Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Our choice will shape the future

Letter by Robert Bennett, Steilacoom on April 26, 2012 at 11:30 am with 239 Comments »
April 26, 2012 12:34 pm

The upcoming presidential election is going to be interesting, to say the least. It is becoming clear this will not be an election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Democrat or Republican, but rather a choice between completely divergent political philosophies.

On one side we have the far-left liberals with their idea of expanding federal government powers, continuing a bloated deficit spending policy and enacting ever-tougher social and economic regulations, all in the name of “social justice” and “fairness.” On the other side we have the conservative right, which advocates limiting government power, reducing spending, lowering taxes and easing the economic restrictions.

That is a very interesting choice and will dictate which direction the future of America will go.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Should America become the people of the government or the government of the people?

We as Americans have the ability to express ourselves through our vote, to choose our leaders and to select which direction we should go. It’s up to us.

Leave a comment Comments → 239
  1. all right wing fear mongering talking points. you learn well of the talk radio/Fox propaganda, grasshopper.

  2. Very thoughtful letter Robert. Regrettably, it will go over the heads of the liberals.

  3. If you really think that the difference between Obama and Romney are more than a dime’s worth you are completely owned by both Parties.

  4. menopaws says:

    Thoughtful perhaps, but his language betrayed his agenda…….It will be an interesting election, but we don’t need inflammatory language to make points. If you are a conservative—just say so………But, please–skip the language “Bloated deficits” “social justice” and “fairness” in quotes……..I spend a lot of time studying media language and bias– both Fox and MSNBC use it a lot……….It’s an insult to the intelligence of other thoughtful people…..Propaganda is always an insult …….Next time just state your position honestly—–we can agree to disagree, but don’t do the “wolf in sheeps clothing”……..How does that feel?

  5. paws you are very kind and tactful. I like your style.

    Having said that, I am not feeling so kind or tactful today. I find the letter about as thoughtful as Glenn Beck’s fake tears, the agenda as transparent as saran wrap. beerboy said a mouthful and I will add: a few weeks ago Romney was a loathed RINO and considered too liberal, now he is the severely conservative savior of the free world. all the letter writer left off is that the choice is between freedom and socialism/communism/marxism (take your pick) and between Christianity and Evil Islam….eyeroll.

    How can anybody take these kind of letters, seriously?

  6. tate, whether Romney is a liberal, moderate or far-right extremist, his name is not Obama and he’s not a marxist, he’s got my vote.

  7. Many votes for Romney will simply be votes for NOT Obama. It’s just the way it is for those who found the whole hope-and-change hoax regrettable.

  8. Thank you for validating my point frosty.

  9. tellnolies says:

    I’m still waiting for the GOP to produce that “compassionate conservative” sozo.

    Lol, do you really believe the slogans? Both majors are good for a laugh in election years….

  10. RLangdon says:

    “We as Americans have the ability to express ourselves through our vote, to choose our leaders and to select which direction we should go. It’s up to us.”


    Nothing but empty rhetoric.

  11. menopaws says:

    Frosty—I seriously doubt you would know a real marxist if you met one….A real marxist would NOT have bailed out banks or the auto industry. They would have been nationalized and become the PROPERTY of the government. Don’t sling around these terms unless you know what they mean. Obama is not a Marxist—most people believe he isn’t even a liberal!!!!! So, get your facts straight before you name call……..Communism, marxism is not allowing GM and Chyrsler to be private corporations and build cars as THEY design them…..Bank of America, Wells Fargo, et al, would all be one bank, controlled by the government and would no longer be private, separate corporations. Where do you people get this stuff???Didn’t anyone take a world history class in school? I am trying to understand where all this name calling comes from………Again, thoughtful people say thoughtful things……..Stick to the facts and please pay attention to the truth.

  12. averageJoseph says:

    Robert… yep, exactly. Have you heard about the Dept. of Labor’s new (vague) rules on “child labor” and how they will intrude on the family farm? If you are a small commercial fisherman forget about teaching your sons or daughters the value of hard work and a skill that likely had been passed thru the generations.

    The squeeze is on… can you you feel it? We are almost at $5 a gallon gas, a decent steak costs over $10 lb at the gocery store, energy costs have gone thru the roof. No worries tho, the democrats will be there to make sure someone else pays your way. You’ll get your free cell phone.

    Hoping for change…

  13. averageJoseph says:

    “nationalized” … slow down. It takes time. We are on track. First GM. Then incrementally healthcare. Start with government fining people for not buying a product. When it’s either ruled unconstitutional or it just flat out solves nothing, take over the whole healthcare industry. While creating numerous distraction, have the EPA trump up false charges on energy companies. Drive up the cost of energy and then declare, in the interest of the governed, that government take over of energy is the only way to solve the problem … etc., etc.

    Don’t forget the free cell phone. There’s even a government plan for that… the private companies can’t possiblt compete ;)

  14. Menopaws writes “A real marxist would NOT have bailed out banks or the auto industry. They would have been nationalized and become the PROPERTY of the government.”

    Baby steps, meno, baby steps. Can you spell Alinksky?

    Average Joe, you beat me to it. I was just about to post news about the Dept. of Labor’s new intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. And part of this discussion should include the recommendation … are you all ready for this” ….read with care — taking control of groups lik FFA and 4-H out of the hands of locals and putting them under FEDERAL supervision to include mandatory safety classes for all. I’m not lying.

    When are people going to stop falling for this nonsense and wake up? I keep thinking of all those citizens in Farenheit 451 walking around in a dazed stupor, drug-induced by the government of course.

    I recently read a horror story (true story) from a woman who grew up in Austria in the 30’s and 40’s. She writes about how thrilled the young people were when Hitler rescued them from poverty and began to make improvements in their lives. The adults around her were leary, but the young folks loved it all….at first. Free sports equipment, social gatherings for youth, etc. One anecdote in her narrative that I found especially interesting, and frightening, is how one day they got to the youth camp and found that all the rectangular tables had been replaced by round ones. Why? Because the kids might get hurt on the corners of the rectangular ones. I’m not lying.

    As time went on, however it became clear that the price they would all pay for this “rescue” was the total loss of their freedom. And of course we all know what the Nazis were actually up to.

    If you can read this woman’s story, and I’ll go find her name, and NOT see similarities with regard to the direction the left wants America to take, you are just plain choosing to stop up your ears.

  15. Her name is Kitty Werthmann.

  16. Wrong frosty – this letter is what I scape off my boots after a day at the stockyard.

    Obama is no more a maxist then you are.

    sozo – and many votes for Obama will be for not Romney.

  17. averageJoseph says:

    Wow xring! The rationale of that argument is certainly convincing… LMAO.

  18. “When are people going to stop falling for this nonsense and wake up? I keep thinking of all those citizens in Farenheit 451 walking around in a dazed stupor, drug-induced by the government of course.”

    And today’s hypocrisy moment is brought to you by soso and the extreme right wing.

  19. frosty. Bush was the “not-Clinton”, Obama was the “not-Bush”. Why are you so willing to overlook the obvious shortcomings of the “not-Obama”? We have already had almost two decades of this crap – you are eagerly voting for more of the same.

    sozo – anyone who includes Alinsky references doesn’t come off as someone who is actually interested in discussions with sane, rational people who aren’t throwing around fear-based conspiracy theories from the Birch Society.

  20. Nothing ;thoughtful’ about this letter, turn on hate radio of fox and you will get this 24/7.
    Not a word of truth to any of it but that doesn’t stop the right wing lemmings from repeating it.

    The choice is simple, pick the President that has been fixing the economy since 2008 or you pick the same type or worse than one that destroyed it beginning in 2000.
    It’s that simple, vote for Obama and vote for America or vote for the liar romney and vote to turn the country into a 3rd world nation.

  21. We are almost at $5 a gallon gas

    AAA and OPIS gas guru, Tom Kloza, continue to believe U.S. gasoline gas prices will average $3.75-$4.25 per gallon this spring. On the other hand, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) now expects the “monthly average regular-grade gasoline retail price to peak in May at $3.96 per gallon.”


    I guess $4 is “almost at $5″…..

  22. menopaws says:

    And, sozo—Hitler was NOT a Marxist either…………So, what the hell was the point of that?????? Don’t you know the difference between Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx????/I think maybe all of you need to do a bit of reading on these subjects before you spout off something you heard on the radio or the so-called political news channels…..Nothing was added to this discussion by bringing up Hitler—-Truly apples and oranges and I can’t discuss things with people who confuse a Fascist with a Marxist………And, again Obama is neither—nasty labels applied by angry people who are tooo ashamed to admit their racism…….I am always willing to have a spirited political discussion…..but flinging around names that just are flat out wrong isn’t anything but the tyranny of ignorance…..And yes, I stand by that. My new goal is to make sure that people on this blog go for accuracy………Truth and facts matter.,,,,,,,Maybe if we had asked for more facts–we wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq………..Maybe, we would have asked more questions about those inflated house prices and really easy mortgages………Lots of our problems are OUR fault……blaming a politician is easy—-admitting we were too lazy to learn or ask questions is a lot harder……So, blaming Bush or Obama is a cop out……..And, things will never get better until we learn more about all the damn problems facing this country and quit blaming the other guy for them…….

  23. “Have you heard about the Dept. of Labor’s new (vague) rules on “child labor” and how they will intrude on the family farm? If you are a small commercial fisherman forget about teaching your sons or daughters the value of hard work and a skill that likely had been passed thru the generations.”

    Let me guess, world net daily.com?

  24. “Have you heard about the Dept. of Labor’s new (vague) rules on “child labor” and how they will intrude on the family farm? If you are a small commercial fisherman forget about teaching your sons or daughters the value of hard work and a skill that likely had been passed thru the generations.”

    Let me guess, world net daily.com?

    Talk to your buddy newt and his ‘plans’ for child labor!

  25. The choice is clearly black and white, and we all know it because we understand the code words.

  26. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Looking at the responses the left is just embarrassed. Embarrassed that the progressive hope and change guy failed. He promised a post racial, unified, prosperous America. Instead we are collectively broke and divided. He blames instead of fixing. True, he had one year to ram through his policies without republican assistance or cooperation. But what did he do? Fix the tax code? Make life fair? Tax the oil companies? Nope.

    The left knows how far we pushing the Constitution. Do they care? I think it is part of their shame.

  27. Fibonacci says:

    Yup, the a republicans made sure from day 1 that nothing would get done.How could we ever be unified with the party of NO willing to let the country go down on flames before they would ever compromise. You talk as if we were all one if happy family before Obama. It is the right that should be ashamed.

  28. Elect Romney = dump the Constitution.

  29. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Fib- are we more or less unified under BHO?

    Recall the ‘back of the bus’ comment? Obamacare rammed through with zero republican votes? Partisan Pelosi and Reid unleashed? The do nothing Senate (under dem control, quantifiably the least productive in decades).

    Save yourself from reposting the McConnell quote. Actions of the dems outweigh one comment.

    The only shame on the right is for the Americans that voted BHO into office. Whether it was white guilt, anti-Bush, or promises of an utopian society under the One, they were suckered and the nation suffers.

  30. LornaDoone says:

    Gosh, Robert. I’m sure glad you didn’t write a hyperbolic filled partisan letter.

    I see CT7 is spewing the racial garbage. Again. As usual.

    I’m buying him a ticket to Mississippi.

  31. LornaDoone says:

    An Obama vote couldn’t have anything to do with a fool for VP on the GOP ticket in 2008 and an a presidential candidate that froze in place when the stock market when kabloooey!!!!!

    Nope…it’s gotta be that “white guilt” stuff. I’m guessing those that voted for McCain voted against Obama because McCain was “white” and there weren’t feeling guilty enough to vote for a black guy.

    CT7, you are the best comedic sideshow on this forum.

    I can’t wait for the “sexism” comment, even when I didn’t mention anyone’s sex. Fools come in both varieties.

  32. LornaDoone says:

    “Looking at the responses the left is just embarrassed.”

    Much like your grammar. Aren’t you the one that attacked the young woman for her clumsy sentence about diversity?

  33. alindasue says:


    I don’t know where you are shopping for steaks, but they must be some pretty high end places if a decent steak is over $10 per pound. I just bought steak for my family to barbeque last week. Refusing to pay $5.99 per pound at Safeway, I went to Costco and got some really nice thick sirloins for $3.99 per pound.

    beerBoy already covered the “$5 gas” situation.

    And when you said, “Don’t forget the free cell phone. There’s even a government plan for that… the private companies can’t possiblt compete,” you obviously didn’t know anything about the program.

    The private companies don’t have to compete with the “free phones” because the program works with the phone companies to provide the phone service, which is limited to 250 minutes of basic service per month.


    The point of all this is that while there is much to discuss regarding the candidates, hyperbole and partisan “talking points” will get us nowhere.

  34. LornaDoone says:

    averageJoseph says:
    April 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm Wow xring! The rationale of that argument is certainly convincing… LMAO.

    So sayeth Lorenzo Fina, the baseless assertion, off topic King of Tacoma

    sozo says:
    April 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm Menopaws writes “A real marxist would NOT have bailed out banks or the auto industry. They would have been nationalized and become the PROPERTY of the government.”
    Baby steps, meno, baby steps. Can you spell Alinksky?

    When Alinsky died, I don’t think Obama was old enough to spell “Alinsky”. Let’s pull an “Alinksy” quote and see what we find…

    “”The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments….”

    Hmmm…..MORAL GARMENTS. Facinating. Sounds like the Social Conservatives.

    I guess they are the ones following Alinsky. Heck I didn’t know his name until an ultra-conservative brought it up prior to 2008. LOL

  35. LornaDoone says:

    We haven’s seen $5 per gallon gasoline since Bush left office.

  36. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Add the comma, but my sentence still made sense. Lardnos, most people just ignore your crap, so do not go tooting your horn.

    In typical Lardnos fashion he zeros in on the racial aspect. I listed it as one of many reasons people voted for a do nothing, no show senator with radical friends and mentors.

    Deflect, but the truth is the truth. And VPs are fairly unimportant.

    Be a man for once. Admit your beloved hope and change failed.

  37. alindasue says:

    concernedtacoma7, “And VPs are fairly unimportant.”

    I was leaning toward voting for Barak Obama in 2008, but my husband clearly preferred John McCain – until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

    The vice-president has become the president twice already in my lifetime. Who a candidate chooses as a running mate is a very important consideration.

  38. LornaDoone says:

    “In typical Lardnos fashion he zeros in on the racial aspect”

    Well, when someone keeps spewing racial terms, it’s rather hard to ignore. You quit spewing racial phrases and I’ll quit bring up that you spewed a racial phrase. Again. As usual.

    Are you taking polls on who pays attention to my “crap”?

    Now this:

    “Deflect, but the truth is the truth. And VPs are fairly unimportant.
    Be a man for once. Admit your beloved hope and change failed.”

    is pure unadulterated horse droppings.

    Nothing has failed.

    And a VP for a 74 year old President isn’t unimportant, not to mention the power that Dick Cheney was bestowed by the power of the party. You act like George Bush was president or something. A vote for Palin was like handing the country over to the social conservatives. Luckily for McCain, he lost. Had he won, I’m not sure he would have lived to see the Inauguration. A misterious death…..

    I really love your “truth is the truth”. The only problem is that “truth” is verifiable. Your baseless assertions, on the other hand, are not.

  39. LornaDoone says:

    Let’s try some versions with commas:

    Looking, at the responses the left is just embarrassed. Nope…..

    Looking at the responses, the left is just embarrassed. Not that one.

    Looking at the responses the left, is just embarrassed. Still no….

    Looking at the responses the left is just, embarrassed. Uh uh….


    “Looking at the responses BY the left is just embarrassing”. I’m sure you ARE embarrassed at lack of comprehension.

    “Looking at the responses BY the left is just embarrassING“. Again, I’m certain you are embarrassed.

    By George, I think we’ve got it!!

    The rain in Spain is mainly on the plain….

  40. LornaDoone says:

    McCain missed more votes than Obama.

    When will you stop making a fool of yourself?

  41. concernedtacoma7 says:

    What kind of death? And I believe McCain is still doing just fine. But wow, that Biden is a real winner.

    Racial phrase? White guilt? Are you that immature and PC that you cannot talk about race? How about the percent of black voters that voted for BHO? Their vote was not affected by race? Do I have to quote a few famous African Americans that said they only voted for him because he was black? Or white-black according to the NYT.

    We are divided. Another term for BHO will only make the situation worse. We need an adult, a moderate. Unlike some I do not see that term as a negative.

    Nothing has failed? Let’s see how his signature achievement holds up. Let’s see how his Arab Spring works out. For now, we are stuck in the Great Recession, and he focuses on “fairness” and 220,000 people out of 330+mil that pay a great deal in taxes. His EPA attacks energy. His AG attacks the states. Obamacare attacks our individual rights.

  42. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Did you understand my meaning? I’d be a little careful with the wisea$s remarks. Stick to your losing arguments. Try and defend your blind faith in BHO and big govt solutions. You can’t, so you deflect.

    Remember, we all know exactly who you are

  43. menopaws, Do I know what a Marxist is? Let me begin by saying that during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s I stood along the West German border and could see first hand what a Marxist is. Have you ever heard of the Berlin Wall? Have you ever heard of the many Germans who risked their lives to escape the kind of government that you and your ilk seem so hell bent on installing here? Ordinarily, I wouldn’t waste this many words on a leftist, since it seems to not have much of an effect. You claim that communism is “not allowing” G.M. and Chrysler be private corporations and to build cars as they design them”. Have you been asleep for the past three years? Who turned the ownership of those companies over to the unions? If they were indeed ‘private corporations”, whatever that is, they would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy and re organize as other companies do. Don’t try to impress me with your knowledge on something that you don’t even understand.

  44. I don’t care what you call it meno, call it Pink Elephantism for all I care. I’ll say it again, if you are too dense to see the similarities between Hitler’s “hope and change” reign and where those on the left want to take us today, you’re just being willfully naive.

    And bBoy, feel free to dismiss my comment based on the fact that I alluded to Saul Alinsky’s notion of “progressivism” — which can be pretty much summed up as being willing to take baby steps over a long period of time …progress, slow but sure…in order to achieve your goals.

    Meno and some of her pals here are short-sighted; just what the Left counts on. Same old limitation…you remember…the inability to past the end of the sidewalk. Same people still walking with their head down and their ears stopped.

  45. menopaws says:

    Frosty–the point I made is that Hitler was NOT A MARXIST….. You referenced that in your blog……Hitler waltzed into Russia to knock off Stalin–fascist versus communist….Bad call on Hitler’s game……But, those who call Obama a Marxist are DEAD wrong—-so you don’t get to call “commie “with any knowledge of what Obama has done…………Unions are for the working people……….They may not be perfect but go read some Upton Sinclair about the birth of unions in this country….The Rupert Murdoch of the early 20th century—exposed the working conditions of the poor and children prior to the formation of unions…….Much like China today…….So, do NOT compare Obama to a communist–you are a liar and if you have a problem with knowledge, have someone read a book to you……….Done with listening to you abuse a good letter from a hopeful young reader……You slime the hope out of those who try to build a future……..Go back to the wall and learn what hope means………Do not lecture me about history—I used to teach it and those textbooks lived by the truth……Try it sometime………One last thing—experience is supposed to convey wisdom……not anger…..Get over it–it’s time to build–not destroy dreams……You either get to be a part of building or you get to whine….Choose!!!!!

  46. concernedtacoma7 says:

    One cannot look at Marx and not see the similar philosophy and teachings of today’s progressives.

    Be brave, admit that your beliefs run counter to the Constitution. Admit that you and the progressives embrace communist ideals. Big state solutions, workers paradise, free everything, no competition, regulations for everything to protect ourselves from ourselves…

  47. averageJoseph says:

    “a few weeks ago Romney was a loathed RINO”

    Joe Biden said Obama wasn’t qualified to be president… and so did Obama.

  48. averageJoseph says:

    I guess $4 is “almost at $5″…..

    And you chastise someone else for “picking nits”. We have seen gas at $4.50… considering what the price was when Barry took office, yes, it’s almost $5.

  49. CT7 – Be brave admit it you don’t know what your talking about.

  50. CT7 – the do nothing Senate got its name because of a record number of filibusters – all initiated by REPUBLICANS.

    DEEDS not WORD – The record number of filibustges says it all – the republicans will do and say anything to make Obama a one-term-president. Up to and including destroying the Country.

    The true shame on the right is you have to lie because you have no viable policies and can only put forth clown canidates that make Palin look and sound like a serious contender.

    Frosty – while you were vacationing on the East German Border you say Communists not Marxists.

    Communists believe in big government and centralized control under the Commnunists Party.

    Marxists believe in no, or at lest a weak, central government, and local ownership of the means of production.

    GM and Crystler are still public corporations, owned by the stock holders, and controlled basiclly the same non-union people as before. The unions have no more control now then before.

    The progressive agenda is far closer the the letter and spirit of the Constitution and to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers (who disliked corporations and abhorred monopolies) than the neoconservatism of the GOP.

    sozo – there is one very good reason to dismiss your comments. They are wrong.

    While some people are walking with there heads down and the ears stopped, conservacons see only the past and would take us all back to the good old days of corporate domination such as we had in the late 1800’s.

  51. Your mindless stereotypes of the two parties are so vapidly sophomoric and silly, there can only be one explanation: you listen to Fox News.

  52. aislander says:

    Hitler was a Marxist before he called himself a National Socialist.

    Mussolini was a Marxist-influenced socialist before he was a fascist–but even after that, he continued to refer to himself as a socialist.

    The difference between Obama and an avowed Marxist? The Marxist is avowed…

  53. aislander says:

    It IS more accurate to say that Hitler dallied with Marxism, but there is no doubt he was a revolutionary figure–hardly a conservative bent on preserving the old order.

    He was not really ideological, although he used ideologies as vehicles for his own aggrandizement…

  54. Frankenchrist says:

    Robert, didn’t you get the memo? The GOP establishment has selected a liberal RINO from Taxachusetts as your nominee and the Teabaggers are supposed to bend over and enjoy it.

    You can’t win without the female vote and the GOP spent the last ten years giving women the creeps. When you remove your Bibles from America’s uterus maybe, just maybe, you’ll be a contender.

    Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy Obama’s landslide.

  55. “Looking at the responses the left is just embarrassed.”

    Really? How do you figure that?
    Looking them I see them shutting you rightists down.

  56. “Meno and some of her pals here are short-sighted; just what the Left counts on. Same old limitation…you remember…the inability to past the end of the sidewalk. Same people still walking with their head down and their ears stopped.”

    Two hypocrisy moments in one thread, you’ve out done yourself!

  57. And bBoy, feel free to dismiss my comment based on the fact that I alluded to Saul Alinsky’s notion of “progressivism” — which can be pretty much summed up as being willing to take baby steps over a long period of time …progress, slow but sure…in order to achieve your goals.

    Who knew? Aesop was really an Alinsky-inspired Progressive trying to indoctrinate the children when he came up with the story of the Tortoise and the Hare!

  58. In Hitler’s mind, communism is the primary enemy of Germany:
    “ In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated. ”

    — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
    “ In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms. ”

    — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
    “ In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defence against the terror of the International, which is intoxicated with its own victory. ”

    — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

    According to Hitler, Marxism is a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world:
    “ For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German REICH until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance.

    Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against Germany taking place in any part of the world the Jew is always the instigator. In peace-time, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist stock-exchange Press systematically stirred up hatred against Germany, until one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself at the service of the world coalition, even against the real interests of its own people.

    The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. The Bolshevization of Germany, that is to say, the extermination of the patriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German Labour to bear the yoke of international Jewish finance–that is only the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally subjugating the world to its rule.

    — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

    Because of these views, leftist political dissidents were the first to be targeted by the Nazi regime, long before racial discrimination was applied, on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree.
    “ All other restraints on police action imposed by Reich and Land law [are abolished] so far as this is necessary [...] to achieve the purpose of the decree. [...] In keeping with the purpose and aim of the decree the additional measures [...] will be directed against the Communists in the first instance, but then also against those who co-operate with the Communists and who support or encourage their criminal aims. [...] I would point out that any necessary measures against members or establishments of other than Communist, anarchist or Social Democratic parties can only be justified by the decree [...] if they serve to help the defense against such Communist activities in the widest sense. ”

    — Hermann Göring, March 3, 1933 directive to the Prussian police authorities

    Persecution and extermination of these political groups was systematic in Germany and the occupied zones during the War.

  59. I’ll say it again, if you are too dense to see the similarities between Hitler’s “hope and change” reign and where those on the left want to take us today, you’re just being willfully naive.

    Wow! Such hysterical hyperbole. And here I was thinking that you were a little less ideologically deranged than your fellow cyber neo-Black Legionaires…..

  60. “How about the percent of black voters that voted for BHO? Their vote was not affected by race?”

    How about the percent of white voters that voted for McCain? Their vote was not affected by race?

  61. Excellent letter, Robert. I think you summed up the choices very well. Too bad the comments always go off subject and into a tit for tat. Keep up the good fight Cr7, sozo and aislander. Nobody is going to change their mind but it is an interesting debate. The ridiculous ideas of “social justice” and “fairness” are the show stoppers. Nothing but total nonsense and the smart people on this thread are still buying it. Amazing.

  62. “One cannot look at Marx and not see the similar philosophy and teachings of today’s progressives.”

    If their IQ is smaller than their shoe size, that’s true.

  63. truthbusterguy says:

    There is a reason gun and ammo sales are through the roof. His name is obama and freedom loving Americans fear his re-election. Never in history has a president involked such fear with so many.

    His admin. must be replaced with the alternative. Romney will be a better president and Ann a better first lady.

  64. “Hitler was a Marxist before he called himself a National Socialist.”

    And several prominent neo-conservatives were liberals before they moved to the extreme end of the right wing. Were you trying to make some kind of point?

  65. David Horowitz was a Maoist before he became an anti-academic freedom thug.

  66. The ridiculous ideas of “social justice” and “fairness” are the show stoppers

    You do know that social justice is a major tenet of Mitt’s faith, don’t you?

  67. “How about the percent of black voters that voted for BHO? Their vote was not affected by race?”

    As a demographic, Blacks have been overwhelmingly voting for the Democratic candidate for 80 years. Obama received only 1% more of the Black vote than LBJ did in ’64.

    The freakonomics folks examined the 2008 vote and have concluded that Obama LOST more votes due to race than he gained.

  68. I trust huge corporations where I have no vote less than I do government where I do have a vote, so Romney certainly won’t get my vote.

    The extreme conservative viewpoint has had a trial run for several decades now and it has been a total failure. Trickle down did not boost the vast majority of our citizens, but created enormous wealth gaps and loss of political as well as financial power for the middle class. Low taxes have not stimulated anything. Deficit spending on the military only benefitted a few Republican cronies.

    Privatization of military responsibilities was a flop and showed the world a depraved side of our nation that anyone, conservatives especially, should be reacting against. Instead, they are the biggest supporters of depraved behavior by some in our military who often learn that behavior from private contractors and think it is OK because the private corporations get rewarded for it. (Just change your name and you will get more billiion dollar contracts).

    Whether Dems or Repubs have been in power, we have become more conservative and more conservative in our leadership. Obama’s decisions have been more conservative than any Republican before Reagan, and, if you look at what Reagan actually did rather than what the mythos says, he and Obama are almost twins.

    With his talk of bombing Iran and disdain for foreign policy, I fear that Romney will bring our economy as well as the world to the brink of total destruction.

    So my vote will probably be a reaction against Romney and the far right rather than for Obama.

  69. “Hitler was a Marxist before he called himself a National Socialist.”

    You just love to write history don’t you?

  70. LornaDoone says:

    considering what the price was when Barry took office, yes, it’s almost $5.

    THE ONLY time we’ve seen gasoline over $5 per gallon was in 2008. (just before the price decline running up to the election McCain was behind in the polls after selecting Her Majesty – there was a sudden decline that stayed though the first of the year)

    The only exception to this was the price gouging during Hurricane Katrina, again during the Bush Administration.

    I just paid $3.99 which is lower than peak levels in 2008 and 2005.

  71. T-B-G,
    Maybe guns and ammo sales are booming because rational people fear the police state mentality of the GOP and what will happen in they steal this election.

  72. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw who posted these words:

    “Try it sometime………One last thing—experience is supposed to convey wisdom……not anger…..Get over it–it’s time to build–not destroy dreams……You either get to be a part of building or you get to whine…”

    Menopaws? One of the angriest women to visit these blog? One whose whining can often be heard even when the computer gets put to sleep? THAT menopaws.

    Somehow I’m not surprised to learn that you taught history mp; it further explains the bizarre, downright screwy way some kids think these days.

    As I said, use whatever “ism” you like to describe this administration’s ideology; perhaps it’s some fancy new hybrid. But closely examine where they want to move this country and ask yourself if you honestly want the federal government A) to run things given their abysmal record of runningthings and B) to have power over virtually every choice YOU go to make, including whether or not your son or daughter is permitted to work on the family farm.

    This administration has given loud, clear signals as to how it views the role of government: nanny-state puts it mildly.

    Whether you embrace everything Romney stands for or not, do what you must to stop this train now.

  73. LornaDoone says:

    ” White guilt? Are you that immature and PC that you cannot talk about race?”

    As the President outlined in the speech that set the tone for the 2008 election……

    I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

    Now if you truly want to have a discussion on race, CT7 and have the intellectual capability to do it, take off on the theme.

    Your constant spewing of “white guilt” is nothing more than indendiary talk that has about as much sense behind it as “white anger” for those that voted for McCain.

    Unless, of course, you are one of the “white angry”…

    I can play the same rhetoric game.

  74. LornaDoone says:

    “Menopaws? One of the angriest women to visit these blog?”

    So sayeth she who degrades those not of her faith and thinks that giving respect to people of challenge is just “PC”

    I takes a special kind of angry to hate those you’ve never met and use challenged people as your decoy in a form baiting contest.

    Menopaws in honest and direct, as opposed to passive/aggressive.

  75. LornaDoone says:

    make that “is” honest.

    Oh and how angry do you have to be to endorse a person who attacks another’s personal life and family on a newspaper blog?

  76. averageJoseph says:

    What country does David Horowitz run?

  77. averageJoseph says:

    “another’s personal life and family”… who would that be?

  78. Frankenchrist says:

    What country will Romney run?

    None. Ever.

  79. Frankenchrist says:

    Wait for the Republican convention! It will be interesting to see how the anti-woman party explains that a return to the 1950’s and involuntary vaginal probes are really pro-women. Romney will have to either run from or flip-flop on this policy.

  80. sozo, if you would listen to real news instead of Fox news, then you would learn that the proposed safety regulations for children only affect children who are employed, not children working for their parents or in educational agriculture programs such as those provided by 4-H.

    The regulations go back decades, and would now include corporate farm employees, because that is where the most deaths and injuries of children are happening – a huge epidemic. If safety eduction and creation of safe working environments is not a concern of all of us for child laborers, then who should be responsible? Is abuse by corporate farms of paid child employees another thing we should leave up to those benign corporations who run things better than teh government?

    The train I want to stop is the far right taking over control of the most private decisions a person can make, especially about their health, their religious beliefs about and dictating to us that we must all believe the same as the most far-right evalngelical Christians in our personal life.

    The danger to individual liberty is from the right, not the left. The left wants to expand individual freedom, not destroy it and make us all a “Christian” nation in their image like the far right wants to do.

  81. aJ – the funny thing is that my observation about Horowitz is correct, while aislander’s observation about Hitler isn’t.

    And…Horowitz is a living American citizen who is making an impact upon American society NOW. Hitler is dead and has been for over a half a century.

    But….I guess, since Hitler led a country and Obama is president you think that that is relevant to this thread.

  82. scooter6139 says:

    I’m still waiting to see what Romney is running? The liberal to the left of Kennedy? The moderate that was governor? The far right conservative from the primary? Romney has flip flopped already on so many policies (some within hours of each other) that he is getting whiplash. IF he wins, which one would be president? Just this past week he has flipped twice now, once on immigration and on some womens issues. Romney is more a political limp noodle than standard bearer for the conservative right. He’ll be a RINO in a few weeks and the far right will bend over backward to show their love and admiration. This is going to be fun to watch. ;)

  83. lawrencejprice says:

    What slays me is the notion that people actually believe a sitting president of the United States can accomplish anything without support from Congress. If you want solutions to this nations problems, actually vote for members of Congress that will work for their pay, instead of putting their hands out and becoming millionaires in their first term. You elect a real working congress, then I don’t care who is president, it won’t matter, cause his only job is to sign bills…. bills that must be crafted by congress and voted on and approved by both the house and senate. Until that happens, nothing happens…. regardless of who is sitting in the oval office.

  84. Sozo, Bringing Hitler into the discussion loses the real thinkers and makes you a joke. Nothing compares!

  85. “One of the angriest women to visit these blog? One whose whining can often be heard even when the computer gets put to sleep?”

    Man oh man you have really hit the hypocrisy hot button with that one!

  86. averageJoseph says:

    bB says “But….I guess…”

    Yes, much.

  87. LornaDoone says:

    “another’s personal life and family”… who would that be?”

    Everyone has a personal life and family. Would you like to try “Stupid Questions” for $200?

  88. menopaws says:

    Generally those men who don’t like women with strong opinions are those who prefer submissive, quiet ladies. My Ozark Daddy raised me to believe I was EQUAL to any man. This blog proves it over and over and over…………

  89. Jimm truncates a quote out of context

    Same old shi.. from my personal manure spreader.

  90. alindasue says:

    I started to write my usual essay length comment, but then I realized I was tying together things that other people had already said. So, I think it is worth noting that the following comments contained some very valid points that I think it would be of value for everyone to re-read:

    beerBoy April 26, 12:55 PM
    tuddo April 27, 7:30 AM
    lawrencejprice April 27, 9:39 AM

    Not related to the above mentioned comments, beerBoy said,
    ” ‘The ridiculous ideas of “social justice” and “fairness” are the show stoppers’

    You do know that social justice is a major tenet of Mitt’s faith, don’t you?”

    As a member of the same faith as Mitt Romney and fellow follower of the teachings of Jesus, I would agree that is a fair assessment.

  91. xring, “vacationing on the East German border”? You claim to be a retired Marine? I guess that means that you were vactioning on Okinawa or Japan then right? Being a retired Army officer, I can say without hesitation that the troops that I served with on the Czech border in Armored Cavalry units were NOT on a vacation. We stayed “locked and loaded” readiness at all times. I was there when the Berlin wall went up and I remember clearly that our unit, the 2nd Armored Cav. was placed into skirmish lines. The Armored Cav units knew that in the event of a comflict, we stood zero chance of survival, our job was to fight a delaying action. So don’t try your jar-head nonsense on me. It must have been tough on you being a company supply clerk.

  92. LornaDoone says:

    frosty, you’re not exercising your normal “braindead redneck” routine. If you are going to use multiple monikers, you can’t be the braindead redneck and then suddenly become the allegedly educated rightee. Three posts in excess of a couple of sentences? Dead giveaway.

  93. BB – social justice in the Mormon Church is not what I was talking about and we both know that – but an excellent question. The Mormons take care of their own with the tithes they freely give to the church (social justice). Higher taxes are the government’s way of social justice – redistribution of wealth. If you believe in higher taxes to pay for the welfare state then have at it BB. I give at my church for social justice (I am not a Mormon).

  94. LornaDoone says:

    As I said before – military hero who polished a chair with his behind in a non-combat time and zone.

    “Officer” – 2nd Lieutenant is my guess, unless someone forgot to type “non-com” before “officer”

  95. aislander says:

    Social justice as a personal goal or that of a congregation or even a church writ large is fine: more power to all.

    Social justice as something to be imposed on an entire society, even on those members who have different priorities, has another name: oppression.

  96. aislander says:

    So…beerBoy…would it be accurate to say the left are advocates of change, and the right the party of tradition?

    Was Hitler an “advocate of change” in Germany?

  97. aislander says:

    Answer: Hitler changed the hell out of Germany. The man was a revolutionary before he was a dictator.

    While he embraced the ideas of Marxists regarding capitalism, the bourgeoisie, and religion (the dalliance), he considered MarxISM to be a movement created and populated by Jews. Most of all he rejected the internationalism of it.

  98. aislander opines that social justice is oppression.

    Consider these words from:

    Agrarian Justice
    by Thomas Paine

    “To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced, ought to considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation.

    Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness of man is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized.

    To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe.

    Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.

    Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.

    It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated.

    The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state.”

    John Adams wrote, “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”

  99. More blog bait for the loony left to spit out inane punchlines all weekend (again).

    Prediction – Lorda Loon 50+, xring is good for 40 more. Why dont they just cut and paste ?

    Can’t wait till November until they get really fired up.

  100. tuddo’s quotation makes a strong argument against the intelligentsia class. It just affirms my point about the beerboys and the menopaws types. Thanks for the quote tuddo.

  101. LornaDoone stated that I had submitted “three” posts. The two most recent not included. Then why are there only two? Oh, I know, he had it deleted, which is a favorite little childish game of his. I’ll bet he was the type of kid who would steal marbles from other kids on the playground and run crying to the teacher “they are picking on me”? Cry-baby liberal!

  102. aislander says:

    Nowhere did Paine or Adams advocate for using the force of government to take from some to give to others.

  103. frosty – ‘vacation on the east german border” = sarcasm – did you come from the hudson valley trade school or rotc?

    Yes I did vacation in both Japan and Okinawa from my day job in Vietnam where we went well beyond locked and loaded.

    Did not see many armored units in Nam.

    I was a lot of things but never a company supply clerk.

    Now, Now Lorna – I was a sargent who got busted to 2nd Lieutenant.

    IQ – original thoughts for zombie right = zero and still falling.

  104. Frankenchrist says:

    Frosty, a PFC isn’t an officer.

  105. Pacman33 says:

    “I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.”
    ― F.A. Hayek

  106. tuddo-
    “aislander opines that social justice is oppression.”

    Social Justice IS oppression. Only the left could embrace the perverted irony of promoting socially-sanctioned theft in the name of “justice”.
    The rule of law, on which a free society depends, is inherently incompatible with what the Left considers ‘social justice’.

    What the LeftISTS are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society. What they call ‘social justice’ encompasses far more than any given society could be responsible for. Crusaders for ‘social justice’ seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to THEIR vision of equality.

    All one needs to do is simply note that the totalitarian regimes which have most touted their “social justice” are the regimes most beloved by leftist intellectuals; and all their evil is rationalized by them. Mao, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc.

  107. Was Hitler an “advocate of change” in Germany?

    Was Thomas Jefferson an “advocate of change” in America?

    Arguments via reductio ad hitlerum demonstrate how absurd one’s logic is.

  108. menopaws says:

    Frosty—I am only angry with those who are name-calling, ignorant, and mean……….If the shoe fits, put it on….Now trot off and find your viagra, so you can continue to attempt to silence or intimidate those who are not impressed by your bullying.I do notice about three bloggers who I suspect have real issues with women—and you are one of them……I speak my mind and I don’t need your approval………….You want to verbally abuse me some more—go for it……Says much more about you than me……………And, my Ozark Daddy was something pretty special…….Do your kids say that about you?

  109. “While he embraced the ideas of Marxists regarding capitalism, the bourgeoisie, and religion (the dalliance), he considered MarxISM to be a movement created and populated by Jews. Most of all he rejected the internationalism of it.”

    Seriously ailander, stop making stuff up!
    You’re not very good at it and it’s, well it’s embarrassing for you.
    You clearly have no clue and are just making things up to appear smarter than you cat, and I’m sorry to tell you, you are failing.

  110. “Nowhere did Paine or Adams advocate for using the force of government to take from some to give to others.”

    You are a one note tune aren’t you?

  111. I guess Paine’s thoughts went over the head of aislander and Pacman. There is a clue to what Paine is aiming for in his thesis sentence of this tract:

    “To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced, ought to considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation.”

    Legislation – yes, government activism- must remedy the huge gap between the haves and the have nots that civilization has created.

    In fact, Paine goes on to advocate for large tracts of land owned by plantation owners and others to be divided, bought by the government so indentured servants and slaves could own land. He pushes for land giveaways (that actually happened in the USA) by breaking up federally-owned tracts and giving them to the landless.

    He talks about legislation that would allow the victims of social injustice created by “civilization” to obtain free food from farmers.

    So, aislander, tell me again, “Nowhere did Paine or Adams advocate for using the force of government to take from some to give to others.”

    I will admit Paine was a radical for his time. He is revered more by the French than Americans. I presented this thought piece to rebut those who have said discussion of social justice is a recent invention by those we now call liberals.

  112. Social justice is now a loaded term; best to avoid using it. I believe that we are all supposed to be involved in setting things right when we find them out of line. To justify something is to make it line up right. Justice comes from the same root.

    IMO the problem with the government becoming the nanny of the people is simply this. When the government becomes the parental figure in your life, everything personal and relatinal disappears. You are not dealing with an “other” but with a bureacracy, which for the record, does not care a whit about your personal story or circumstances. YOu are a statistic.

    Additionally,when we allow the government to be in charge of redistributing monies, we abdicate our personal responsibility to look after one another, including working as advocates for others with regard to social injustice.

    I will always and forever speak out against these two things because IMO they signal the end of all that is really special about the world I grew up in.

    This trend toward the feds overseeing everything from what we eat to 4H club rules is a dangerous one. Local government keeps folks real, human, flesh and blood. The farther we move away from personal responsibilitly for our community, the weaker we become as a nation.

  113. aislander says:

    Have you ever suffered an injustice in an organization, say, and then shrugged your shoulders said helplessly, “What can you do? It’s all politics.”

    When all benefits are distributed by government, ALL transactions in life will be controlled by politics…

    THERE’S something to which to look forward with eager anticipation…

  114. aislander says:

    tuddo: We’ve had this discussion and you gave up on it. Now you act as though it had never occurred.

    Paine was a firebrand, not a Founding Father. Those who were Founders, as you very well know, spoke out against redistribution of wealth, and did their best to make such schemes unconstitutional…

  115. aislander says:

    So…beerBoy…you seem to be admitting that Hitler was a revolutionary.

    Could he, then, also have been a conservative?

  116. “Social Justice IS oppression”

    Is it oppression when the right does it?

    No abortion for rape victims
    Govt mandated ultrasounds when none are needed
    No ‘safety net’ for the under privileged
    Restricted access to health care
    Restricted access to education
    Restricted freedom of speech
    Wire taps
    Corporations given ‘citizenship’

    Do you need more? Is that rightwing ‘oppression’?
    I wonder when or if soso and aislander have the integrity to ‘forever and always’ speak out about that kind of ‘social justice’?

  117. “Paine was a firebrand, not a Founding Father.”

    So only you get to decide who the ‘founding fathers’ were?
    Nice, then you can rule out any that may have written something that doesn’t fit your agenda.
    aislander you are many things but a historian isn’t one of them.

  118. “This trend toward the feds overseeing everything from what we eat to 4H club rules is a dangerous one”

    The only ‘danger’ is that you only get the propaganda side and then you swallow it. Propaganda is poison and you seem to live on it.

  119. aislander – your simplistic semantic argumentation about very broadly (ill)defined terms in order to support your thesis (rhymes with “feces”) that all things Left are connected to Hitler and therefore can be dismissed as equal to the Holocaust is rather sophomoric. Right is not Conservative is not Republican – though they have some overlap. But, each of those three terms can include Reactionary elements which – like Gingrich’s term as Speaker – can lead a call to what they call a Revolution.

    But….go ahead…explain how the Founding Fathers weren’t revolutionaries as that would connect them to the Left and connect them to gas chambers for the Jews. Your “holy” rhetoric is wholly without logic.

  120. aislander says:

    Of course the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries, beerBoy, but they were reluctant revolutionaries trying to restore rights rather than overturn an existing order. Quite a different thing from subsequent revolutions, particularly the French and Russian.

    Hitler overturned an existing order…

  121. There have been several Right wing overthrows of existing governments – several supported by the CIA. Hitler’s is just one example.

  122. aislander says:

    To clarify: If you seek social justice in your own life and interactions with others, that is most certainly NOT oppression.

    If, however, you use government to force others to dispose of their substance (that is, property) in ways YOU deem to be “just,” THAT is oppression. You have to be unjust toward some in order to be “just” toward others.

    The choice of from whom to take and to whom to give can be nothing other than arbitrary and capricious. Political, in another word…

  123. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “There have been several Right wing overthrows of existing governments – several supported by the CIA…”

    “Right wing” in your estimation, beerBoy. We need to have another discussion of what is “right” and what is “left.”

    I’ll be happy to provide an escort down the Socratic path when I return this afternoon…

  124. aislander, you have a world view that will not be changed by facts and is based on your personal beliefs, so when I give up, it is not because I yioelded (unless I explicitly say so), it is because you keep giving out beliefs instead of rational arguments.

    The search for social justice and its application by a just government is not oppression. That is your belief and religion. You have a right to believe whatever theory you want to.

    The founding fathers argued that coming together for the common welfare of all people entailed more than ownership of property and property rights. Taxes to alleviate social injustice created by rampant inequalities, created by the unintended consequences of capitalism and other issues were all discussed and agreed that government was a force that could assist in ameliorating those injustices.

    As the issues of poverty, for example, became more difficult to handle by small entities, like cities and clounties, states started taking ove the responsibility and then, during the Great Depression, the danger to the stability of our nation became so overwhelming that the Federal government had to develop a response.

    Before the 1900’s counties were the ones generally responsible for collecting taxes to provide for the poor. Industrialized areas had poor houses, many agricultural areas had work farms, and the South and some other areas auctioned off the poor as indentured servants if they could work.

    After labor laws were revised, indentured servitude became rare or prohibited, so other means of tax-paid assistance was given.

    (My parents in Texas made a little money by taking in poor people in the 1920’s with the counties paying them for shelter and food, and the poor were expected to do domestic chores while they sought work.)

  125. Folks, the truth is that Elections in America today are NOT decided by voters. They are decided by whomever has the most money to put into their campaign and buy the necessary votes with lies, distortions and other forms of negative campaigning.

    Had there been an equal playing field for the Republican Primaries, there is just no way in the world Mitt Romney would have become the presumptive nominee of the GOP. Romney, plainly and simply, bought the election of his party’s nomination by outspending Rick Santorum by factors of 10X and 20X.

    Even though Romney poured millions of dollars into his negative ads, and Santorum was able to respond with mere thousands of dollars in return, still Romney barely squeaked by in defeating him. But Romney had the money and Santorum did not, so Romney bought himself a nomination!

    Elections in America today are all about MONEY! Whomever has the most MONEY will probably win!

    Please send you contributions to: Obama For America today!!!

  126. xring, just to pacify your curiousity, I served in an Armored Cav unit in Vietnam. Ok?

  127. menopaws, “trot off and get my viagra”? It’s very tempting to turn that around based on your moniker, but I’ll let it pass. As for what my kids call me, they don’t refer to me as ” my Ohio daddy”, I am the only daddy they know, love and respect. The only women I have issues with are the ones like you, who stand up and pound your chest and try to act tough. You may intimidate your husband, but he’s probably the only man who’s scared of you.

  128. Whiskey Rebellion

    Islander – example please.

    Hitler was a compassionate conservative who offered a third way between the classic conservatism of the right and the new liberalsim of the left.

    Frosty – where? The Central Highlands? Look up Moblie Group 100.

  129. menopaws says:

    My husband was a Marine fighter pilot in Vietnam and he likes his women smart and capable…..But, you need to slam someone slam away—better me than your family………

  130. RLangdon says:

    Mitt Romney, The Best GOP Frontrunner Money Can Buy!

  131. RLangdon says:

    Perfect GOP Ticket

    Mitt Romney/Paris Hilton – 2012

  132. aislander says:

    So…beerBoy…is it possible to be preserving the existing order and overthrowing it at the same time?

  133. aislander says:

    Are “conservative” and “rightist” synonyms in your lexicon? Where does anarchy fit in?

  134. anarchy – lawlessness – example Mad Max Trilogy.

  135. aislander says:

    I know what anarchy IS. I’m asking where it fits in with respect to “left” and “right.”

  136. took14theteam says:

    I just paid $3.99 which is lower than peak levels in 2008 and 2005.

    And I am sure you took that without lube……

    You are willing to bankrupt yourself rather than admit BHO is a failure.

    So the price of gas dropped in 08 because of your best buddy Palin, and not because of the economy and lack of demand.

    You really need some help. And I can see why, from reading your comments, that your son (not capitalized) had to be raised by a single mom with you showing up on the holidays…

  137. aislander says:

    And, xring: an example of what?

  138. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Can someone explain this thread?

  139. I know what anarchy IS. I’m asking where it fits in with respect to “left” and “right.”

    From Left & Right:
    The Significance of a Political Distinction

    “The distinction between extremism and moderation,” he argues, “does not coincide with the left/right distinction, in that it answers to a fundamental criterion which is entirely different…a left-wing extremist and a right-wing extremist share a rejection of democracy.” Bobbio regards this distinction between extremism and moderation as cutting across the left-right antithesis. “The difference between extremism and moderation,” he tells us, “mainly concerns method, whereas the antithesis between left and right mainly concerns values.”
    When it comes to actually defining the distinction between left and right, which he acknowledges are not absolutes but change their meaning over historical time, Bobbio finds the crux of the difference in the idea of equality. For Bobbio, the essence of “the left” is a commitment to treating all people as equals in a social and political sense, while recognizing that this commitment to equality does not mean that everyone is the same; that of “the right,” an acceptance of a natural hierarchy among human beings which justifies unequal treatment.

    Bobbio goes on to contrast the value of equality with that of freedom, arguing that “neither of the two great ideals can be taken to its ultimate conclusions without implementation of the one restricting the other.” Freedom, he states, is “a personal goal, unlike equality, which can only be a social good.” Stemming from these assumptions, he argues that the contrast between libertarian and authoritarian attitudes, often used to contrast left and right, does not hold, that there are movements on both the right and left which are authoritarian, and movements on both right and left which are libertarian.

  140. aislander says:

    I can explain MY part of the thread, ct7. beerBoy and I were having a discussion about the differences between the American Revolution and other revolutions when I had to leave yesterday. That grew out of the virtue of “social justice” as imposed by government.

    I promised I would walk bB down a Socratic path in order to ensure we were logical in our exploration of the topic.

  141. aislander says:

    Too much justification and not enough explanation, beerBoy. Like most of these constructs it is overly burdened with assumptions rather than observations, and is therefore tendentious and complicated.

    I have had a recent epiphany in this regard, and will convey what I have perceived in due time…

  142. aislander says:

    But, returning to the original topic of the importance of November’s election, repairing the economy should be the first consideration when voting.

    We need to unshackle our economy by returning to laissez-faire, free-market principles–the freer the better, I say.

  143. “Paine was a firebrand, not a Founding Father.”


  144. “repairing the economy should be the first consideration when voting.”

    Hmmm. Seems to me the GOP said exactly that two years ago. They won a lot of seats but the economy is still limping along.

    Why, it’s deja vu all over again!

  145. aislander says:

    To emphasize my point: The burdens of regulation, taxation, and government spending are standing in the way of recovery. We need to become a free people again so there will be opportunity for all instead of mediocrity for most…

  146. The burdens of right wing, non-compromising Republicans in Congress are standing in the way of recovery. We need to become a free people again so there will be opportunity for all instead of the top 20 percent controlling 84 percent of the wealth of America.


  147. aislander says:

    And the best way to do that, tuddo, is by shrinking government and freeing the market to work properly. Seems that Dems are standing in the way of that

  148. aislander says:

    …and, tuddo, isn’t the best way to be a free people to, well, have freedom?

  149. aislander says:

    Oh, and tuddo, it doesn’t seem like that top percentage is controlling its wealth very well if the top 25% pays a larger percentage of taxes than the wealth it possesses (87.3% in 2009), while the bottom 50% pays just over 2%…

  150. “We need to unshackle our economy by returning to laissez-faire, free-market principles–the freer the better, I say.”

    So for you it’s back to what destroyed the economy…..because that worked so well and makes sense?

  151. “To emphasize my point: The burdens of regulation, taxation, and government spending are standing in the way of recovery.”

    And as everyone keeps telling you your ‘point’ has nothing to back it up.
    No truth, no facts no evidence, in fact all evidence, truth and facts prove your ‘point’ couldn’t be more wrong.
    When will you come back to reality?

  152. aislander says:

    How could I forget to mention our staggering debt, which only a larger private economy and a smaller public one can mitigate?

  153. aislander says:

    tuddo: So far as I have been able to determine, Paine had no role in drafting the Declaration, the Articles, or the Constitution. He was instrumental in creating the internet…oh, wait: that was the Founding Father of Global Warming…in fanning the flames of revolution (that’s the “firebrand” part), and in obtaining money from France to fund the Revolution. He had a part in breaking ties with England, but he “founded” nothing.

    His enthusiasm for the French Revolution–arguably the birthplace of fascism, if not in name then in practice–illustrates how far afield he was from the thinking of Jefferson, Adams, and the others.

  154. The debt is not a factor in growth of private industry.
    Anyone that has ever owned a company knows that and they also know that taxes are not a factor for expansion as well.

    But you can’t tell the rightists that, they are brain washed.

  155. “the French Revolution–arguably the birthplace of fascism, if not in name then in practice”

    Ever notice how ailander and her ilk get their backs up and wildly claim ‘you can’t redefine…’ but then they redefine history and fact at every turn?
    This latest from ailander however is a duzzie!

  156. Well! It seems to me that the economy of the US stared going to heck in a hand-basket when all the deregulation began. Deregulation is a big-biz way of saying “laissez-faire, free-market principles–the freer the better,”

    And what that “free market” deregulation did was to undermine and in many cases actually remove laws put in place after The Great Depression, which were designed to prevent a Great Depression II. And, when those regulations were removed, the free marketeers took that as a “freer and better” way to lie, cheat and steal their way to personal wealth and prosperity and the rest of the country be damned!!!

    Anarchy, aislander, fits between Democrats and Republicans who are bought and paid for by Special Interests whose goal is only to increase personal wealth regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

    Anarchy is disorganized Greed!! Both sides are guilty of allowing it, and the resulting Great Recession of the 21st Century that we are still in now.

  157. xring, Michelin Plantation, Boi Loi Woods, Tay Ninh, Angel’s Wing, Cambodia, etc.

  158. Your husband was a Marine pilot, you were not. So knock off the “tough” facade. Also, I don’t a need to slam my family, especially my wife. She realizes that she is a woman and not a wanna-be man. She displays all of the attributes that most men want in a woman. Femininity being the most important. look it up.

  159. aislander says:

    These regulations have been imposed over a long period of time and are so imbedded in the various levels of government that we have not been “deregulated” for a very long time.

    I recommend that you read The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burt Folsom to garner an idea of how the malfeasance of American business has been exaggerated and used to justify over-regulation. The first major regulation of business, that of the meat-packing industry, was pushed by the major players in that business, who used the government to muscle out smaller competitors.

    As for the French Revolution’s being fascist in nature, I would love to see a persuasive argument that its products, Robespierre and Napoleon were not fascistic in their behavior…

  160. ehill, the Republican controlled Congress can do nothing when the demokrats in the Senate kill every bill that comes from the House. Then if anything does get by the Senate, Obama vetos it. Let’s see, how many years has it been since the Senate has passed a budget/

  161. aislander says:

    You’re right Frosty: the House has passed a budget every year since Republicans regained the majority. But the Senate? Nada!

  162. kluwer, “the debt is not a factor in growth of private industry” and “they also know that taxes are not a factor for expansion as well”. Obviously you have no idea what it takes to run a successful business. If you think that taxes and the economy have no influence over the business sector, you don’t know the first thing about economics. Or are you just typing together a bunch of words, knowing that most people won’t pay you much attention?

  163. kluwer, it’s “doozie” not “duzzie”. whew!

  164. aislander says:

    Try to imagine what a minimally-taxed, minimally-regulated America would look like–and function like!

  165. aislander – at best Mexico, at worst Somalia.

    Norway with very high taxes, strict regulation, and welfare unheard of in the USA, has more entrepreneurs per capita than America

    Business Insider shows that the US and UK are the two least regulated major economies and that further regulation would have no impact on productivity:


  166. “Try to imagine what a minimally-taxed, minimally-regulated America would look like–and function like!”

    That would be the very definition of Anarchy in America!

  167. aislander says:

    You know, tuddo, I’ve encountered the “Somalia” paradigm before from many on the left. I’ve always considered that argument to be brain dead, but I’ve had a profound change of heart.

    What you are saying is that if you carry American-style conservatism to its extreme, you would have anarchy–that is, absence of government. I agree.

    The polar opposite of anarchy is a government that controls all aspects of society and the individuals within that society.

    Do you believe the extreme of American conservatism can be both anarchy and totalitarianism?

    I realize nothing can be purely one thing or another, but for the sake of establishing a continuum, I believe my question is useful.

    So, what would that continuum look like if it has anarchy on it somewhere? Where would you place anarchy in relation to the other forms of government?

  168. RLangdon says:

    “Where would you place anarchy in relation to the other forms of government?”

    Nowhere. Anarchy is the absence of any form of government.

  169. aislander says:

    Is ineffective government still government? Where would you place an ineffective government on the continuum? Would anarchy be next-door to that?

  170. aislander says:

    Now that I think about it, it is logical to say that anarchy is the absence of governing rather than government. Just as not making a decision IS a decision, anarchy is a form of government.

  171. aislander, I agree with Business Insider and most competent economists. The US is not over regulated, we have some of the lowest tax rates on the planet for corporations and for individuals. We are at the extreme conservative side of what plausibly works to regulate so we don’t become anarchic.

    If anarchy is at the extreme, current, libertarian views of economic issues are close nearby, closely followed by Ryan and some other extreme conservatives. The current US posture is still on the far right of the continuum, closer to Ryan than the middle. As I pointed out, it is much more “conservative” in its approach to regulation than almost any other major world government.

    American progressives and old time main stream Republicans like Eisenhower and even Reagan are just on either side of the middle of the continuum. If “pragmatic” could be the name of the exact middle, then we used to be just to the conservative side of that, with only minor differences among the parties. We really do not have an extreme left, even though the far right accuses people of being socialists and communists.

    In the US, we also have an extremist group of social and religious conservatives that align themselves with Republicans, too. They want a social totalitarian state where only Christian right values are imposed on everyone. They, and they alone, want to decide when a fetus is a human based on their personal beliefs rather than science, and they want to impose it on everyone. They want to substitute religious dogma for civil procedures. The idea of a compromise to allow people to choose when there is doubt or uncertrainty is foreign to them. It is either their way or they will kill anyone who gets in the way, either in reality or politically, by lying, propaganda and debasing Constitutional values.

    It is a strange paradox, but that is why I can say I am an economic conservative and a social moderate, and why I have to make that distinction.

    I believe in liberty and freedom for all people, not just the ones who believe a certain extreme form of Christian right-wing social theory.

    Totalitarianism is an interesting concept in that it can be extremely conservative with a far-right corporaton-dominant fascist style government or a far-left communist government, or anywhere in between. It can be a totalitarian religious government that is neither fascist nor communist. Totalitarian governmments tend to move toward a dictatorship, with one person calling the shot, and that is what we saw in Germany and China, a dictatorship imposed upon a theory of government.

  172. If people would treat others as Christ implored us, we wouldn’t need civil rights laws. Employers wouldn’t discriminate just because of a persons race, or just because a person is a woman or just because a person is gay or just because a person has a disability. Property owners wouldn’t try to exclude gays from renting or buying, or racial minorities or people with disabilities.

    All of our laws would apply equally to all people without it being a big deal. We wouldn’t need a 14th amendment. So, if you agree with far right conservatives who say civil rights laws give people special rights and are regulatory in nature, then I say, no, they are reactions to the bigotry, fear, hatred and base nature of some people who actually do not follow Christ’s example, even as they say they do.

  173. aislander says:

    Submitted for your consideration…

    Government Control Anarchy

    What do you think? I omitted the “right” and “left” designations to avoid eliciting an emotional reaction. It’s up to you to decide where actual systems of governance should be placed.

  174. aislander says:

    Anarchy moved. It should be placed right above “Y.” Not sure why that happened…

  175. aislander says:

    Oh, please, tuddo: spare us the torrent of words. You seem smart enough to see where I am going with this, which is why you are obfuscating.

    So…if totalitarianism can be both “far right” and “far left,” isn’t it really the same thing, with anarchy as its opposite? Of course it is.

    Your model fails the test of Occam’s razor: MUCH too complex…

  176. aislander, of course you didn’t read my reasoning. You say “of course it is” because tht is what you believe. I have already called you out on that, and this just proves that you will accept no reasonable argument unless it is within your narrow belief system.

    If corporations own everything and have free reign to order citizens around and control all aspects of government, is that a rightist government, or a leftist? Political theory says it is a rightist form, since populism has been left behind and the means of production and the government are one and the same and run by corporations.

    In communism, the people are the government, they have the say and own the means of production. That, theorists say is a leftist form of government.

    Totalitarianism is where any form of government has complete and centralized control over all aspects of life. A communist government can become totalitarian, or it can cede many of its powers to communes, to states, to other political entities within its borders. China was an extremely totalitarian form of government. It still uses the communist form of government, but has become much less totalitarian in the last few decades.

    A corporate-dominated government (conventionally called fascist) can also become totalitarian, as Germany did very quickly), but the communist idea of communal ownership of farms and industry and people-power of leftist political theories never entered Hitlers or the dominant corporations’ minds.

    I have no concern for Occam’s razor. If you need to learn political science 101, and it is obvious you do, you should take a class.

  177. aislander says:

    You are insisting on a distinction without a difference. All someone knows who is at the point of a gun is that there is a gun pointed at him…

  178. aislander says:

    By the way, tuds, the social upheavals that resulted in Italian Fascism and German Nazism were both popular ones–as was the French. They all led to totalitarian or authoritarian regimes…

  179. aislander says:

    I WILL accept a reasonable argument when I am presented with one. Straw-man arguments don’t pass muster…

  180. aislander, get some poli sci. I can’t discuss with someone who doesn’t have any basic education on the issue and refuses to learn new things.

    Being popular has nothing to do with populism as a politicdal movement.

    Just because we had examples of totalitarian governments using totally different philiosophical beginnings does not make them the same.

    When too much power gets in the hands of any one element, then totalitarianism can ensue, but it certainly doesn’t dictate the form that government takes, rightist, leftist, religious, military, etc. The fascist military dictatorships of Central and South America certainly couldn’t be called leftist, but the communist dictatorships could be. They certainly were not “the same thing” as you stated.

    It depends on what you believed in those societies whether or not hyou had a gun pointed at you, and that did make them different. In Argentina, if you said you wanted “people power” you were shot. In Cuba you were the head of a commune.

    Democracy in a republican form of representational government combined with Constitutional separation and decentralization of powers, a civilian-led military, along with a regulated, but not controlled economy has the least chance of becoming totalitarian in my view.

  181. aislander says:

    Those exist all along the continuum I propose, tuds, but it appears that YOU are one who refuses to consider something new. I am well aware of the ideological construct you are using, but it never made sense to me so have created my own. Any construct that doesn’t place anarchy has to be wrong.

    As I said, you are insisting on a distinction without a difference.

    If a piano falls on your head, does it matter to you if it fell out of the twentieth floor of a building or the thirtieth. That would be a difference of degree, but not a meaningful one.

    If the same piano falls out of a helicopter, that would be a difference in kind, but not a meaningful one.

    Just as with an authoritarian government, it really doesn’t matter what got the piano moving.

    It fell on your head and you are dead.

  182. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Interesting back and forth. Seems like Tuds just wants to make excuses for big govt, and try to expalin how central planning does not mean a loss of freedoms.

    Somewhere up thread regulations were brought up- http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/03/regulation-nation-new-study-finds-obama%E2%80%99s-regs-cost-46-billion


  183. aislander says:

    Thanks for posting the links on regulations, ct7. I didn’t want to deal with that right now, but I made a mental note to broach it later. Now I don’t have to.

    If you haven’t read my 12:48 PM post, check it out. All morning, I have been trying to get someone to mention Somalia and anarchy in response to my posts, and that post is the culmination of those efforts.

    Hard to be a fascist and an anarchist at the same time, no? THAT’S why tuddo is so keen of refuting this…

  184. “Obviously you have no idea what it takes to run a successful business. If you think that taxes and the economy have no influence over the business sector”

    frosty you just tipped your hand that you are indeed clueless at running any successful company.
    First off I didn’t use the word ‘economy’ I said the debt and taxes.
    The fact that you had to change what i said to go off on your childish, pointless rant is telling.
    Taxes are meaningless when assessing the growth of a company as is the Govt. debt. I would take the time to explain it to you but you would never understand.

    And by the way, it’s ‘Democrats’ not “demokrats”.

  185. “Try to imagine what a minimally-taxed, minimally-regulated America would look like–and function like!”

    I don’t have to imagine it, I’ve been to India!

  186. “Straw-man arguments don’t pass muster…”

    Then you madam have never ‘passed muster’.

  187. The argument clearly goes to Tuddo, well done!!

  188. aislander says:

    xring: Both Hitler and Mussolini talked about their movements as being a “third way,” but between capitalism and communism. Now liberalism talks that way…

  189. aislander, would you like to be the leading corporate CEO that is part of a successful movement to make corporations the supreme central governmental authority or the corporate CEO who opposes a successful takeover by communists who then put all capitalists in a “reeducation” camp?

    Since you see absolutely no difference in the two, then I’ll appoint you to the role of the latter CEO.

    There is a very different political end result based on starting philosophies of government even though both of these forms of government turn totalitarian.

    And, if you think I ever said that fascism and anarchy are the same thing, then I’d like you to point it out. That is bold, wishful thinking on your part.

    It is many on the right who say that progressivism, socialism and communism are all the same thing. And that is ridiculous, too.

  190. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Our history, people, laws, and spirit are unique. Trying to find a model in Europe or elsewhere for the US is amature to say the least.

    Norway is loaded from oil. We could be too if the EPA and BHO admin got out of the way. Our corporate taxes are the highest in the free world, and what do we get for it? It drives business overseas. Same for the thousands of regulations passed every year. Between the good idea fairy and failed central planning, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to the economy. The left is in the middle of the biggest power grab in our history minus the civil var. Unelected officials working for BHO are limiting our personal and economic freedoms.

    The Framers limited govt to save us from them. They knew govt did not provide the solution for an individual’s problems. It is up to the individual. The shift to a progressive, lazy, risk free society means more and more individuals look at the govt for solutions to individual problems. Whether a job, healthcare, or protection from ourselves (millions of food, housing, product regulations).

    9th and 10th amendment have been tossed aside.

    One can look at the failed movements in the past, the Nazis, the communists, the European socialist model (france). They all failed, they all statrted by promising entitlements and central planning.

  191. Limited government. Vote accordingly.

  192. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Tuddo- the easiest way to prevent that is to limit govt. Keep their role defined. Empower the bottom, the towns, counties, and states, and avoid centralized power.

  193. aislander says:

    I never said that you said fascism and anarchy were the same. I said, in fact, it is difficult to do so. That was the whole point of the exercise!

    The corporations were never leaders in establishing the fascist and Nazi regimes, but were the opportunists that they always are. How profitable (in any sense) do you think it was to oppose Hitler, for example? The executives went with the flow and (mostly) stayed alive.

    The corporations were co-opted in the axis nations and just as much creatures of those governments as if the governments in fact owned them. You seem to love to make distinctions without differences, tuds.

    Both the communists and the Nazis treated their perceived enemies the same way–brutally.

    See, with my ideological continuum one doesn’t have to twist himself into a pretzel to explain behavior–you just observe the behavior and the regime places itself where it belongs.

  194. concernedtacoma7, that is why the US works so well, that is what we do. That is why I am against the current right-wing revolution that is putting power at all levels in the hands of corporations and allowing right wing Christian beliefs to take individual decisions away from individuals and giving those decisions to the government.

    Vote limited power to the corporations and return it to the peoploe where it belongs.

  195. aislander says:

    Any interrelationship between government and business is dangerous, including a regulatory one. Those relationships are more dangerous for the competitors of the involved companies than for anyone else…

  196. aislander, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3115386?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698947975367

    Above is a book that supports your thesis:

    “The corporations were never leaders in establishing the fascist and Nazi regimes.”

    That view is only possible before Hitler was Chancellor. The real government after that was seized by corporations.

    The government then became by and for:


    I can point you to a book by the John Birch Society that says that Wall Street set Hitler up, but that is taking your thesis a little too far for me.

    The middle, prevailing view is taken by most scholars that industrialists fearing communism, bet on Hitler and became the behind-the-scenes power that allowed him to come to power and destroy the communists. The corporations allowed government to run efficiently in spite of the Nazi’s inexperience. The social and propaganda arms were left up to the Nazi’s while the governmental and industrial arms of government were run by the corporate giants.

  197. aislander – Progressives do not seek to rule by the credo of ‘Government over people, Corporations over Government” like your side does.

    Nor were corporations leaders in establishing the US, but republicans are working hard to subordiante government to the wishes of the multinational “people”.

    ‘Treatment of perceived enemies’ – ever hear of inhanced interrogation techiques?

    Your ideological continum twists reality into a pretzel.

    sozo – intrusive government – to be probed or not to be probed – vote accordingly.

  198. aislander says:

    I’m sure that in bizzaro universe that all makes a great deal of sense…

  199. aislander “I’m sure that in bizzaro universe that all makes a great deal of sense” = the perfect bottom line to your pretzel post.

  200. kluwer, if, in your opinion, taxes are ” meaningless when assessing the growth of a company as is the governmenyt debt”, why is it that the founbder of Google, Eric Schmidt, said yesterday on an ABC news talk show that taxes are one of the biggest reason that companies are moving off-shore and why they are not hiring? Do you know more about business than Mr. Schmidt, a billionaire? Get back to your koolaid stand.

  201. tuddo bemoans the concept of “putting power in the hands of corporations” but doesn’t seem at all bothered by the power grab of the unions. Just look at the public school system and the high price of any consumer goods produced by a union company. Somehow the liberals never seem at all troubled by the blackmail and bullying tactics coming from the unions. They cry and whine about corporate dollars being used to support republicans for public office but were never bothered by the millions provided to demokrats by the unions. Turn-about is fai play. BTW, islander won the argument hands down!

  202. aislander says:

    If you are having difficulty understanding a simpler concept than the one you embrace, xring, it must be because the concept threatens some deep belief of yours, and you refuse to understand.

    Your ideological circle has some utility on a theoretical level, I guess, but is completely confusing and useless in describing the real world.

    I know that I could convey to a five year old the basic idea of my ideological construct (he would understand the difference between a life without rules and a life with nothing BUT rules), but I would bet that you couldn’t cause him to understand yours and tuddo’s.

    Polago used to describe an even MORE complex model. You should find THAT so you can be more opaque…

  203. frosty, show me any comments I have made about unions. I have generally stayed out of all discussion of that nature. But here goes, so I can speak for myself instead of your making up lies about what I think or don’t think.

    I think unions in many cases are necessary evils to combat the evils of unbridled and rampant corporate power. When the government takes over some of the roles that unions used to play, then I am happy, because it gives everyone a fighting chance – things like monitoring equal pay for equal work, monitoring health and safety and a host of other issues that one individual alone cannot stand up for when dealing with the power of a huge corporation.

    However, corporations want no restraint on their abilioty to treat workers like laves, play power games with apy and benefits, make workers work in unsafe conditions, anything to increase their profits at the expense of the worker. No goernment regulations and no power of united workers standing jup for themselves. Over and over we have been shown that corporations are not benign entities looking out for the welfare of their workers.

    If unions were not empowered, then government might step in, and has in many instances. However, as one example, the right wing has shown time and time again that it will not support equal pay provisions or allow the government to monitor them when they do pass. Women make on the average 77% of what men make for exactly the same work, and 41% less when all factors, such as work hours, time off for having babies, etc. are taken into consideration. Unionized work forces show much less imbalance on pay for women for equal work.

    I opposed the change in the Washington law that allowed state unions to negotiate salaries. Its a sham, anyway, because the govenor can reject it, and its just a way to make legislators and the governor less accountable to the public.

    As a senior administrator in state government here in Washington and formerly in Texas, I did see the positive results unions have on other issues besides pay in state government.

    In Texas, with no union rights, the employee is told take it or leave it. If you question, you’re fired. The supervisor is always right and the employee either leaves or fights a generally losing battle. In Washington, many positive results happen when the worker can hand an issue over to the union to see it resolved so they can focus on their work instead of fighting their supervisor and managers who may have not followed correct procedures.

    At the national level, when the playing field was even, when we had contribution limits, unions and corporations had their voices heard about equally. Now that corporations are persons and there is no limits, unions have significantly diminished voices in D.C.

    Corporations can take the money of all their paying customers as well as all their stockholders and give it for political action their board supports. Unions can only get voluntary contributions from their members to use. Union members get to vote on the issues the union supports, the people funding corporate donations do not. Much different and unequal playing field.

    Union contracts are not “bullying” and “blackmail”. Management negotiates, and if they have done so in good faith, then the contract is mutually beneficial. If management does not like provisions, then they can refuse to sign the contract, go to arbitration, and a whole host of other legal remedies.

    So, now, frosty, since I have said something about unions, you can quote me. “Necessary evil” is a good place to start.

  204. aislander, I understand now. Since you only want ideas of government that a five-year old can understand, that is why you support Republicans. They have about that level of sophistication in their understanding of government.

    “lower taxes, less government, fewer regulations”.

    Slogans and propaganda are aimed at such small minds. That is why they have power with you.

  205. aislander says:

    What does your construct give you that mine doesn’t, tuddo?

    If a crazed man is coming at you with a knife, what do you care if he is psychotic because of drugs (call that fascism) or because of a mental disorder (call that communism)? You assess the situation as it IS…

    My construct has relevance to the real world; yours is simply intellectual onanism…

  206. aislander says:

    …and tuddo: exactly where on your model does anarchy appear?

  207. aislander says:

    As for the cheap shot, tuds: NEEDLESS complexity doesn’t improve understanding; it impedes it.

    And that’s the point, isn’t it? You simply don’t wish people to understand that communism and fascism are functionally the same…

  208. anarchy
    left wing – – -right wing

  209. note anarchy – utopia line should bisect the left – ring line.

  210. aislander says:

    The distinguishing functional characteristics between your right and left wings ARE…?

    How do you get from anarchy to Utopia? By riding unicorns, perhaps? And–really–utopia doesn’t and cannot exist. That tells me your construct doesn’t even attempt to describe reality. It merely continues to obfuscate.

    Just admit that a continuum from no government to total government actually does make sense. You’ll feel better.

  211. “Both Hitler and Mussolini talked about their movements as being a “third way,” but between capitalism and communism. Now liberalism talks that way…”

    You madam, are a pathetic liar.

  212. averageJoseph says:

    LMFAO! … oh man…

  213. I see poor frosty is still proving he doesn’t know anything about business, only childish insults.

  214. volvo1999 says:

    Dear Lornadoone,

    Tell me one part of that letter by Robert that is not true, Go away would you….

  215. aislander, you never answered me. In the real world, which capitalist would you like to be, the one running government or the one in reeducation camp? In the real world it has made a big difference for capitalists whether they were running government (Italy, Germany) or being slaughtered.

    A complete anarchy is the absence of government. It doesn’t fit on a left – right scale.

    As I pointed out, a totalitarian state can usually fit somewhere on the scale, depending on the type of government installed.

    I think you are confusing totalitarian with complete dictatorship by one crazy person. That often does not fit anywhere on a continuum, but is totally at the whim of the dictator. As an example, at some times, Idi Amin made decisions that supported increasing capitalism, and then he expelled Asian businessmen whom he had courted and killed many of them completely destroying his economy. He took sides and then changed and ruled by terror. Totalitarian governments have complete centralized control, but they are not necessarily ruled by whims, and often have one overriding political belief system.

  216. aislander says:

    Of course anarchy fits on a left-right (or whatever one chooses to call the extremes) if it is one of the extremes–which is where I place it. And you did too, when I posed my vision of an America with a much less powerful and intrusive government–Somalia, you said, if I recall correctly.

    As for your hypothetical, I answered that with the real-world example of how capitalists (or at least industrialists) were co-opted and used by the fascists and the Nazis. If you read original sources, the industrialists never ran those governments, but were figureheads, run BY them.

    Again, you are miring yourself in needless complexity. A continuum from no government to total government works for all possibilities…

  217. Aislander,

    Your problem is you are twisting terms and relationships attempting to prove your pretzel theory.

    So, just for you well we reduce the complexity by looking only at anarchy and utopia.

    Anarchy and utopia both indicate a lack of government so you government no government is a false continuum.

    Anarchy is a violent state of lawlessness due to a lack of enforcement authority – all people are free to make and enforce their own laws (there is no government to make or enforce laws).

    Utopia is a society where people behave in accordance with a single cultural norm thus doing away with the need for government enforcement. (here is no need for a government.

    While no true utopia has ever existed, many have tried, and more will try in the future. (prior to 1969 no human had ever walked on the moon)

  218. aislander says:

    So…xring…you are justifying your construct by comparing something that can exist and has existed with something that has never existed and never will exist as long as there is human freedom? Good luck with that!

    Since anarchy can exist, and is a degree of governance, I think it should be part of any symbolic construct that shows types of governments. To exclude it is completely arbitrary and, beyond that, renders the model specious.

    All large-scale efforts to establish Utopias have resulted in widespread misery…

    There is NO basis for including Utopia in a model of possible governments.

  219. aislander, your question was this:

    “minimally-taxed, minimally-regulated America would look like–and function like”

    That is a valid left-right argument. “Minimally” implies that there are still some regulations and governments in place. How many? Well, Somalia has a few and Mexico has quite a few, but they are still minimal. Somalia has long been polycentric and uses Xeer law as its basis, elders deciding locally what is best for the village and surrounding areas. Somalia is about as decentralized, least taxed country there is. You are the one saying Somalia is an anarchy, not me.

    Anarchy is the result of destroying all regulations, all taxes, all constraints on society from any force – religion, government, etc. There is no government. So how can a government that does not exist express whether it is conservative, liberal, or what values it espouses. It is not on that continuum at all.

    Progressives and liberals take a position that some things can best be handled through a centralized approach and some can best be handled through a decentralized approach. Government does not have an inherent good or bad quality. It is a force that is neutral, good, or bad only through its expression, but it can be used for good.

    Modern, right wing conservatives (not the Eisenhower or Rockefeller conservatives and before) have taken the approach, through urging by the tea party, that government is inherently evil and must be minimized, even if it is doing good.

    Those are both viewpoints that I think the US needs to keep and to keep struggling with.

    I do like to point out that some conservatives say one thing – reduce government – and then do another for their own pet projects, like increase government to run interference in the personal health decisions that people have to make, place policies like mandatory drug testing that cost taxpayer monies, intrude on the private life of individuals that have been shown to do absolutely nothing except make conservatives feel like they are punishing welfare recipients, increase taxes to apy for subsidies to the corporations that provide them the most donations, etc.

  220. Pacman33 says:

    I do like to point out that Progressives say one thing – More Government – and then blame conservatives for the unfavorable consequences it produces. Even though conservatives were opposed to the particular expansion of government while also having predicted and warned those of it’s negative effects.

    If anyone thinks Progressives are anything but Modern-Day Socialists/Communists in America, you are only deluding yourselves.

    Paychecks or Government Checks and Food Stamps?
    The Free Market or Socialized Crony-Capitalism?
    Private Charity or Redistribution of Wealth?
    Independence or Dependence on Government?
    Real Hope and Real Change or Obama’s Hopeless Chicanery?

  221. aislander says:

    Oh, come on, tuddo, yuh knucklehead! You and RLangdon BOTH admitted that the extreme of American conservatism is anarchy…

    …which means that ALL big-government ideologies are at the opposite end of the spectrum…

    …and I’ll never let you forget it.

  222. averageJoseph says:


  223. aislander says:

    Thanks, aJ. I am tired of making the argument in different ways hoping to penetrate the shields. Got in some good shots, though!

    There are none so blind…

  224. tuddo, having worked as a manager and as a Machinist Union memeber, I know that unions must have it their way or the highway. There’s no negotiating with a union. Admittedly I worked for the government where rules generally keep both parties in line. Secondly I never accused you of talking about unions in my previous comment. That was my point, you continually bad mouth corporations but never say anything about the unions, thats why I brought it up. You say union contracts are not bullying and blackmail? Then please explain why they tried to stop Boeing from building airplanes in South Carolina. They even went as far as to enlist the NLRB to do their “bullying” and “blackmail”for them. Think about that, the government taking the side of the unions in an issue that they had no business being involved in. This is America, if a corporation such as Boeing wants to produce their product so as to compete in the open market, why should the government say “no you can’t”? I don’t know what your definition of bullying is, but that comes pretty damned close if you ask me. As for the “necessary evil” remark, I’ll just say that the only “evil” I see is having some union boss dictating to shareholders and corporate heads how to run their business.

  225. kluwer, stay close to your mailbox, tomorrow is welfare check day.

  226. averageJoseph says:

    I don’t think you could have reduced it to simpler terms aislander.


  227. aislander, you believe the fantasy world you create in your head. I will speak for myself. I don’t need your false interpretations of what I did say. I made myself very clear that anarcy is the absence of government.

    Somalia, which is what I used in response to hyour question about minimal regulation and taxes, is not an anarchy, it has an extreme form of decentralized government at a tribal level that includes courts, justice systems and hierarchical rule. It uses a tribute percentage type of tax system. That is not anarchy, it is one form of govenment with minimal regulation and minimal taxes, just like you asked for.

    Take some meds and learn to read, and we’ll try it again some day. Just please try to use some facts in your arguments instead of fantasies. I’m getting tired of trying to penetrate the shields of confusion in that brain of yours.

  228. frosty,

    You hate unions for some reason. Both unions and corporations are human inventions and fallible. When either have too much power, then there are problems. We have had a fairly good balance of power until Reagan, and then it started downhill, with the middle class the victim of the growing dictatorship of the corporations.

    Earnings, retirement, working conditions and middle class ability to raise a family and provide for the future has suffered since the attack on unions began. If you remember the power of unions in the 1950’s and 1960’s you are living in the distant past. Unions have very little power, politically, especially compared to then.

    When unions start having too much of the share of power, then check with me then. I will be talking more about unions and less about corporations if that ever happens.

    We are living in a right-wing, corporate dominated world at the present. Much more than at almost any time since the robber barons of the late 1800’s. Much of the history of the early 1900’s was a reaction to the intolerable conditions created in the USA because of those indusgtry giants. Many of them even acknowledged that and helped change our social structure to help the middle class – Carnegie, Rockefeller (kicking and screaming at times) and others.

  229. aislander says:

    Pure anarchy, like a rare subatomic particle, is never found in the wild, tuds, so I’ll go with you on this one: anarchy is the absence of government and must never, ever be placed anywhere on any model representing types of governments, which seems a victory of semantics, doesn’t it?

    So…how about THIS model: minimum government graduating to maximum government? Or do you still prefer the Occam’s-razor-insulting construct in which communism and fascism appear at opposite extremes despite their separated-at-birth similarities?

    So, that means that you and RLangdon said the extreme of American conservatism is minimum government, which is still the polar opposite of, say, fascism…

  230. Aislander = Mad Max is an example of anarchy.

    IMO – the only way to be free includes having a job with a living wage.

    CT7 – ‘explain this tread’ it’s the weekend – anything goes. At least till Nana comes to work Monday.

    If Pain wasn’t then I guess Tom Jefferson wasn’t either. Move over so I can join you.

    The economy is still limping along because the GOP keeps kneecapping it.

    Kulmer and RL,
    There is regulation as in you must obey laws, provide a safe work place, etc.

    Then there is regulation as in you must fully fund you retirement program for the next 75 years, while paying the general fund $5.5 billion a year.

    Frosty – the only time I was in an Army Controlled Area was with the Americal Division in ’68 around Chu Lai. Not a happy experience.

    If we ever meet on another blog remind me to tell you my rock ape story.

    Frosty – ‘Senate kills bills from House’ sort of like what the Republican minority in the seante did in the last congress.

    Most vetoed – to date Obama has vetoed 2 bills. Vetos for last 4 presidents ranged from 12 to 78.

    Aislander – anarchy – keep trying you way behind in points.

    Oh, so sorry, game over, you lose.

  231. aislander says:

    I’M sorry, xring: you can’t be both a player AND a ref. The Founding Fathers are on my side on this one, and I’ll take their judgment over yours ANY time.

    And, despite tuddo’s protestations, tuddo and RLangdon both agree that American-style conservatism, taken to its extreme, more resembles an absence of government than an overarching one. You know how I know that? They both said so when they didn’t realize the import of what they were saying…

  232. aislander, I didn’t know that you have a “secret” meaning of anarchy that you were trying to bait me with. also, “place on a continuum of left and right” is not at all the same as “more resembles” anything. Words do have meanings, you know.

    Anarchy does not resemble totalitarianism. They can form the extremes of a continuum of sorts, concerning the amount of government. However, a totalitarian government can use the most extremely conservative principles to govern, so that continuum would have nothing to do with the liberal-conservative continuum. The most conservative governments of Israel, for example, control almost every aspect of life in Israel and government is extremely oppressive.

    Like I said, if you would take a Poli Sci course and use standard definitions instead of made up aislander-coined meanings, we might have a decent conversation.

    You started off talking about fewer regs and taxes, not anarchy, and as I said, I made no mention of anarchy until you asked me to place it on a left-right continuum which I refused to do. So, if you are pulling some kind of Romney “context” thing on me to change my meaning, then it won’t work.

    There are many examples of countries that have fewer regs and taxes than the USA. Most are undeveloped and people die at a very young age from disease, poverty, lack of sanitation and infrastructure, and the list goes on. Many of them have a small oligarchy living in splendor while the majority live in squalor.

    There are very few examples of countries that have few regs and taxes that have a high standard of living for all citizens.

    There are many examples of countries with much higher taxes and many more regulations than the USA where all citizens have a high standard of living.

    There are very few countries that have high taxes and more regulations where citizens live in squalor.

    So, fewer taxes and fewer regulations do not necessarily correlate with improved living situations for countries.

  233. frosty says:

    My last comment on this thread is just that conservatism is good, liberalism is bad. Simple enough?

  234. aislander says:

    tuds, there is so much error in that last post that it is difficult to know where to start.

    I never SAID “anarchy resembles totalitarianism”–in fact I view them as near-opposites.

    You identify certain characteristics of governance as “conservative,” while I, an actual conservative would strongly disagree with that identification.

    As for the ideological model I use, it was FIRST used by the Founders of this country, so it is at least as valid as models invented by lefty apologists for coercive socialist regimes…

    I have no “secret” definition of anarchy, but I CAN say that numerous analysts have referred to the situation in Somalia as anarchy or near-anarchy, and since you and RLangdon referred to Somalia AND anarchy when I posed my hypothetical, I have to conclude that you view that American-style conservatism, when carried to an extreme, becomes anarchy rather than, say, fascism…

  235. aislander, are the people who have proposed hundreds of laws to restrict the rights of women in this country conservatives, or are they using the power of big government to take over freedoms and liberty from them?

    If they are not conservatives, then why are conservatives bowing to them and allowing this dictatorship of a few extremists to make it appear that conservatives really do believe in big government and taking away freedom and the right for individuals to determine their own course?

    How can a person say they are a conservative with a high value on individual responsibility and distrust of government and then take away some of the most important and private decisions that individuals have to make and cede them over to big government?

    I am the true conservative. Anyone to the right of me is a destroyer of freedom and liberty.

    (Just taking a page out of the book from those righties who think anything to the left of them is a socialist, fascist commie out to destroy America.)

  236. aislander, if I say Somalia is not an anarchy and give you the factual reasons why I say that, then you cannot turn around and say that I said Somalia is an anarchy. It is your argument that Somalia is an anarchy, not mine. It is your argument that I said that conservative philosophy leads to anarchy, not mine, and you will not find it in anything I wrote.

  237. aislander says:

    No, tuds, you didn’t say precisely that. RLangdon did.

    And most people believe that Somalia is the closest thing to anarchy that exists. You DID use that example.

    Your argument reminds me that, in order for a government to called “socialist” it has to display ALL the characteristics of the dictionary definition of the word. That’s a great way of deflecting any criticism of the left…

  238. aislander, I think you are confusing anarchy, which has a precise definition when using it in political science, and “chaos”. I would agree that Somalia is rife with chaos.

    I thnk some of the so-called anarchists also confuse anarchy with whatever they stand for when they select targets for destruction. Anarchy might be a pleasant utopia if we didn’t have to account for evil in the world.

    The so-called anarchists who use destructive attacks as a political statement themselves prove the need for government.

    Since you think a little bit of social programs makes something socialist, I guess you would agree that conservatives are fascists, since the conservative corporatism certainly has a lot of qualities that match the definition of fascism.

  239. aislander says:

    Sorry, tuds, but corporatism and free-market principles are incompatible. Conservatism is a relative term and means different things in different places.

    It matters what one is bent on conserving…

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0