrat.
Posted by: swatter on April 4, 2008 11:14 AMThen explain it. Jonah Goldberg has made one of the most truly ridiculous arguments of our era. Modern liberalism/progressivism (which is a mix of social libertarianism and economic populism) is very far removed from the intellectual roots of the Nazi movement. The intellectual roots of the Nazi movement were beliefs that pacifism was national suicide, that allowing too much immigration undermined the state, and that people's individual freedom needed to be sacrificed in order to preserve cultural purity and high moral values. It was a movement rooted in the belief that multiculturalism is death, and that people who question leaders in a time of war and struggle are insufficiently patriotic.
Now does that really sound like the modern left to you?
Posted by: thehim on April 4, 2008 11:14 AMDon't even know why I bother to debate you, but do you work in a hospital? Do you know how many come from Canada to get OUR medical care?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 4, 2008 11:15 AMTranslation: I can't back up my claims so I'll just accept my stupidity and call it a day.
To amplify: If it makes you or anybody else uncomfortable that whites would be in a minority in the United States when whites are in a minority worldwide, then you are racist trash just like Pat Buchanan is.
This is not a country for white people, nor is it a country of white privilege. This is a country for all Americans, and Pat Buchanan's view of such subjects does not have a very bright political future. Too F-ing bad if you don't like hearing that.
Posted by: ivan on April 4, 2008 11:16 AMOooh, do share what "real" Republican ideals are?
Does it involve eliminating the US Govt. of all Jews/Homosexuals/Communists? I suspect Pat supports putting them all in barbwire lines camps somewhere.
Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln (attributed):
'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Ponder that before you post again.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 11:30 AM"I've always said that Buchanan is so far right he is coming out the other side- the far left of the Democrat party. I have also said I never understood why he wasn't a Democrat."
1. Since you are a fan of the term "colorblind" this article in the Seattle Times might be of interest to you:
"Colorblind" generation struggles with race
By Haley Edwards
Seattle Times staff reporter
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004326428_raceyoung04m.html
2. Racists and bigots come in all flavors. What they have in common is they HATE. This HATE manifests itself in different forms. My observation is that most often in progressives, it is in the form of low expectations and patronizing behavior. It is interesting to argue with a conservative because they think their poop doesn't stink and most often when accused of bigoted behavior will almost always drag out Senator Byrd of KKK fame. The next line of defense is to drag out Dr. King's quote about being judged by the content of one's character. The final line of defense is a "colorblind" world and we only deal with those who are "colorblind" and that is no one. It is a dodge.
This country has come a long way on the race issue, but we cannot afford to get stuck on the Senator Byrds, Dr. Pauls or Pat Buchanan's way of thinking. Your party does not, at this point, offer a real opposition because so many VOTERS would never consider your party as an option. The best defense against corruption is a vigorous two-party system. In my opinion, your party will either become the party of Buchanan or it will become a conservative alternative, open to all sharing its views.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 11:40 AMIvan is well able to answer for himself. Having gone through several rounds with "mainstreamers" the issue is not equivalent behavior, it is developing a principle that HATE and bigotry will not be tolerated, no matter the flavor of the bigot. It is like being a little bit pregnant. Is your favorite bigot OK because he is your bigot?
The parent denomination of the church has said this:
UCC calls for nationwide race discussion By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Apr 4, 12:55 AM ET
CHICAGO - The United Church of Christ, the parent denomination of Barack Obama's church, announced Thursday that it will begin a conversation on racial issues beginning next month in response to sermons by Obama's pastor that were critical of the U.S.
ADVERTISEMENT
Leaders of Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, meanwhile, asked reporters for respect, saying threats and a media onslaught are disrupting worship at the South Side church. The church has increased security in response to threatening telephone calls, letters and e-mails, they said.
At a news conference, the United Church of Christ's national leadership said the furor over comments by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright demonstrated the complexity of racial issues in the country and the need for churches nationwide to talk about them.
"The members of Trinity United Church of Christ are going through a very difficult time right now. The intersection of politics, religion and race has heightened our awareness of how easy it is for conversations about race to be anything but sacred," said the Rev. John Thomas, the denomination's president.
The Rev. Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, echoed the call for a national discussion, beginning May 18. Kinnamon said he objects to seeing Trinity portrayed as an extremist sect, saying it and the UCC "are part of the wider Christian community."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/obama_s_church_ucc_3
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 11:48 AMThey've gone too far.
Posted by: Michele on April 4, 2008 11:56 AMHmmm, didn't Rick D once call MLK a Republican?
With this:
"We all know the long history of the old order in America. It had its beginning in 1619 when the first slaves landed on the shores of this nation. They were brought here from the soils of Africa. Unlike the Pilgrim fathers who landed at Plymouth a year later, they were brought here against their wills. Throughout slavery, the Negro was treated in a very inhuman fashion. He was a thing to be used, not a person to be respected. He was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine. The famous Dred Scott decision of 1857 well illustrated the status of the Negro during slavery. For in this decision, the Supreme Court of the United States said in substance that the Negro is not a citizen of this nation, he is merely property subject to the dictates of his owner. It went on to say that the Negro has no rights that the white man is bound to respect.
Living with the conditions of slavery and then later segregation, many Negroes lost faith in themselves. Many came to feel that perhaps they were less than human, perhaps they were inferior."
- Martin Luther King - December 18, 1963
Now? May?
Come on, Swatter. Ivan's a borderline parody troll. He's simply amusement.
Posted by: jimg on April 4, 2008 12:37 PMYou can check the archives and see or I can save you the effort with a simple "NO, I didn't".
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 12:44 PMApparently not, since he scurried away when challenged on his lies.
But what is not at all controversial is that the underlying philosophy of today's left is Marxism and other forms of 19th Century German collectivism. It's appropriate to lump the Nazis in with the communists and today's Progressives. While the Nazis were certainly much worse in that they advocated genocide, it's critical to not let today's Progressives off the hook for their statism that is exactly akin to Mussolini and Hitler.
And it's that increased Statism which is indeed the greatest danger. Nothing will bankrupt this country faster than increasing entitlement and government bureaucracy of environmental mandates and socialist programs. Obama already has several hundred-billion-dollar statist plans on the table. And these plans, like Social Security are cross generational and will saddle the US economy far in to the future.
Progressives like the term "Progressive" because it casts them in the positive light associated with the word, but these people are old-fashioned Marxists clinging to ideas that have failed every time they have been tried in recent history.
And on top of this, Progressives are willing to use race and other attributes to enforce their Marxist classes, and although they are racists, they are not willing to admit it, even as they levy quotas based on color and insist that we view everyone through various colored lenses.
Lastly, the Marxists will crush dissent. I heard Chris Matthews asking Obama what he would do about the problem of "right wing talk radio." As if free speech only applies one way in this country. According to the Progressives, it's fine to speak out loudly and even damage property to make your case as long as you are a Marxist, but conservatives need to be muzzled.
Every Marxist needs to be called out for what they are; destroyers who concern themselves not with their own productive achievement but with the control and subordination of others.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 4, 2008 02:09 PMIt is rather difficult to take historical arguments from you seriously especially about the period leading up to and including World War II because the last time we spoke face-to-face you were completely clueless about the concept of the "Big Red One" and how it applied to that war.
Hit the books.
Posted by: Don Ward on April 4, 2008 02:46 PMI'll be back to lie another day, just like you will.
Posted by: ivan on April 4, 2008 03:24 PM"And on top of this, Progressives are willing to use race and other attributes to enforce their Marxist classes, and although they are racists, they are not willing to admit it, even as they levy quotas based on color and insist that we view everyone through various colored lenses."
Just as clarification. Is what is being said:
1. The only racists are progressives?
2. There has never been a conservative racist?
3. The only party that ever used racial politics is the dem party?
Are you saying that conservatives and republicans are totally free of racism and have never, ever used racial politics?
Is that what is being said?
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 03:53 PMWe're talking about the intellectual roots of Nazism, in which case, you seem to be focusing on the wrong World War.
Posted by: thehim on April 4, 2008 04:31 PMOne thing we do know is that BIAW/Eic/Stefan won't be changing parties every other election and losing. Nor will they be lunging across desks in violent rages.
Posted by: pbj on April 4, 2008 04:39 PMYou think your smarmy statement is funny, but there is more truth to it than you realize.
So much for the utopia of Canadian Socialized Medicine.
Or Rev Wright's way of thinking either. I know you really meant to include him, but it must have slipped your mind.
Think it's bad here. You should see the mess in NY.
For the fun of it. Cato, go talk to the nurses at the Prov hospital in Everett. Colby ave.
Just see how many people from Canada are there.
Some people have selective reading skills. You said:
57. "This country has come a long way on the race issue, but we cannot afford to get stuck on the Senator Byrds, Dr. Pauls or Pat Buchanan's way of thinking.
Or Rev Wright's way of thinking either. I know you really meant to include him, but it must have slipped your mind.
Posted by pbj at April 4, 2008 04:59 PM
I said this at post #38:
Racists and bigots come in all flavors. What they have in common is they HATE. This HATE manifests itself in different forms. My observation is that most often in progressives, it is in the form of low expectations and patronizing behavior. It is interesting to argue with a conservative because they think their poop doesn't stink and most often when accused of bigoted behavior will almost always drag out Senator Byrd of KKK fame. The next line of defense is to drag out Dr. King's quote about being judged by the content of one's character. The final line of defense is a "colorblind" world and we only deal with those who are "colorblind" and that is no one. It is a dodge.
I said this at post #39:
Having gone through several rounds with "mainstreamers" the issue is not equivalent behavior, it is developing a principle that HATE and bigotry will not be tolerated, no matter the flavor of the bigot. It is like being a little bit pregnant. Is your favorite bigot OK because he is your bigot?
Perhaps you missed my comments because you think the only bigots are the "other" side.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 06:08 PMPoster #49 said this:
"And on top of this, Progressives are willing to use race and other attributes to enforce their Marxist classes, and although they are racists, they are not willing to admit it, even as they levy quotas based on color and insist that we view everyone through various colored lenses."
Just as clarification. Is what is being said:
1. The only racists are progressives?
2. There has never been a conservative racist?
3. The only party that ever used racial politics is the dem party?
Are you saying that conservatives and republicans are totally free of racism and have never, ever used racial politics?
Is that what is being said?
So, the republican party and its members are 100% absolutely free of bigotry and racism and the only people who are racist are progressives and dems?
For those conservative Jews may I suggest that you rent the movie the Garden of the Finzi Contis, if you haven't already viewed it. The fact that one is conservative or upper class made not a bit of difference to the Nazis. They burned you anyway and took your property. Some of those treasures are on view in Europe.
Now, is some one willing to address the questions posed above?
You purposely missed my point. Did I deny anyone in your list was not a bigot? I totally accept that list as a list of bigots (though not a complete one), so let's eliminate that little dodge shall we WVH?
It is curious that your list does not include Farrakhan or Rev Wright. For that matter no one other than white people are included in that list, or did I miss someone who wasn't white that you pointed out?
I am giving you a chance now, to say to me "Yes PBJ, I include Rev Wright and Farrakhan in the list of bigots".
Or do you say they are not bigots WVH???
If you do, I say it is you who thinks the only bigots are the "other" side.
I
Just as clarification. Is what is being said by you WVH:
1. The only racists are conservative?
2. There has never been a progressive racist?
3. The only party that ever used racial politics is the Republican party?
4. There has never been a black racist? They are all white?
Posted by: pbj on April 4, 2008 06:44 PMYou have selective reading skills I have said many times that Rev. Wright, Farrakan, David Duke, Rev. Hagee and others like them are bigots. Guess you wanted to miss that. Perhaps you will remember the line birds of a feather. What makes all of them bigots is their ability to HATE.
I guess the statement that bigots come in all flavors is just too difficult to understand for those who don't want to believe the statement.
Now, do you care to address the questions I posed to poster #49.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 06:51 PMHere's Senator Clinton (D-NY)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV_E
and Joseph Biden (D-Del)-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIT3jUrNTX0
signed,
your "typical white person"
Oh yeah, add Senator Obama to that list also (D-Ill)
So WVH,
Just as clarification. Is what is being said by you WVH:
1. The only racists are conservative?
2. There has never been a progressive racist?
3. The only party that ever used racial politics is the Republican party?
4. There has never been a black racist? They are all white?
What I have said is "you" libertarians or republicans have selective amnesia. I again refer you to post #38:
"Racists and bigots come in all flavors. What they have in common is they HATE. This HATE manifests itself in different forms. My observation is that most often in progressives, it is in the form of low expectations and patronizing behavior. It is interesting to argue with a conservative because they think their poop doesn't stink and most often when accused of bigoted behavior will almost always drag out Senator Byrd of KKK fame."
The statement that HATE manifests itself in different forms should be enough for most readers that in no way did I limit bigots to libertarians or republicans.
Again, care to address the questions posted to poster #49?
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 07:08 PMBe careful what you wish for, liberals....
ps: Have pliers, will travel to back alleys... for a FEE [/sarcsm... probably totally lost on the pro-borts].
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 4, 2008 07:10 PM
If I'm not mistaken, that line finishes with "flock together"...I think 20 years flocking together is damning evidence of someone elses closeted bigotry. Unfortunately, it only appears to seep out when they take the muzzle off of his wife and pastor and/or slips out during radio interviews with sports DJ's.
I don't remember if you were equally incensed by the 20 year association with Dr. Paul and bigots as reported in TNR. Were you?
I suspect that what will happen is the dems will nominate Gore if the Rev. Wright issue is still around in August. One thing a pol wants to do is save their own butt.
Now, I don't for a minute think Senator Obama believes that crap spouted from Rev. Wright. What he probably believed in was the ability of an 8.000 member church to give him a base and votes. In answer to your next question, No, like Oprah, I would have bolted after the man opened his mouth. He is an idiot, but, then I am not running for office, nor do I plan to.
What I have criticized all along is those posters and bloggers that have selective outrage when it comes to bigots. If you are going to condemn Rev. Wright, then you also have to condemn David Duke, Farrakan, and Rev. Hagee.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 07:45 PMI'm going to have find myself in Don Ward's camp in assessing your history on this score as lacking.
a) A reading of Mein Kempf, while insightful, is not substitute for assessing the Nazi party platform in full, or the actual ideals they communicated during their rise to power.
b) Your comments remain stuck on the issues of race and war which I said Goldberg deliberately excludes from the analysis of the joint-intellectual roots of fascism and progressivism/liberalism. He does so because the Nazi version of fascism, imbued with that racism, was unique because of it. Take away the racism and national purity component of the Nazi agenda and you are left with an extreme social warfare state, a firmly nationalized economy, and economic populism that would make John Edwards blush.
c) The same agenda I listed at the end of the point above also fits Mussolini's fascism, and frankly a healthy portion of Stalin's communism too. All those totalitarian states were rabidly anti-capitalist and utterly opposed to a laissez-faire approach to economic and social issues (which again, have nothing to do with ethnic purity or war).
d) Your point about the Nazis rounding up "Communists" and "Socialists" after coming to power shows your historical depth isn't up to this argument. The Nazis and Communists were fighting for the same political constituency (the large, disgruntled working class). The "National Socialists" part of the full Nazi party name wasn't just semantics. They were just as interested in blowing up capitalism and creating an immense social-welfare state as the communists. Once they beat those with whom they were competing electorally, they suppressed them brutally rather endure any competition. That point is supported by a lot more history and research besides Goldberg's.
e) Neither Goldberg's book nor my post have anything to do with the "Lou Dobbs" wing of the Democratic party you're talking about. Neither of us is taking about any policies that can be construed as xenophoic or nativist (like Dobbs). We're in fact talking about domestic policies that had quite a bit to do with economics. If you look specifically at Mussolini's Italy (which Goldberg does at length) - essentially a non-racist form what the Nazis were pursing - you'll find the bulk of the movement was about dramatic change to both the economy and society, as well as extended forms of economic/social justice. That in turn shared much common cause and thinking with the domestic policy thinking of our own Progressives and New Dealers.
I encourage you to try and read the book with an open mind. Your read on Goldberg's work is totally inconsistent with the book itself.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 4, 2008 07:47 PMThe Environmentalists that push for carbon credits are prime example of Fascism - with their intention to control people, while their premise is based on junk science.
Posted by: KS on April 4, 2008 08:18 PMWilda- Since you appear to be talking to no one in particular, I'll take the troll bait.
Paul has/is/was never a serious candidate for the Republican nomination and I, for one have at no time supported him. Next straw man please.
@ 72 "Now, I don't for a minute think Senator Obama believes that crap spouted from Rev. Wright. What he probably believed in was the ability of an 8.000 member church to give him a base and votes."
So in your book, exposing your 2 young daughters to hate-filled sermons on a regular basis for cheap political points with the "community" is justified? I'd call that one of two things.....typical political whoring of oneself or flat out bad judgment.
I guess the more things "change", they more they remain the same.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 08:42 PMPeople have played the old parlor game of start a tale or gossip at one in end of the room and by the time it reaches the end of the chain, the story is unrecognizable. The writer of this piece for the BIAW is clueless and a poor writer, to boot. But, by the time the "story" reaches the end of the chain, Rossi will be in support of the Nazis and out to eliminate not only Jews, but all people of color and those who cherish Mother Earth. Probably few will go to the original source and read the article. Stories like this energize a base and bring people out to vote AGAINST someone.
It would be nice to have a two party state with some simbilence of competition. That won't happen when one side is so totally clueless. Sometimes, "friends" aren't all that helpful.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 08:53 PMSo be it. Truth often does that. Maybe a few of the dazed followers of the Big O will see what is happening before they vote. I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: deadwood on April 4, 2008 08:56 PMThe question specifically asked to you is:
"Paul has/is/was never a serious candidate for the Republican nomination and I, for one have at no time supported him. Next straw man please."
So, you believe in situational ethics? There are no universals? Is the only test for bigotry, the polls and whether a candidate is viable. Isn't that what libertarians and progressives condemn progressives for, moral relativity and situational ethics?
Now, regarding Senator Obama's children, neither I nor you know what lessons they have or may be teaching their children. Do you have that information? Do you have similiar concerns that Senator McCain's children might be convinced by Rev. Hagee that the Catholic Church is the great whore? Your only concern is not principle, but to smear.
Only my friends have permission to use my first name. People that hate me because I am Black have no such permission. It is WVH to you or don't address me at all.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 09:04 PM"Isn't that what libertarians and republicans condemn progressives for, moral relativity and situational ethics?
Sorry Wilda, I'll try to remember that in the future. What does your race have to do with the discussion other than an obvious obfuscation from the reality that Obama whored himself out for votes? You admitted as such in your post @ 72 remember?
You speak of "situational ethics" while making excuses for your own.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 09:20 PMI just wanted confirmation that's all. You have a habit of leaving out Rev Wright or Farrakhan when you regurgitate your list.
I wasn't the one to whom the questions were addressed but I have no problem answering them.
"1. The only racists are progressives?
I don't believe that.
2. There has never been a conservative racist?
I don't believe that.
3. The only party that ever used racial politics is the dem party?"
I don't believe that.
Does that help you out?
Posted by: pbj on April 4, 2008 09:25 PMSenator Obama, like Senators Mc Cain, Clinton, and former Senator Edwards, and Governor Romney are politicians. Who knew. All of them do and did whatever it took to reach a stage. Senator Mc Cain embraced Rev. Hagee, so is Senator Mc Cain whoring for votes? Your only concern, Rick D., is to destroy any Black that gets in the way of your sick philosophy.
If anything happens to me as a result of release of my name, my estate will sue the hell out of this site and its site gurus.
You have no permission to use my name.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 09:29 PMThanks for the reponse. The point is that neither side has clean hands and people can't pretend that it is only the "other" side.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 09:32 PMNow, you throw around the labels quite a bit on this site without proof. Can you back up your claims in your post @ 82?
Plus, the comparison to Hagee and McCain Vs. the intimate relationship with Wright and Obama is laughable....I think we are starting to see the real WVH.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 09:42 PMWhat did Pat Buchanan really write?
Ivan has the first three sentences perfectly quoted from pages 11-12:
"America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived."
Unfortunately, Ivan apparently relied on a second-hand source for this quote, and the fourth sentence of his purported quote does not appear after the third sentence of his quote.
What Ivan purportedly quoted is:
"Only whites have the appropriate "genetic endowments" to keep America from collapsing."
These precise exact words don't seem to appear in Buchanan's book, as far as I can tell, and certainly not on pages 11-12. Apparently, they are someone else's paraphrase of what Buchanan wrote about on page 164 of his book:
"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted by a different people."
Seems to me that Ivan is basically correct, and has certainly conveyed the context and substance of Buchanan's racist writings in the fourth sentence of his quote.
Doesn't seem to me that Buchanan's racial ideas are all that different than those of the Nazis.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 4, 2008 09:52 PMYou are the very thing you claim to criticize.
First off let me address your distractions you continually use to avoid answering questions about Obama - Ron Paul.
I personally thought Ron Paul was a nutty bigot. Yes I was outraged at his campaign. Should I have hunted him down and shot him to prove this to you? Would a video of him being beheaded have satisfied your requirement?
Now let's deal with your other distraction - John McCain and Rev Hagee. What racial statements has Hageee made? The worst I have heard is that the Catholic Church is a whore. If you can provide me some sources I will be happy to examine them and come to my own conclusion. At any rate, I have already stated I refuse to vote for John McCain. Just go look through the archives if you have any doubt.
Now we get to Obama. He listened to the sermons of the bigot Wright for over 20 years. You defend Obama. Now for my clarification I have a question.
I answered your questions, now please answer mine:
1) Do you think white people invented AIDS in order to kill of black people?
The real Rick D. hates all Blacks. Your original point was that Senator Obama is a politician. Agree. So, is Senator Mc Cain. Your situational ethics are showing and you attack any Black for being successful in this system. Senator Obama, like it or not embraces the politics of success.
So, what is your next move, send me a noose in the mail. List my name at Stromfront with a bounty on my head?
No, I do not believe that. I believe that aids like a lot of diseases developed first in animals, mutated and then jumped into the human population.
What I think is happening is generational change. Rev. Wright represents on generation of "leaders" like Senator Byrd, That generation is passing from the scene. There is a new generation of leaders that is arising, but there is a transition. Whether one agrees with Seantor Obama's politics or not, he is of another generation from Rev. Wright.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 10:08 PMHow much time do you have? McCain is such a vote whore that if there were the political equivalent of STD's McCain would have had them all several times over. He is an equal opportunity whore-a-tician. He whores both sides. Some call this being a maverick, I call it being a cheap vote whore.
That is why I don't lose any sleep when the press works McCain over. You lay with dogs, you get fleas. Seems a hard lesson for Johnny to learn, but that is what it is.
Posted by: pbj on April 4, 2008 10:14 PM"The real Rick D. hates all blacks" says WVH. Yet, she can't cite a single utterance of such in all of the archives in the Sound Politics forum. It's all archived WVH, do you have the intellectual integrity to back up your ludicrous claims? My money says no...but we both already know that.
To quote Larry Elders - "you've just HEARD, the word"
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 10:17 PMThanks for answering my question.
Posted by: pbj on April 4, 2008 10:23 PMYour body of work is a complete example of how you feel about Blacks and others you do not consider worthy. No drama, dude. I will hire Mr. Pope. Whatever people think of him as a politician, he is a lawyer like Inspector Javert.
If I have to take out a larger insurance policy to make sure that if anything happens to me, Pope spends the rest of his life making your life a living hell. It is money well spent. Cheers.
Perhaps he's of the generation capable of "mainstreaming" Pastor Wright's message.
I seriously doubt that if in eight years President Bush has not been able to get a balanced budget, change much in the bureaucracy and much of that time he had either a supportive Congress or an ineffective one. I suspect that many of Senator Obama's objectives will face the same resistence. For that matter, so would Senators Clinton or Mc Cain. The government doesn't turn that quickly. I doubt any of them wants to mainstream hate.
Further, like Senator Clinton's health insurance plan, opposition to any initiative considered out of the norm prevents its adoption.
I will contact my insurance agent tomorrow. Up the life insurance and make sure that your life will be a living hell if anything happens to me.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 10:38 PMWVH @ 72 "Now, I don't for a minute think Senator Obama believes that crap spouted from Rev. Wright. What he probably believed in was the ability of an 8.000 member church to give him a base and votes."
Rick D. @ 75- "So in your book, exposing your 2 young daughters to hate-filled sermons on a regular basis for cheap political points with the "community" is justified?"
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 10:48 PMSheesh.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 4, 2008 10:48 PMSince my young relative has been thinking all things mixology these past weeks and is quite interested in politics, said young person has created some Democrat Candidate Cocktails.
With no further ado...
The Barack Obama:
1/2oz Dark Creme de Cacao, 1/2oz Creme de Banana, fill with Cream. (Black and White, and completely bananas).
The Hillary Clinton:
Layer Amaretto, White Creme de Menthe, Blue Curaco, top with 151 and ignite. (Red, White, and Blue - set on fire.)
The Ralph Nader
In a small rocks: Fill 3/4 with flat champagne; add 15 dashes Angostura. (Old, flat and bitter)
1. Senator Obama is a politican like Senators Mc Cain, Clinton, Edwards, and Governors Huckabee and Romney. Who knew all these folks were pols.
2. Unless you know how the Obamas are raising their children, you don't know what they are teaching them about Rev. Wright's sermons.
You are a moral relativist and believe in situational ethics. If it wasn't Rev. Wright, it would be something else. The bottom line is unlike David Duke who is honest about his hatreds, you couch your philosophy in opposition to Rev Wright. I doubt that many folks here wouldn't invite you to lunch if you just came out and said, I don't want a Black president.
Now, I answered the questions posed. You can't read
Wilda~ still waiting on your proof...The archives are complete, so let's see my "body of work" as you say.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 11:18 PMI meant what I said, I don't like racists and if anything happens or I get threatened, I'm looking at you and your little pod.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 11:32 PMI meant what I said, I don't like racists and if anything happens or I get threatened, I'm looking at you and your little pod.
Posted by: WVH on April 4, 2008 11:32 PMpur·port·ed adj. Assumed to be such; supposed:
pur·port'ed·ly adv.
Richard Pope- so Ivan @ 22 didn't actually post that quote? only purportedly quoted?
......and you wonder why people hate lawyers.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 11:34 PM"Oh come on Rick, can I call you Rick?"
Why not? it's my name.
"You know you hate Black people, I know you hate Black people. Let's drop the pretense."
Which is why it's so odd that you can't come up with a single shred of proof of that despite a vast, archived by month breakdwon of SP thread postings at your disposal. But then, Some see what they reflect in the mirror and project onto others.
"First, your little group and it is a group wanted me BANNED."
I've got a group here? let me quote Groucho Marx when I say "I would never belong to any club that would have me as a member".
"Sorry, you can't BAN me."
Who said anything about banning you? I think those voices in your head are starting to take over your thought process.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 4, 2008 11:48 PMGlad you don't like lawyers, especially Mr. Pope.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 12:09 AMGlad you don't like lawyers, especially Mr. Pope.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 12:09 AMYou probably missed this on the Public Blog:
Sound Politics Public Blog: NOT BANNED IN BOSTON, BANNED RIGHT HERENOT BANNED IN BOSTON, BANNED RIGHT HERE. 1. This comment prompted a reply from me which was deleted:. " 2 . I note for the record that Wilda, aka WVH, ...
soundpolitics.com/public/2008/03/not_banned_in_boston_banned_ri.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
Glad that you have a healthy respect for Mr. Pope and lawyers.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 12:20 AMYou both need a life. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 5, 2008 06:58 AMI have a life and this is what I plan to do with it over the next few months. I plan to vote for and support Governor Gregoire, so that she gets a mahority of the vote. I am an indie and I do split my ticket. I vote for the candidate, not the party. I don't know if she is the superior candidate in terms of characteristics, I know that she is the superior candidate in terms of quality of her major supporters. They do not use intimidation, threats, and bullying. It is probably rare that Ivan, Goldy, Richard Pope and I agree on anything. We agree that this group is dangerous. This is from Postman's blog:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/2008/04/blogger_uses_nazi_satire_to_poke_at_builders_group.html
I hope that Ivan, Goldy and all environmentalists actually copy this article and ciruculate it to the grassroots as an example of a group of jackbooted thugs. The question is, do you want these people in any sort of power position? I don't and that is why Governor Gregoire just picked up one vote.
It could be former Senator Rossi has some great ideas on how to govern and would be an effective leader, but the way to get to a laudable goal is not through jackbooted thugs who far from describing Nazis are an example of nazi tactics. Re-elect Governor Gregoire. Send this article to everyone you know!
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 08:58 AMSheesh.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 5, 2008 11:05 AMBut don't any of you DARE judge OBAMA by the quality of HIS Supporters - Frarrakahn, Wright etc...
HYPOCRITE!
As I have said before, I am an indie. Now, on the presidential ticket here is what I see.
1. Senator Mc Cain is the presumptive nominee, he has NOT been ratified by the convention.
2. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton is projected to have enough votes to win outright, so in all likelyhood, the superdelegates will decide who is the nominee.
3. As far as I know, both parties are still working on their platforms. Do you know differently?
I will make up my mind for president by seeing who emerges from each convention, reading the party platforms and watching both the presidential and vice presidential debates.
I could end up voting for either party or Ralph Nader. I haven't made up my mind.
I understand that Senator Mc Cain voted against the King holiday in 83, but has since apologized. I think he is a decent man. I just want to judge on the issues.
I will endorse Governor Gregoire and volunteer for her. Now, if that makes me a hypocrite in the eyes of JJ@whoa.net. So be it.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 02:42 PMI am an indie ans I vote for the candidate. This is what I see in the presidential race:
1. Senator Mc Cain is the presumptive nominee and he has not been ratified by the convention.
2. Neither Seantors Obama or Clinton is projected to have enough votes to win outright and superdelegates will probably decide.
3. Both parties are working on their platforms.
I will watch both the presidential and vice presidential debates and read each party's platform. I will make my decision from research and neither party is in or out of the running.
I could vote for either party or neither party, Nader is always an option to register a protest vote. I do not rule out voting for Senator Mc Cain simply because he is a republican and I have no reason to just vote against him simply because he is a republican.
The governor's race is different. I will endorse Governor Gregoire and I plan to volunteer at her campaign. If that makes me a hypocrite in YOUR eyes. Sobeit.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 02:51 PMI am an indie ans I vote for the candidate. This is what I see in the presidential race:
1. Senator Mc Cain is the presumptive nominee and he has not been ratified by the convention.
2. Neither Seantors Obama or Clinton is projected to have enough votes to win outright and superdelegates will probably decide.
3. Both parties are working on their platforms.
I will watch both the presidential and vice presidential debates and read each party's platform. I will make my decision from research and neither party is in or out of the running.
I could vote for either party or neither party, Nader is always an option to register a protest vote. I do not rule out voting for Senator Mc Cain simply because he is a republican and I have no reason to just vote against him simply because he is a republican.
The governor's race is different. I will endorse Governor Gregoire and I plan to volunteer at her campaign. If that makes me a hypocrite in YOUR eyes. Sobeit.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 02:53 PMFirst excuse the multiple posts. I have a great deal of respect for you as I think you are principled conservative. I probably agree with you more often than not, but not on this one. I rarely agree with either Ivan, Goldy or Pope and have sparred with all on occasion. On this issue the fact that this particular group is dangerous to this state is something we all agree on.
I still am an indie and will look at each of the other races and a case by case basis. I am not excluding any candidate from president on with the exception of the governor's race because the candidate is a republican.
I will endorse Governor Gregoire and will volunteer for her. I plan to forward this article to everyone I know. I urge Ivan, Goldy and Pope to do the same.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 03:03 PM-- The Nazis publicly proclaimed their love of Fatherland, Motherhood, and traditional gender roles. In reality, they had a thriving homosexual subculture, whose existence would sometimes publicly embarrass them.
-- The Nazis believed the state should decide if a woman would carry a pregnancy to term.
-- The Nazis started a war based upon lies, and attacked a country which did not threaten them.
-- The Nazis were obsessed with a recent, liberalizing period in their country's history. They worked relentlessly to remove the gains which had been made by women and minorities during that period. They referred to their political opponents as immoral and degenerate.
-- The Nazis had a very cozy relationship with Christian conservatives. Not one Nazi was ever excommunicated by the Catholic Church for murders committed during the Holocaust.
Well, that's enough for now. BIAW, please let me know if you want more Nazi talk.
Here is some Nazi talk for you:
-- Nazi stands for the National Socialist Party of Germany.
-- The Nazis put all economic activity under control by a centralized and autocratic authority.
-- Nazis muzzled free speech kind of like a modern day "fairness doctrine".
Well that's enough for now. SIEU and NEA please let me know if you want more Nazi talk.
Posted by: pensor on April 5, 2008 03:45 PMNot in my eyes, in reality.
Posted by: JustAMinuteWVH on April 5, 2008 04:05 PMThat would be possibly true if had endorsed a presidential candidate which I haven't. I have only endorsed a candidate for governor. Now, it is true that I have argued with those selective supporters of civil rights who insist that their bigot is OK, but other people's bigots are not.
Either one is for the principle that bigotry is bad or one isn't. I suspect that most of those so terribly incensed by Rev. Wright probably have a favorite bigot in the closet some where.
In any event, at this point, there are only presumptive nominees for both major parties. I am willing to see who emerges from each convention, there might be some surprises and your feigned indignation of Rev. Wright might have been for naught.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 08:11 PMThat would be possibly true if had endorsed a presidential candidate which I haven't. I have only endorsed a candidate for governor. Now, it is true that I have argued with those selective supporters of civil rights who insist that their bigot is OK, but other people's bigots are not.
Either one is for the principle that bigotry is bad or one isn't. I suspect that most of those so terribly incensed by Rev. Wright probably have a favorite bigot in the closet some where.
In any event, at this point, there are only presumptive nominees for both major parties. I am willing to see who emerges from each convention, there might be some surprises and your feigned indignation of Rev. Wright might have been for naught.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 08:13 PMThat is the hypocrisy. My punishment for daring to point this out, I suspect is to be labelled a racist and bigot in 3....2.....1
That is such a comfortable old saw for you after all isn't it? Because debating on issues is such effort, I guess you needn't bother.
We have some nut from the BIAW, who compares the storm water people to Nazi's, and we Have the crazy bigot Rev Wright who says crazy things about white people.
In one case you decide right then and there that the association with the BIAW means ROssi will not get your vote. But if anyone DARE say the same thing about Obama, you label them bigots, racists and all the nasty dismissive labels you like to use.
Sounds like a big double standard to me.
Posted by: JustAMinuteWVH on April 5, 2008 09:08 PMApparently you are not for the principle that bigotry is bad, at least when it is a black bigot.
Posted by: pbj on April 5, 2008 09:10 PMYou said:
"to do with you guilt
by association declaration in he case of Rossi. But if anyone dares to make the same judgment of Obama, they are racist "mainstreaming" bigots with white hoods ready to get you, in your eyes."
So far as I know and I can be corrected, Rev. Wright has used hateful rhetoric, but has not used hateful tactics against his adversaries.
This is from Postman's blog. I absolutely DO NOT BELIEVE that the Biaw was involved in arson, but I have heard from other people about the same tactics that Goldy is relaying:
"He did say he thought the BIAW was "wacko." But Goldstein said Connelly was "too kind" to the BIAW in not believing they had burned down the Street of Dreams and made it look like the work of radical environmentalists. Said Goldstein:
They are a bunch of Nazis. I want to tell you, people are afraid of them; they're afraid of them, Joel. ... I've written about them in the past and when I first started doing it over the ergonomics rules, I got e-mails, I got phone calls from people warning me, 'You better not tread there. You don't want to go after the BIAW, these are nasty bastards. They'll go after you.'
I had somebody tell me that, 'You might want to check your credit report, see who is checking on your, your credit rating.' They hire private investigators to go after people. People are terrified of the BIAW and when they print stuff like this, when they print violent, hateful rhetoric like they've done, they know that they are attempting to intimidate people. It is an act of intimidation. They're not dumb. They write this stuff on purpose, because they are a bunch of bullies...."
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/2008/04/blogger_uses_nazi_satire_to_poke_at_builders_group.html#more
IF the allegations are true, then this is a quantum difference from Rev. Wright who is a bigot, BUT NOT, a bigot and a bully. So, if you have heard allegations about Rev. Wright using the same tactics described by Goldie, I would be more than happy to condemn both him and Senator Obama. As far as I know Rev. Wtight only possesses a bigoted mouth or as they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 09:18 PM""Either one is for the principle that bigotry is bad or one isn't."
Apparently you are not for the principle that bigotry is bad, at least when it is a black bigot."
OK, name a bigot of any color I haven't called a bigot and condemned?
If that were proved to be true, I would agree with you.
Do you have proof the allegations are true? Or does the accused merely get written off because the accuser shares your ideological position? Imagine if people did that with Obama?
Me, I tend to disbelieve such an allegations based upon only the word of the accuser because it contains an allegation of a tactic (the credit report checking) that just so happens to be the exact same tactic Democrat activists similar to Goldstein have used on Maryland Lt Gov. Micheal Steele, a Republican candidate in Maryland.
I find that those who wish to cast aspersion of others tend to project the things of which they themselves are guilty.
Of course, I urge you to not take my word for it, but read about it for yourself.
If you think I somehow rigged my link, go google:
michael steele credit report
Please report back to us what you find.
Please ignore that link above. I pasted in the wrong link.
Posted by: JustAMinuteWVH on April 5, 2008 10:04 PMSorry. You clarified in 128 how you were making your distinction. That wasn't clear before that.
Posted by: pbj on April 5, 2008 10:18 PMIf it makes you feel better I have and do condemn the way Justice Thomas has been and is treated, the calling of Secretary Rice, Aunt Jemima, and the tactics used against Micheal Steele, who would have been a great senator. That still doesn't change the fact that I have heard the same allegations from others who I believe are credible people. They say the very same thing that Goldy is stating. Do I have an independent way of confirming the same story told by different people at different times? No, that is why it is an allegation. That enough people who are, in my opinion credible, are stating it makes it credible to me. You can choose to disagree, that is your right.
Now, I don't believe the arson allegation and I have not heard that corroborated. But I do believe the other allegations.
That is the difference between the Rev. Wright situation.
You said:
""IF the allegations are true, then this is a quantum difference from Rev. Wright who is a bigot, BUT NOT, a bigot and a bully. "
If that were proved to be true, I would agree with you.
So, short of sworn testimony, I don't expect you to believe the allegations and that is fine. You just end up in a different place in who you support for governor. That is the political process and that is how the system works.
Posted by: WVH on April 5, 2008 10:19 PMThe conniptions of our local residents of "Obamaville" should be almost as much fun to watch as the regular meltdowns of a few of our more tender commenters.
Yes, this morning you may call me 'Agitator' ... or 'Instigator'... I'll answer to either.
:)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 6, 2008 10:15 AMNo, I choose my pick for governor on the person I think can best govern ALL the people of this state not just those of a certain race. That would be Governor Gregoire. Now, if you had taken the time to actually read post #133 where I said the following:
"That still doesn't change the fact that I have heard the same allegations from others who I believe are credible people. They say the very same thing that Goldy is stating. Do I have an independent way of confirming the same story told by different people at different times? No, that is why it is an allegation. That enough people who are, in my opinion credible, are stating it makes it credible to me. You can choose to disagree, that is your right."
You would note that what I said is people I respect have corroborated Goldy. Given some of the wonderful posters here who take every opportunity to make slurs and who I guess support one candidate over Governor Gregoire is it any wonder that I think she would be the best candidate for ALL the people.
Unlike like some here who are lemmings and would blindly follow anything over a cliff as long as it had an "r" for republican or "l" for libertarian over a cliff and who can't admit any flaw. I realize that Governor Gregoire is the best candidate, not a perfect candidate. The task of people who don't want this state influenced by thugs and bullies is to get people registered, get them to the polls, send the BIAW article to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. If possible we need to build a huge margin of victory for Governor Gregoire so this stolen election garbage is a thing of the past. This state needs to move on. ELECT GREGOIRE with a rally huge margin. Volunteer, get out the vote!
Now for the supporters of Dr. Paul going through withdrawl, I understand that former Rep. Bob Barr is running as a libertarian for president. You should be right at home. He is just as crazy.
SPECIFICALLY what has queen chrissy done that allows you to believe "she would be the best candidate for ALL the people."?
Can you name 5 things?
3 things?
Or does she just pander really, really well?...
Perhaps you should start viewing the world, the country, the state, YOUR LIFE through the prism of being an AMERICAN, rather than the (imagined) victimhood of being a black woman.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when you look for slights, you will find them...and you do that exceptionally well.
You clearly are an intelligent, well spoken woman and I am mystified that you prefer to portray (and limit) yourself as a victim rather than an achiever.
Stop looking for slights.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 6, 2008 10:47 AMDo I remind you of Obama because the race is the same? Now, where do you get the idea that I don't view myself as an American, because I don't agree with you and you are the perfect example of everything American?
As for victimhood, where do you get that little gem from? Oh, again, I don't agree with you, right? I imagine that you like other conservatives are fond of the term "colorblind" and believe there is no issue of race. You may have come across this article:
Since you are a fan of the term "colorblind" this article in the Seattle Times might be of interest to you:
"Colorblind" generation struggles with race
By Haley Edwards
Seattle Times staff reporter
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004326428_raceyoung04m.html
Republicans, in my opinion, cannot discuss the issue of race as they want to pretend that:
1. The subject does not exist
2. If it exists it is the other side's fault and not ours. Besides, they have Senator Byrd as a leader.
3. If it is not the other sides fault then anyone bringing up the subject is playing the "victim card."
I know that Senator Mc Cain was booed and he should not have been. He voted against the King Holiday in '83 and has since apologized. He is 71 and his actions should be taken in the context of how this country has grown. There is generational change going on.
So, all Black people who disagree with you are like Senator Obama and unAmerican, right?
Good move, I plan to do everything I can to see that Governor Gregoire trounces former Senator Rossi. We need to all move on as Washingtonians and Americans. HELP GOVERNOR GREGOIRE kick Rossi's butt.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2008 11:11 AM-- The Nazis believed in building highways as a backbone of economic development.
-- The Nazis financed armed gangs, who could operate outside the law to threaten and intimidate political opponents.
-- The Nazis demonized liberals as Socialists and Communists.
-- Although publicly committed to traditional gender roles, the Nazi Party was saturated with homosexuals.
Now, what modern American political parties, movements, or organizations also have such traits?
Posted by: tensor on April 6, 2008 12:30 PMActually, they burned books, and absolutely forbade their opponents from engaging in public speech. The "fairness doctrine" was instituted to enable all points of view on our public airwaves. You see, they're opposites, not similarities.
You guys really, really fear what would happen if an hour of Limbaugh or Medved was followed by an hour of examining their claims, don't you? (Your fears are justified.)
Oh yeah, the Nazis believed their state should decide if a woman could bring her fetus to term. Which American political party embraces a similar view?
Posted by: tensor on April 6, 2008 01:25 PMNo, you dumb a**, you remind me of Obama because like him you spout words with nothing behind them.
Really, nice try.
Now that you've typically clouded the issue with your victimhood, answer the damned question.
You said, queen chrissy "would be the best candidate for all the people".
Stop bloviating and offer PROOF. I asked for exampl;les and you gave me whining.
And get the damned chip off your shoulder. The only person who cares if you are black or blue is YOU, and you marginalize anything else you have ot offer.
Good grief you must have attended the flippin Jesse Jackson school of racial victimhood and pimping. It gets flipping OLD. Be an AMERICAN, not a pathetic whining, victim.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April