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 6, 2008 02:22 PMVictim
Hood
The only ballot that counts is the result of the election. So, if Governor Gregoire kicks former Senator Rossi's a$$, I get to say to you, STFU and if it is the other way, you get to do the same to me. I plan to volunteer and urge everyone I know to vote for her just so I can say to you STFU. Cheers.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2008 06:56 PMNo the misnamed "fairness doctrine" was meant to shut down all political opposition to liberals. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Air America, CNN and New York Times are all examples of leftwing media.
Like liberals, Geobbels also thought up clever names for his initiatives that would pretend to mean the exact opposite of what the actual effect was.
"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.)"
Uh no. In fact they are preceded AND followed by 4 times the amount of air time any of them get, whether is it Air American, CNN, PBS or MSNBC to name just a few. The only outlet anyone conservative has is AM talk radio. And that is what really has liberals scared, that conservatives can be successful at the crappiest broadcast medium we have. Liberals tried the same several times, their latest attempt was Air America and when those crooks weren't embezzling from children's charities, they were carrying out presidential assassinations on the radio.
Liberals are simply jealous because they cannot make a commercial success of liberal talk radio. No one wants to listen to it.
"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?"
Well there are some Democrats that believe that, so I guess they are.
-- The Nazi's were anti-semetic.
The Democratic Party's anti-Semitism problem
By Edward Alexander
Special to The Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001999939_alexander09.html
One of the most prominent figures at John Kerry's nominating convention was the Rev. Al Sharpton, who seemed almost as fixed a presence at Kerry's side the night of his acceptance speech as were the nominee's wife and vice presidential candidate John Edwards.
Yet, it is common knowledge that this failed contender for the Democratic nomination incited anti-Jewish violence in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn in 1991 and in Harlem in 1995. In the latter incident he encouraged the explicitly anti-Semitic boycott and picketing of a Jewish-owned store named "Freddy's." Eight employees of the store were killed in a fire started by one of Sharpton's followers.
But none of this unpleasantness has kept Sharpton from being treated with oily sycophancy by the Democratic leadership.
Among the victors in the July 20 Democratic primary in Georgia was Cynthia McKinney, who served five terms in Congress before being defeated in the 2002 primary by Denise Majette. Like many other inhabitants of the fever swamps of the Democratic Party, McKinney believed and said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 plot but allowed it to proceed in order to line his pockets.
She also, as The New York Times said in reporting her victory, had made "a series of other incendiary, often racial comments." This is The New York Times' delicate way of alluding to the stridently anti-Semitic character of McKinney's 2002 campaign, in which "Jews" were repeatedly blamed for her faltering in the polls and for her eventual defeat. Her behavior did not deter House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, then the Democratic whip, from backing her to the hilt.
Also in 2002, the Alabama Democratic congressional incumbent Earl Hilliard attacked his challenger, Artur Davis, in a flier that read: "Davis and the Jews, No Good for the Black Belt." (Both men are black.)
Hilliard's racist rhetoric did not prevent him from receiving support from 24 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, one of the party's funding agencies.
The antics of McKinney and Hilliard recalled those of a far better-known and more powerful figure in the Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson. His description (in 1984) of New York City as "Hymietown" and his 1979 complaint about being "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust" proved no impediment to his holding the Democratic conventions of 1984 and 1988 hostage with his political might within the party or to orating from the convention podium in 1992 or to being appointed President Clinton's special envoy to Nigeria.
Some have argued that the Democrats' reluctance to criticize the anti-Semitic demagoguery of the aforementioned politicians can be explained by the fact that they are all blacks, and white liberals believe that blacks are their equals in every sense -- except that of being equal. Perhaps.
It is true that when Democratic Congressman James Moran of Virginia, who is white, charged in 2003 that "the leaders of the Jewish community" sent the country to war in Iraq, he was criticized (no more than that) by fellow Democrats. Also, on May 20 of this year, Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democratic senator, alleged, on the floor of the Senate, that Bush had sent the country to war "in order to win Jewish votes." (Apparently Hollings, during his seven terms, had never discovered that a majority of Jews would vote Democratic even if Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden were at the top of the ticket.)
To his credit, Kerry on the very next day condemned Hollings for "lend[ing] credence to... anti-Semitic stereotypes that have no place in America or anywhere else." Nevertheless, it is clear that the Democrats have a growing "problem" at the grass-roots or Michael Moore level of the party that they know not how to deal with.
By contrast, the Republicans, when Trent Lott made remarks in 2002 that could be construed as racist, promptly forced him from his position as Senate majority leader. More to the point, Pat Buchanan, who never misses a chance to stick it to the Jews, was roundly denounced for his anti-Semitic pronouncements, in a 40,000-word National Review essay of 1991 by the party's leading intellectual figure, William Buckley.
Buckley not only labeled Buchanan a menace to the body politic, but urged Republicans to expel him from their midst, which they eventually -- though not quickly enough -- did. By 2000, Buchanan was forced to run for the presidency on the Reform Party ticket, after which he retreated to the world of journalism from which he had emerged.
Outside of the Islamic world, the anti-Semitic upsurge of recent years is mainly a left-wing phenomenon. It is therefore not surprising that it should have brought the Democratic Party, more swiftly than the Republicans, to that dark and bloody crossroads where politics and conscience collide.
Posted by: pensor on April 6, 2008 06:59 PMI guess Democrats must be Nazi's by your comparison then. Most of the highways around here were Democrat initiatives. I suspect Nazi's named bridges and such after their "great leaders". Just look at the Albert Rossellini bridge (520 bridge to most folks).
"-- The Nazis financed armed gangs, who could operate outside the law to threaten and intimidate political opponents."
You mean like:
Isaiah Rynders (d. 1885) -- of New York, New York County, N.Y. Democrat. Delegate to Democratic National Convention from New York, 1860. Member, Tammany Hall. Leader of the notorious "Five Points Gang" in New York
"-- The Nazis demonized liberals as Socialists and Communists."
If liberals are socialists or communists, it isn't demonization.
"-- Although publicly committed to traditional gender roles, the Nazi Party was saturated with homosexuals."
Funny, that really describes the Democrat party. Is Obama for gay marriage? Is Hillary? Please provide the links where they say they are for it.
"Now, what modern American political parties, movements, or organizations also have such traits?"
I see more things in common with Democrats than anyone else frankly.
Oh you also forgot that Nazis censored people, much like the liberal bloggers such as HA do. No one censors your posts here.
Now, you were saying?
-- The Nazi's killed about 11 million people in their reign of terror.
The total death count from the liberal Democrat holocaust is over 45 million.
Who has more blood on their hands?
Posted by: pensor on April 6, 2008 07:35 PMTensor will have to craft his own response, but a couple of observations. First, HATE knows no race, class, religion or national origin. There are Black bigots and antisemites just as there are bigots from all races and religions.
You specifically name three prominent Blacks
'The antics of McKinney and Hilliard recalled those of a far better-known and more powerful figure in the Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson."
The question is whether these folks can really be described as "leaders" or "useful idiots" who have used that status to line THEIR own pockets. Jackson is a multimillionaire many times over and with his daughter-in-law on the Chicago City Council in charge of the largest undeveloped piece of land on the westside, the family fortunes will hit the upper reaches of wealth. It is interesting who the media or whoever decides are the "leaders" of any group. Does it sometimes boil down to who gives them the interview or the quote and they are annoited?
Much of Black antisemitism is top down by "leaders" who use it to distinguish themeselves from the traditional Black elite and to stir up resentments among those who have been marginalized. This is what Mugabe did in Zimbabwe.
Generally, Black people are not antisemitic, but there are bigots in every group.
My final observation is pointing out that all kinds of people are guilty of evil, doesn't mean that the act or the HATE isn't evil. I suppose for every statement about the NAZI behavior of one group, there is a parallel group who is equally offensive.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2008 07:50 PMDo your calves hurt from all that backpeddling?
Now that you've typically clouded the issue with your victimhood, answer the damned question.
@ 138 You said, queen chrissy "would be the best candidate for all the people".
Can your faux outrage, put away your Jesse Jackson LOOK AT ME I'M BLACK & I'M A VICTIM badge, stop bloviating and offer PROOF. I asked for examples and you gave me whining.... and now you're changing the subject.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 6, 2008 08:30 PMIs this the best you can do? Pathetic. See you at the ballot box. Can't wait to utter the words, STFU.
If your candidate is so superior, you will win and guess what, you get to utter those words to me. I think that voters will agree with me, Governor Gregoire is the best candidate to govern ALL the people.
So, work your little buns off for Senator Rossi, I plan to do the same for the current and FUTURE GOVERNOR, Christine Gregoire. Ta Ta.
Thanks for reminding us why the term "Socialist" was in his name for his party. (I pity anyone who gets fooled by his use of that term now.)
'"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?"
'Well there are some Democrats that believe that, so I guess they are.'
Since you failed to answer my question, I'll ask it again, in detail: which major American political party has, as part of the platform, the idea of the state deciding whether or not a woman can bring her pregnancy to term? Not isolated members of a party, the party platform itself.
'"-- Although publicly committed to traditional gender roles, the Nazi Party was saturated with homosexuals."
'Funny, that really describes the Democrat party. Is Obama for gay marriage? Is Hillary? Please provide the links where they say they are for it.'
Again, you have failed to address the point. Which major American political party officially opposes gay rights, but contains many homosexuals?
(BTW, the Democratic-controlled Washington State Legislature has been expanding marriage benefits for gay couples, so the local party seems to be for it. Good for them.)
"-- The Nazi's killed about 11 million people in their reign of terror.
"The total death count from the liberal Democrat holocaust is over 45 million."
If that refers to a woman's right to choose -- the right the Nazi Party of Germany specifically eliminated -- then it contradicts your previous statement about Democrats.
If it does indeed refer to abortions, then you have confused the individual decisions made by millions of women (many of them Republicans, the kind of Republicans who oppose statism) with a coordinated action by a political party. That would explain the level of "thinking" which concocts or trusts offensively stupid oxymorons, like "Liberal Fascism".
This is fun! Did you know that the Nazis despised a then-recent, liberalizing period in Germany's history? It had been a time when women and gays obtained more rights in German society. The Nazis regarded that liberal culture as "degenerate", and spent much time denouncing it. Sound familiar?
@ 138 You said, queen chrissy "would be the best candidate for all the people".
Can your faux outrage, put away your Jesse Jackson LOOK AT ME I'M BLACK & I'M A VICTIM badge, stop bloviating and offer PROOF. I asked for examples and you gave me whining.... and now you're changing the subject.
You can pull your angry foul-mouthed victim crap all you want, but sweet cheeks, I ain't buying. I can, will and have called you on it, and unlike the cowardly little libs, I don't run from it.
You made a claim now take your belly, move it up to the bar and back up your statement.
You always claimed you were above the circular arguements that our resident little libs always chase themselves with... now you've proven you are of their ilk. How proud you must be... when you aren't whining.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 6, 2008 09:39 PMHow the high and mighty {snicker} have fallen.
Can't wait to utter the words, STFU.
-Posted by WVH at April 6, 2008 06:56 PM
-Posted by WVH at April 6, 2008 08:42 PM
Is this the best you can do?
Pathetic.
From your ranting, I'm thinking you need more fiber in your diet.
You are correct I said, "I think that voters will agree with me, Governor Gregoire is the best candidate to govern ALL the people."
The answer to your question is:
Res ipsa loquitur
See you at the ballot box.
See you at the ballot box
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2008 09:53 PMWhy don't we asked the always outraged W VictimHood, what percentage of that are blacks?
Maybe, as a proudly and loudly victimized black woman, she could get her favorite race pimp to discuss why the black community, including herself, doesn't give a fat rat's butt that black babies are being exterminated and why they/SHE continue to support thosen (hello queen chrissie, you rotten "Catholic") that promote, defend and applaud it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on April 6, 2008 09:54 PMWay to vote your own interests Pee Wee.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on April 6, 2008 09:57 PMYou do need more fiber. The answer is there will either be a governor from the republicans or the democrats. Of the two candidates,
"You are correct I said, "I think that voters will agree with me, Governor Gregoire is the best candidate to govern ALL the people."
Given that there are only two viable choices, the only thing you can conclude is I am chosing the candidate of the two choices who I think is best to govern ALL people. I think the voters will agree with me. Re-elect Governor Gregoire, the other choice is simply not one most people in this state want at this point in history.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2008 10:13 PMThis will be settled at the ballot box. Oh, when Governor Gregoire gets re-elected does she get a promotion from Queen to Empress? Even though I spent time in Europe, still not too familiar with all the titles.
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2008 10:24 PMUnfortunately, the subject that you are desperately squirming to avoid is WHAT has queen chrissy, crappy "Catholic' done to make her "the best candidate to govern ALL the people."
Your dancing is starting to make your buddy cato look sane.
Twirly twirly spin spin...
Is your shrink helping you with those self-esttem issues?
You do know what they say about folls (just like YOU!) who find it necessary to constantly draw attention to themselves...by the whine of victimhood, by bragging, by pounding the glories of their own resume...
Twirly, twirly, spin, spin... ain't you grand! LMAO
I don't have a shrink. Could I have the name of yours? Obviously, they aren't doing you any good. I certainly want to avoid someone that incompetant. Hope you haven't spent enough on therapy to give their kids an Ivy education.
This will be settled in November Governor Gregoire will be re-elected. Are you scared you might lose? Is that the reason for the vitrol?
Posted by: WVH on April 6, 2008 10:59 PM"Tensor will have to craft his own response, but a couple of observations. First, HATE knows no race, class, religion or national origin. There are Black bigots and antisemites just as there are bigots from all races and religions."
You specifically name three prominent Blacks
Hold on right there. Hold it. Stop right there.
I didn't name anyone at all, the author Edward Alexander named them.
I am not sure how you obtained your PhD, but customary practice for advanced degrees is to propose a thesis and support it. I was providing support to my thesis with a source. So if you want to presume some sort of racial bias with the selection of anti-semite Democrats in the article, please take it up with the author. His email address can be found at the link for the source.
"My final observation is pointing out that all kinds of people are guilty of evil, doesn't mean that the act or the HATE isn't evil. I suppose for every statement about the NAZI behavior of one group, there is a parallel group who is equally offensive."
Probably true. But as long as tensor wishes to keep up this little game the Republicans=Nazi's through innuendo, I am obligated to provide the counter examples. Feel free to jump in if you feel your race is unfairly being targeted, however I assure you my choice of sources is what comes up first in the google search, not necessarily which example according to race I can find. Unless of course someone contends that Race XYZ is never this or never that. There is always an example because people, good or bad come in all colors, shapes and sizes.
No you are mischaracterizing the question. I don't know of any political party that refuses to allow a woman to carry her baby to term, except the old era Democrat Eugenics types that had people committed to sanitariums to be sterilized because they weren't thought "worthy". Come to think of it, Nazi's did something like that didn't they?
"Again, you have failed to address the point. Which major American political party officially opposes gay rights, but contains many homosexuals?"
Once again, like Geobels, the Democrat party talks a nice game of bait and switch, but in the end people like Obama are opposed to Gay Marriage.
"(BTW, the Democratic-controlled Washington State Legislature has been expanding marriage benefits for gay couples, so the local party seems to be for it. Good for them.)"
With the support of a few key Republicans.
"If that refers to a woman's right to choose -- the right the Nazi Party of Germany specifically eliminated -- then it contradicts your previous statement about Democrats."
It refers to the forced dismemberment of living human beings who didn't get a choice as to whether they lived or not.
If it does indeed refer to abortions, then you have confused the individual decisions made by millions of women (many of them Republicans, the kind of Republicans who oppose statism) with a coordinated action by a political party. That would explain the level of "thinking" which concocts or trusts offensively stupid oxymorons, like "Liberal Fascism".
Liberal Fascism is a quite accurate and appropriate term for the philosophy of the modern group of individuals who go by the term liberal/progressive. Like Geobels they call themselves liberals when in fact they are fascists. When it comes to modern day liberals/progressive or those who use that label to describe themselves, the only oxymoron is intelligent liberal or truthful liberal.
"Did you know that the Nazis despised a then-recent, liberalizing period in Germany's history? It had been a time when women and gays obtained more rights in German society. The Nazis regarded that liberal culture as "degenerate", and spent much time denouncing it. Sound familiar"
First off your contention that "It had been a time when women and gays obtained more rights in German society." seems specious to me. Care to provide some proof of that?
As far as calling gays degenerate well let's see. The sound a lot like Obama supporter Louis Farrakahn. Or it could have been Howard Dean himself who said on the 700 club "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says marriage is between a man and a woman".
Actually, 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.
Posted by tensor at April 6, 2008 01:25 PM
Stifled free speech is a liberal philosophy.
Check out what they're doing to a Canadien writer Mark Steyn up North, where the Islamo-fascists are going after his free speech rights.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/06/stifling-mark-steyn/
What say you Tensor?
- also, I wonder what your prayer group would think of your language Wilda. STFU?
I guess you must be one of those cafeteria catholics...
Posted by: Rick D. on April 7, 2008 06:43 AMIn your reply to Tebsor you quoted By Edward Alexander
Special to The Times
He named three prominent Blacks. I might have missed it, but did you say that you disagree with that portion of his comments? If you did not then you are adopting his theory and yes, YOU named three prominent Blacks.
You said this:
"So if you want to presume some sort of racial bias with the selection of anti-semite Democrats in the article, please take it up with the author. His email address can be found at the link for the source."
Now, do you disagree with this statement by Alexander or not:
"Also in 2002, the Alabama Democratic congressional incumbent Earl Hilliard attacked his challenger, Artur Davis, in a flier that read: "Davis and the Jews, No Good for the Black Belt." (Both men are black.)
Hilliard's racist rhetoric did not prevent him from receiving support from 24 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, one of the party's funding agencies.
The antics of McKinney and Hilliard recalled those of a far better-known and more powerful figure in the Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson. His description (in 1984) of New York City as "Hymietown" and his 1979 complaint about being "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust" proved no impediment to his holding the Democratic conventions of 1984 and 1988 hostage with his political might within the party or to orating from the convention podium in 1992 or to being appointed President Clinton's special envoy to Nigeria."
If you disagree with the above language you could have:
a. omitted it from the quote and just quoted the portions of the article you agree with or
b. Said I am including it, but I have some reservations
Now, since you did neither. You named three prominent Blacks.
1. My prayer group thinks all of us are sinners saved by GRACE, including you. I may swear, but I am not a racist, like you. My imperfection is swearing, yours in hating Blacks. I wonder which in your opinion is the greater sin. Oh, I know, swearing, hating Blacks is just the way the world should work, right?
2. Governor Gregoire, like some candidates is blessed by the lack of quality in her opposition. She will be relected because she is the best candidate to govern ALL the people. The fact that racists, thugs, and bullies like you are not supporting her speaks volumes about her quality and not that of the opposition.
This will be settled at the ballot box and she will be relected and then this state can move forward to consigning racists like you to the Bull Connor scrap heap of history.
One more thing, STFU. Pray for me.
Posted by: WVH on April 7, 2008 07:43 AMFortunately in this country, we settle things at the ballot box. Re-elect Governor Gregoire as she is the best candidate to govern ALL the people.
Posted by: WVH on April 7, 2008 07:57 AMI wouldn't sell yourself short on the racist part there Wilda. As I said @ 105, "Some see what they reflect in the mirror and project onto others."
I think you're the very same bigot that you like to place labels on around here on the SP threads. You make up for your lack of education by compensating with victimology that you've no doubt mastered in your 58 years on this earth. Instead choosing to pass yourself off falsely as a Doctorate of Education, which is laughable considering your posts here. You are a very sad example of human being,Wilda and hardly a role model for your community. Time to grow up hon.
I really don't care how much you know about WVH or how obnoxious she is. Stop throwing out her personal details. If she cares to reveal them, she can do it.
Ther article did mention two whites, James Moran and Ernest Hollings. Prominent Whites if you will. If you have other White anti-semite Democrats to add to the list, I will be happy to add them.
"Hilliard's racist rhetoric did not prevent him from receiving support from 24 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, one of the party's funding agencies."
So if one gets a black caucus award then they are not responsible for their anti-semitism? I guess all Mr Musser from the BIAW needs is an awards from the urban league to clear him eh? What kind of morally corrupt thinking is that?
Farrakahn, who you admitted is a bigot, got an award from TUCC. Does that make him less of a bigot?
Or is it OK for black bigots to be antisemetic as long as they are receiving support from 24 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee?
Sorry, I won't apologize for exposing bigots of any color no matter how politically incorrect. You might want to go over to Mr Goldstien's blog if that is what you are expecting.
Posted by: pensor on April 7, 2008 10:30 AMNice try.
WoeVictimHood has joined her pal cato in becoming a mere caricature but with the added ugliness of a disgusting political trick.
One of the creepy things about our "need to have a conversation about race" is the assumption that whites can somehow make blacks feel better, or be happier, or be more self-accepting. Nobody has the power to do that, except what individuals do for themselves, one person at a time.
Far too many black people don't feel good about themselves, [HELLO, WoeVictimHood] and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment.
It always works on at least some people when you rile up resentments.
Keeping people on the boil makes for very powerful group politics, which is why demagogues and tyrannical regimes do it all over the world. But there is an awful cost when individuals [HELLO, WoeVictimHood] or groups remain in turmoil over wrongs that lie in the past.
What the Left has done to black people in the last fifty years is a kind of emotional abuse -- a constant, obsessional reliving of the traumatic past. Fifty years after the Civil Rights Acts, Democrat politicians, professors and preachers are still intent on rubbing salt into those old, painful wounds. It has now become institutionalized. Reliving the past is a major reason for Black Studies Departments all over the country, just as Women's Studies are designed to perpetuate an everlasting cry of pain and rage [HELLO, WoeVictimHood] about the fate of women throughout history. Those constant rehearsals of reasons for rage and resentment do not to help people; they just exploit their pain for political gain. As a result, the Left still gets the black vote more than 90% of the time, in exchange for fuzzy promises like "hope" and "change;" or worse, for welfare programs that undermine rather than strengthen black families and individuals.
People who suffer from mental trauma [HELLO, WoeVictimHood] have a right to our humanity and compassion. But we have no moral obligation to support a campaign to constantly revisit old grievances. Such campaigns just perpetuate the old abuse. The new abusers of black people are the leaders of the racial Left.
The racial establishment hasn't done black Americans any favors by obsessively rubbing more salt into old wounds. The traumas of the past don't have to be constantly picked over [HELLO, WoeVictimHood].
Oh, and I have a question for WoeVictimHood... what does it say about your life when battling non-existant race boogie men is the last thing you think of before bed and the first thing you think of when you awaken?
Posted by WVH at April 6, 2008 10:59 PM
Posted by WVH at April 7, 2008 07:35 AM
Not if you can't articulate one good reason why she should be re-elected.
Is that the reason for the vitrol?
Asking for answers to your definitive yet unsubstantiated statement is now "vitriol"? How very liberal of you.
Keep dancing.
Twirly, twirly, spin, spin.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 7, 2008 11:54 AMI think it would be an instructive read for WVH. Note that we do not have an Asian or Latino commenter here at SP that excoriates us for failing to have a Yellow or Light Brown Perspective. Also note that the response of most other commenters here is not to wonder why WVH lacks perspective of any given commenter's color, but simply to wonder why WVH lacks the objective and meritorious perspective of Dr. King.
Why do many blacks insist on clinging to color as a primary criterion in understanding them, rather than their ideas and merits? It is baffling, disgusting and ultimately futile to use racism as a means to counter racism.
I do encourage Ragnar to use a little more decorum in arguing. The emotion that has been creeping in to his rants gives WVH a little deserved out in her own inability to rationally defend her positions.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 7, 2008 12:43 PMThe ease with which WoeVictimHood and our
resident serial obfusCATOr take umbrage is their Achilles heel.
I will not allow them to make outrageous claims or statements without challenging their premise or veracity. I take pleasure in backing them into the corner of their own words and I absolutely enjoy verbally bludgeoning them when they try to dance and spin. I will not back down or back off and I don't pull my punches. They can't take it or move on.
I have considered your distinction and fine line walking in the issue and have decided that Louis Farrakahn, a man whom you agree is a bigot, is just as guilty if not more so than the BIAW.
Farrakhan is a thug who was complicit in the death of Malcom X. He admits this himself. Rev Wright honors this thug with lifetime awards. Farrakahn and write support Obama, therefore I will not vote for someone who thinks his bigot best because of the color of their skin. Either on is against all bigotry no matter the color of the skin or they are not. Your yard rule, and I thank you for it.
We need a president who can govern ALL the people, not just people of a certain race. That is why I am against Obama.
Thank you for setting me straight on this.
Posted by: JustAMinuteWVH on April 7, 2008 08:38 PM1. I haven't endorsed any candidate in the presidential race, so you are free to take the standard that I have in the governor's race and frankly you have hit upon the reason that there is a good chance Senator Obama will not be the nominee of the democrats. Rev. Wright is really not the issue most people think, it is in fact, the principle that how can one govern ALL the people if one accepts the BIAW stance or libertation theory. If he can answer that to the satisfaction of superdelegates who are looking for some one who can move beyond the dem base, he might be the nominee. If not, he is looking at veep. Superdelegate David Mc Donald of this state gave a very nuanced interview to Robert Mak, you should view it.
2.Pensor
I have said before that bigotry is wrong so add your two dem bigots to Strom Thurmond and Farrakan.
3. Ragnar,
You need to increase the meds. You know nothing about my life other than I fight bigots. So, theorize away. The test that Governor Gregoire is the best candidate to govern ALL the people will come in November. This election will not be close.
4. Jeff B
You wouldn't know what Dr. King said if his collected works fell on you in the library. Oh, Have you viewed the Garden of the Finzi Contis?
You said:
"Why do many blacks insist on clinging to color as a primary criterion in understanding them, rather than their ideas and merits? It is baffling, disgusting and ultimately futile to use racism as a means to counter racism."
Do you know what most Blacks think? Do you know any Black people, socialize with them, do any Blacks go to your Temple? So, your theories on Black people come from your imagination or do you have any real life experience?
The interesting thing about the Jews in the Garden movie is they thought the were oh so superior to the every day common rabble. The Nazis gassed them any way and took their property.
Well, there goes the Mercedes.
So, if you have some actual experience with Blacks, your opinion might have some merit otherwise you read something in a magazine that kinda agrees with Atlas Shrugged, so it must be right.
Now there used to be an urban legend that Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson were the same person. Are Ragnar and Rick D. kissing cousins?
Governor Gregoire is the best candidate to govern ALL the people.
People who want to live in a state where ALL people are treated fairly and with respect need to volunteer for her campaign and get themselves, family, and friends to vote. This election is that important.
Posted by: WVH on April 7, 2008 10:09 PMWell gee, why is that WoeVictimHood?
Blah, blah, blah blah, VITRIOL, blah, blah blah, RACIST blah, blah blah, STFU, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah.
How does it feel to be typical liberal full of empty words and too cowardly to back them up?
You've marginalized yourself, sweet cheeks.
Twirly, twirly, spin spin.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 7, 2008 10:25 PMUp the meds. Governor Gregoire will win big in November, so I guess she gets promoted to Empress and they put you on antidepressants.
The democrats should pay you as you are one of the best recruiting tools they have. If you are the typical conservative libertarian, the only thing any sensible person could conclude is that brain disease exhibited by you is something they don't want to share.
You probably want to start interviewing grief counselors so you can cope after she gets re-elected.
Posted by: WVH on April 7, 2008 10:35 PMWoeVictimHood, I know that you are worse than a bigot: you are a reverse bigot.
WoeVictimHood, I know that you think you are some high and mighty educator but yet are unable to learn the world isn't out to get you because you are black.
WoeVictimHood, I know that you will never be more than the VICTIM you chose to be and for some perverse reason you seem to revel in that VICTIMHOOD.
WoeVictimHood, I know that you spend too damned much time every single day dawn til midnight puffing up your flagging esteem by stoking your own ego.
WoeVictimHood, I know that after all these months if having a modicum of respect for you, you've devolved into the petty, crass, typical liberal, despite your repeated and adamant admonishment that you are "independant".
WoeVictimHood, I know that you think you can dish it out but that you run like a coward when challenged.
WoeVictimHood, I know that I never, in my wildest imagination would have suspect you'd fall to the level of HA with your ever-defining "STFU".
WoeVictimHood, I know that i will never give you credit for being a woman of faith, let alone one of Catholicism.
And, WoeVictimHood, I know that I pity you for allowing your life to be defined by the race pimps and liberal politicians to whose phony promises and rhetoric you are stupidly addicted. You've gotten exactly the life you so richly deserve because if them.
And, once again regarding queen chrissy, even you, another stupidly addicted liberal follower can not articulate even ONE reason why she should be re-elected...
Twirly, twirly, spin, spin little black victim.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 7, 2008 10:47 PMAh yes, tell us again your impressive intellectual background WoeVictimHood. Expound upon your high mindedness and "theater going"... or perhaps you found yourself in the gutter on the way back from HA and discovered you liked it there.... and belonged after all.
One would imagine the gutter validates your victimhood.
Twirly, twirly, spin, spin little black victim.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 7, 2008 10:59 PMNow, my movie recommendation for you is the Three Faces of Eve.
You really need to interview those grief counselors. Governor Gregoire is going to win with a sufficient margin that it will be crystal clear to even folks like you that she is the Governor and has all the powers that flow from that office.
This thread is boring, next thread.
Posted by: WVH on April 7, 2008 11:02 PMHer responses are the logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority." She insists that there are things that we can't know because of an appeal to an authority. In debate, this is an admission of defeat. And note, she did not respond to the reasoning that we don't see similar appeals to authority based on the skin color of other commenters. It does not occur to her the irrationality of insisting that an argument has to be grounded in a certain color to be valid. And did not respond to arguments laid out by many of the commenters. She also introduced several straw man arguments and tried to steer the debate towards ad hominem attacks as to the colors that any commenter may be associated with, even though she clearly has no personal knowledge of any commenters associations.
Again, ignoring key refutations in a debate is an admission of defeat.
Lastly, claiming the thread is boring and wanting to move on, is also an admission of loss of the debate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2008 11:02 AMMaybe she will. Stupid people, easily led people, foolishly conned people vote against their own best interests all the time for short term gains, despite the long term consequences.
Just look at YOU.
This thread is boring, next thread.
No what's boring is a coward that makes a claim and runs from backing it up.
What's boring is another angry black woman. Crap on a crutch, between you and Michelle, this is becoming the year for them. And here we all thought Oprah dragged you away from all that.
Sucks to be you.
ps, Go find Mychal Massie's article today. That black man has the audacity to poke around at the "inner demons" that you and Michelle appear to share.
1. Jeff B.
Lost an argument, really. Where did you get you Dr. King info, a book of quotes?
Now you said:
" And note, she did not respond to the reasoning that we don't see similar appeals to authority based on the skin color of other commenters. It does not occur to her the irrationality of insisting that an argument has to be grounded in a certain color to be valid. And did not respond to arguments laid out by many of the commenters. She also introduced several straw man arguments and tried to steer the debate towards ad hominem attacks as to the colors that any commenter may be associated with, even though she clearly has no personal knowledge of any commenters associations."
Was I wrong, you are not Jewish? You happen to have enough association with Black people to state what Black people think? If that is true simply state on the record that you are not Jewish and you by some means can state conclusively what Black people think either by:
a. personal experience
b. opinion polls or
c. a review of the literature
By the way, you are one of those rare people who claim to know what an entire group of ________ think.
If you are in fact Jewish, you really need to read the Garden of the Finzi Contis.
2. Observer
What exactly did your lame comment refer to?
3. Ragnar said this:
"Governor Gregoire is going to win with a sufficient margin that it will be crystal clear to even folks like you that she is the Governor and has all the powers that flow from that office. Posted by WVH at April 7, 2008 11:02 PM
Maybe she will. Stupid people, easily led people, foolishly conned people vote against their own best interests all the time for short term gains, despite the long term consequences."
Isn't one of the strengths of the American representative democracy the fact that we vote. So, do you conservative liberarians who are always harkening back to the joys of Consitutional government have so little respect for the choice of the people and the fact that we vote? How positively UNAMERICAN.
Governor Gregoire will be elected by a wide margin. No candidate of either party is ever perfect, but some are better than others. She is the best candidate to govern ALL the people. The American thing is to select leaders by voting. Of course if your support comes from racist thugs, you probably wouldn't be in favor of the democratic process and intimidation and bullying is the process you want to use select leaders.
RE-ELECT Governor Gregoire.
It is interesting who you direct your venom toward. Cato, for supporting gay causes, me because I challenge your hate filled view of the world and just about any one who you feel is different. For the record, you attempt to label Cato at every opportunity as a racist. Not true. I have disagreed with Cato on issues and sometimes the facts were not correct, but Cato does not hate. You do. All you can do is hate.
So, unhappy, not true. Hateful and hatefilled, not true. One thing I thank God for is I am not some venom filled human, like you.
Posted by: WVH on April 8, 2008 10:15 PM
If Obama gets the Democrat nomination, I shall work just as vigorously for his opponent as you shall for Gregoire and for the exact same reasons. Obama is not the best candidate to be president of ALL the people. Of course if your support comes from racist thugs like Farrakahn and Rev Wright,you probably wouldn't be in favor of the democratic process and intimidation and bullying is the process you want to use select leaders.
Isn't one of the strengths of the American representative democracy the fact that we vote. So, do you conservative liberarians who are always harkening back to the joys of Consitutional government have so little respect for the choice of the people and the fact that we vote? How positively UNAMERICAN.
My comments regarding stupid voters picking against their own self interest has absolutely nothing to do with being unAmerican or patriotism what so ever.
It does however have to do with a poor sucker just like YOU who can't think for themselves and have to let mommy government and the race pimps lead you across the street.
Nice try.
You reduce yourself to calling me hateful because you can't stand the fact that I call you on your bullsh*t. News flash, sweet cheeks, I am not cowed by your blackness, nor by your victimhood. If you or Michelle the angry hateful one can't stand the fact that people don't like your message then change the message or grow some thick skin, because I really don't give a fat rats butt what color you are. She's an angry, nasty, ungrateful woman.... that happen's to be black. She can't change her blackness but she sure as hell can change her attitude. And so can you... but then, what would you be left with? Your self imposed victimhood has made you a cipher.
Mychal Massie hit home eh? What an inconvenient black man!
I direct my "venom" {um, hello! mocking!} not because of gayness or blackness or whatever other victim agenda item you are this week but because I will not tolerate ridiculous fools that play semantic games when people just like me don't fall for their nonsense. If it makes you feel better to think otherwise, more power to you. Whatever gets you through the night. I didn't take that crap from my sons and I sure as well won't take it from you. I label cato as a racist because of his OWN words, just like I label you a pathetic victim because of your own words and just like I label you a coward because you run with your tail tucked when asked for answers... oh my, isn't that what you're famous for doing? See your own post #192 for a perfect example of that. You're quite the stalker when you feel people aren't giving you the answers you demand.
You victims sure can dish it out, but pity poor you can't take it.... "boo hoo hoo, don't demand any thing of me, don't say cross words to me, don't disagree with me because {whine, whine} I'm black, because {whine, whine} I'm gay, because {whine, whine} I'm lefthanded, because{whine, whine} I'm a stupid liberal sucker voting against my own interests."
The difference between us, sweet cheeks, is that I am absolutely secure in who I am. I don't have to fall back on my color or my gender or my sexuality or my job, or my spouse, or my kids or my friends or my ANYTHING to validate me or to excuse me. Just for the record, MLK said "I have a dream" NOT "I'll be a perpetual victim".
The difference bewteen us, sweet cheeks, is that I don't have to resort to your ever defining "STFU". You outed yourself with that language, babe. You put yourself in the gutter.
The difference between us, sweet cheeks, is that I don't wallow in the misery of victimhood, I do not whine.
I'm not entirely sure God appreciates the thankfulness of a supporter of baby killing politicians but I can't speak for Him. I can however be aware of the Popes teachings on it, so really good luck with that. Think about it next time you consider Communion.
Go live and be well, little black victim.
I certainly do. It is positively delightful being me. ... and that's exactly what you can't stand.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 9, 2008 12:07 AMI said: "One final thought, No Ragnar, it would suck to be you."
I never said I couldn't stand or hate you, hating people is your province. You hate, I don't.
Now as for being a victim, sorry, wrong again, I simply think there is no place for racists in civilized society. That is thinking. You can't convince anyone with logic or argument, so you rant and name call. That is not thinking, it is simple bullying.
No, you are the one who hates and I wouldn't want to be a miserable hate filled human like you. Hating you, no. Glad that I am not like you, absolutely.
Posted by: WVH on April 9, 2008 12:34 AM1. I have not endorsed any presidential candidate and do not expect to decide on the presidential race until after I see who is nominated by the parties and what the platform of each party is.
2. To be absolutely correct, Farrakan is associated with Rev. Wright, I don't know if there is a direct connection between Senator Obama and Farrakan.
3. Senator Obama's achilles heel is NOT Rev. Wright, it is as you have correctly surmised Black liberation theology. In order to win the nomination of the democratic party, he will have to convince the superdelegates that he can be president of ALL the people and that independents and moderates will agree that he can be president of ALL the people.
4. The difficulty of this challenge for Senator Obama is why, in my opinion, superdelgates like David Mc Donald, of this state who has been around democratic politics forever, are holding back.
If Senator Obama does not have an explanation which will appeal to the majority of people, he will not get the nomination or if he gets the nomination, it will be a close race.
It would be better at this point if he acceped the veep slot and joined the Methodists or a similiar denomination. Senator Mc Cain was raised as an Anglican. That Church now has gay clergy and I think supports gay marriage and other liberal positions which would make it difficult to run as a republican. He has joined a megachurch of the Southern Baptist denomination.
The Baptists are a more acceptable denomination to republicans.
Black liberation theology will have to be addressed by Senator Obama.
Posted by: WVH on April 9, 2008 12:51 AMActually that is NOT thinking. Read your oxymoronic statement again.
" I simply think there is no place for racists in civilized society. "
Except for the little fact that when anyone disagrees with you, you trot out the color of you victimhood and shout "racist". You hate racism except when you can use it to EXPLOIT for your own purpose, for your own gain.... kinda like... no JUST like your race pimp Jesse.
When you awaken in the morning which face do you see in the mirror?
It must be awfully confusing to be you.
" No, you are the one who hates and I wouldn't want to be a miserable hate filled human like you. HATING YOU, NO. Glad that I am not like you, absolutely. "
Your words sweet cheeks, you forever own them. Refer to the above comment about oxymoronic statements. It's frightening to think you actually believe you are not hating someone when you reduce yourself to spewing forth gems like " miserable hate filled human like you ".
Keep playing tit for tat. I will continue to be the mirror that reflects the flaws and your hypocrisy. Then you can call me a hate filled racist for doing so; you can yell out your ever defining "STFU" while honing and defining your self-centered rage. One of us will be the honest one.
Mycal Massie should know Michelle has nothing on you.
ps: " miserable hate filled human like you " might make you in need of a confessional. Just a thought.
AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US.
I forgive you.
I don't think any better of you...
Go live and be well, little black victim.
I certainly do. It is positively delightful being me. ... and that's exactly what you infuriates you.
You obviously don't understand argumentation.
If you have a sound argument, it does not matter who you address that argument to, it should be able to stand on its own merits. Yet repeatedly, you insist upon the credentials, ney color and affiliations (and now religion) of your challenger as validation for your argument. Don't you understand this is a massive fallacy? I don't understand how you could have a PhD. and have had to orally defend a dissertation without such a basic grasp of logic.
Let me illustrate. Let's suppose I have 10 black friends that I've grown up with all my life. Does that now validate my standing in your eyes? What if I only have three people that I know who are black, one I work with, another I workout with, and a neighbor. Does that now lessen my ability to discuss why you insist on using color to frame your arguments? Now what if my 10 black friends actually think from as you would say, a "white perspective." Does that now invalidate their blackness? Do you see the ridiculousness of trying to validate your ideas based on color? And especially when you have no idea of my background, or who I know. And yet you insist on racial bona-fides as a justification for your argument. And you repeatedly ask for all commenters to state their bona-fides to defend your weak arguments. Go back and read your defense of arguments with respect to Seattle Public Schools, they all follow the same pattern of validation by insisting that your challenger prove their right to argue based on color, or racial understanding. Don't you understand this completely invalidates your argument, and makes you look pretty incapable?
Furthermore, you use Dr. King as a shield. Is there some Reverend Wright like "blackness" document that King wrote that you are privvy to? Do you really think that Dr. King wanted to trade one form of racism for another? Don't you first need to cite why your view of Dr. King is different than a commonly accepted view of him as a civil rights leader who encouraged equality in our eyes. Would you teach your children to have a black perspective? Do you think it benefits children to endow them with an innate sense of injustice and mistrust of their society?
Your arguments end up at moving some people to the back of the bus based on race, whether you realize their logical conclusions or not. When you insist upon "blackness" tests with your debaters, you are relagating what should be a rational and meritorious argument to a simple skin color test. This is exactly the same as expecting blacks in 1960s Alabama to move to the back of the bus.
You are by definition a racist. I don't particularly like Ragnar's ad hominem. It tends to undermine his arguments. But he is right. You are unwilling to examine your own defective ideology and need to frame everything in terms of color, and insist that those who challenge you prove they are on a footing to argue with you because of their color. You do appear to have a rather large chip on your shoulder. Introspect as to why that is so, and try to see if it doesn't effect how you frame your arguments.
If and when you have a real argument, you will know it, because your ideas will stand on their own merits, and not require you to question your challenger about their color or their racial background, etc.
You kind lady, have lost this argument. Please concede.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 9, 2008 10:31 AMGuy: I'll just take 10 color copies of this document.
Clerk (quizzical look): but sir, these pages are in black and white.
Guy: I know, now i'd like 10 copies in color.
Clerk: but sir, we can't do that.
Guy: why? you don't have a color copier?
Clerk: yes,sir, we have a color copier.
Guy: Turns to customer next to him and asks: "is it me or her?"
Other Customer replies: "it's you."