RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/1/2009 10:20:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The irony, oh, the irony ...

Projection is a wondrous thing to behold.

K.






Not as much fun as denial.  [:D]




philosophy -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/1/2009 10:29:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

A somewhat more reasonable discussion of the term neoconservatism can be found here........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

You're right philo.

The very first link in my above post, and the first three bullets are from that article.

It's a good overview.

Firm


...well in that case Firm, you cherry picked the article somewhat. It's a decent length scholary overview of the various definitions of neoconservatism. The few bits you picked out were from the sections marked 'criticism'.
You seem to be trying to make the point that using the word neoconservatism is tantamount to accusing someone of anti-semitism. While it has been used in that way, that particular useage is merely a small part of the work the word does.
To me, neo-cons are not  a strictly defined political movement.  However there are tendencies that can be observed.
From the article this definition of neoconservatism has been suggested.....

  • "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
  • low tolerance for diplomacy
  • readiness to use military force
  • emphasis on US unilateral action
  • disdain for multilateral organizations
  • focus on the Middle East".

    Additionally, one can see a procession of individuals, usually but not always associated with the right, that can be seen as neocons.

    Thing is, the word is a bit like the word liberal. Plenty of people on these boards use the word inaccurately and perjoratively.

    This does not mean that the word is always used in that sense........to suggest that anyone that uses the word neocon is always describing an anti-semite is as absurd as suggesting that the word liberal is always used to describe someone who patriotism is in doubt.



    • FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/1/2009 11:51:53 PM)

    All true, philo.

    But I could make the argument that "socialist" is a purely descriptive term.

    It becomes a pejorative when it is meant as a pejorative. When it becomes commonly accepted as an insult, it becomes difficult to distinguish between a descriptive use, and a pejorative use.

    Such as "neo-con", which in common political discussion (on these boards, for example) almost without exception, it is used in the pejorative sense.

    I go to some lengths not to use label's of political affiliation in pejorative terms. I'm aware that it personalizes the debate, and is insulting to those with which I disagree.

    I use "scare quotes" and terms like "left of center" or "right of center". I try to always distinguish between "Democrats" and "leftists" (they are not exclusively the same groups of people). I use the term "lefty" in a generally friendly tone. I try never to use all inclusive language (all liberals) when I am trying to make a point.

    Is it possible that sometimes someone still gets offended? Certainly possible. If they say so, I'll review my words, and modify or apologize as necessary.

    What Spinner is saying, is, in effect "Fuck you, I'll say whatever I want.".

    Perfectly his right.

    But it's at the least disingenuous if not hypocritical for him to start a thread asking "why can't we all just get along", and then come back later and take that attitude. And, in fact, claim that there is no support for the thought that "neo-con" holds any pejorative connotations, when - as I demonstrated - finding that it is widely a pejorative term is pretty damn easy.

    Firm



    philosophy -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 12:48:43 AM)

    A short story......never met my father, he and my mum were never married. Subsequently, when at school i'd get called a bastard i'd reply.....'why yes, how did you know?'.

    Thing is, part of the problem that this discussion is dealing with is the expectation of insult. The idea that we've learned to expect that quite normal and meaningful words get twisted into pejorative terms.

    The use of both the words 'liberal' and 'neocon' are good examples. Both mean things that are merely descriptive. Both words have been abused as insults.......consequently both words are in danger of losing their meaning. The same is true of words like fascist, nazi, communist, socialist........

    When Obama is called a socialist i have to smile, because in the strictest sense of the word he clearly isn't. Merc, earlier in this thread, called the terms of the bail-out fascist, when it clearly isn't. We can both point at examples when the words nazi and communist have been slung about as mere insults without reference to their actual meaning.

    In my view, what Spinner wrote was clumsily done. However i'm afraid i thought your response clumsy too. When the meaning of the words is morphed in such an imprecise way it's almost inevitable that language starts to trip over its own feet.

    In a way, what you did by slecting out only the negative connotations you've inadvertently helped to perpetuate the inaccurate use of language. If i didn't know better i'd have taken from your post that neocons really are anti-semitic.

    i suppose what i'm saying is that if civilised discourse is our aim then we have to focus on the positives, not negatives.......and most importantly we all have a responsibility to do our best to avoid distorting language. Doesn't matter if someone else did it first, the only actions we can control are our own.

    Hope you realise i'm not trying to pick a fight btw........just voicing (er.....lettering?) my post midnight opinion :)



    SpinnerofTales -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 6:28:23 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

    What Spinner is saying, is, in effect "Fuck you, I'll say whatever I want.".

    Perfectly his right.

    But it's at the least disingenuous if not hypocritical for him to start a thread asking "why can't we all just get along", and then come back later and take that attitude. And, in fact, claim that there is no support for the thought that "neo-con" holds any pejorative connotations, when - as I demonstrated - finding that it is widely a pejorative term is pretty damn easy.

    Firm


    Once again, Firm, you put words in my mouth. I never said "why can't we all get along". I never said that in a political debate, a certain degree of rough and tumble is unexpected or inappropriate. I never asked anyone to stop using affectionate terms like dem, lefty, righty, bleeding heart liberal" or any of those charming terms. In short, I never requested we move into Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

    What I DID say was that there is place where anyone should be able to recognize the line of common decency has been crossed. The terms nazi, facist, Stalinist, communist and of course, the beloved un-American are becoming so loud that rational debate has been co-opted. When I started this thread, I was even hopeful that everyone on both sides of the asile could see this and respond. Instead, I've seen a bunch of "You started it" and "Look what you called Bush" and even "I'll stop when every member of belief in opposition to mine apologizes to me." In short, nonsense.

    As for saying "Fuck you, I'll say what I want"...again, that isn't what I ever said. It is what you want to think I said. More than that it is what you want others to think I said. In short it is a lie and by saying it you are a liar.

    What I do say is that I will not use the terms nazi, communist, facist, etc. in any posting I make. And I will not tolerate in silence those who do. I will also not take the time, as you have, to comb through my past postings in order to find the least instance of where I might have said something that you can view as offensive (Calling someone who lables themselves a neo-conservative as a neo-con for example...that "ervative" makes all the difference, eh?).

    Meanwhile, you can continue to balk at the very idea that, collectively, not calling people nazies, facists, communists etc. is a good thing for everyone involved. If you agree you can join me at least in this. I really didn't think this was such a tough issue.



    Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 6:52:30 AM)


    quote:

    What I DID say was that there is place where anyone should be able to recognize the line of common decency has been crossed
    Why put importance on "common decency" and in turn sacrifice pragmatic observation? What is the recourse, other than to call someone out, when they represent a holier than thou approach, holding up some 'ideals' as better, 'weal & twue'?

    Its why I'm of the opinion that liberalism has taken on religious connotations; following the path of the 'one true religion'. Anyone daring to question it, or better yet - hold up a mirror to it, is, by definition a heretic; generating crys of 'BURN HIM!"

    Were the response instead - "CHALLENGE HIM!"; it would generate respect, and better still, provide an occasion for me to learn something which would result in me amending my position. So much of wasted effort on good intent is based upon faith. When that faith is challenge the knee jerk reaction is name calling; especially when the faithful don't have a dogma which stands up to reality, let alone challenge.
    quote:

    Merc, earlier in this thread, called the terms of the bail-out fascist, when it clearly isn't

    Philo, A government take over of business defines fascism. Call it what you want; shit by any other name will smell the same.



    Sanity -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 7:23:59 AM)


    [sm=LMAO.gif]! 

    I personally love the doublespeak, the backpedaling, and the trotting out of Alinsky's number 5 (which backfired wicked bad).

    Oh yeah.

    "Can't we all just get along, you filthy racist scum-sucking maggot infested neocon jerk warmongering retardo mother fucking Bushitler bitches???"

    "What - I meant that in a good way..."


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Kirata


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

    The irony, oh, the irony ...

    Projection is a wondrous thing to behold.

    K.






    Not as much fun as denial.  [:D]





    Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 9:11:52 AM)

    'ya know, maybe we should eliminate the "Nazi/communist" references and use the standards of the political party with "ideals".

    Here's a fine example.

    Party "leadership" at its finest...
    ...and the crowd goes wild!


    Anyone silly enough to follow either religion, democrat or republican, stands a fool behind this representative speaker and the audience at large.



    Sanity -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 12:05:58 PM)


    Obama's Green Czar is very representative of the Democrats these days.

    I disagree with your crusade to overturn every politician in Washington though Merc, it seems to me that your proposed "religion" is just another path to anarchy and mass chaos. What we need to do is vote in candidates in the primaries who are representative and respectful, and we need to hold the media elite's feet to the fire. Their job is to research and report the news, show us who these people who are running for office really are, and they have only been doing that half the time.

    There is nothing wrong with the parties themselves, they can both put forth good candidates - its the people who are currently in charge who are the problem. And not every candidate on each side is necessarily a bad Joe.





    Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 1:20:46 PM)

    quote:

    I disagree with your crusade to overturn every politician in Washington though Merc, it seems to me that your proposed "religion" is just another path to anarchy and mass chaos.
    I wouldn't deny my "religious" fervor on this issue Sanity. Granted, we may throw out some good babies with the bathwater, but it is the PAC 'special interest' influence with the Congress overlaps party lines and can not be dissolved with strategic strikes.

    Take a look at this chart.

    Representative of who owns Congress. Only the United Food Workers, and not surprising the Government employees union put 100% of their money on one party - Democrat. Most of the unions IBEW and Machinists, Teamsters, put 1% on the Republican side. However, more common is that the PAC's pay both sides. It insures them a victory.

    My "religion" has no gods but PAC and special interest influence is its devil. The only way I see to exorcise him would be to take away the effect of their influence money. I don't see it happening because if you ask fundamentalists from either party, they'd deny that the PAC contributions made to their candidate impact their votes. However, if you or anyone wonder why Republicans are considered anti union; look no further than this PAC list. Without a doubt unions are anti-Republican. Bankers, Insurance Companies, and most industries have numbers closer to 50/50. Which means 100% of candidates owe them, and vote based upon that debt. You are absolutely correct when you say "its the people who are currently in charge who are the problem." Well, the person in charge in a capitalist society is the source providing the capital. The current "leaders" are titular heads. In charge are the PACs. You can't vote them out of office, you'll only end up with another 'tit'.

    Faced with that reality any "good candidate" will soon have a similar debt to pay if he/she wants the campaign money necessary for reelection. As an individual the only influence I have is to never vote for any.

    As I've said before, its a voice in the wilderness approach. If you've got a better idea - I'd be very easy to convert.



    SpinnerofTales -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 1:51:17 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

    I don't see it happening because if you ask fundamentalists from either party, they'd deny that the PAC contributions made to their candidate impact their votes


    Merc,

    Of course the PAC money influences votes. I remember hearing of a study done of every bill voted on in the house or senate for an entire year. 100% of the time the bill was passed or defeated in the direction in which the lobbyists had spent the most money. 100%! (I do apologize to all those who will demand citations, this was before I started posting on CM and came to realize that if you don't have a link, some will raise a stink)

    I don't think our government is for sale only because it's already been bought. The question is no longer "Are we going to get screwed?" but "Who will use the most lube?".


    That said, I still think that the only people who benefit from this deterioration of dialogue, polarization of interests and flat out divcive acrimony are the people who have always profited from the status quo. Because we are all screaming so loudly, they don't have to even worry about moving quietly.



    Sanity -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 3:07:44 PM)


    You are very persuasive, and you're making a lot of sense.

    PAC donations are something to pay attention to on a local level, as are congressional voting habits. But don't start calling me brother quite yet...  



    Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 4:51:09 PM)

    quote:

    Of course the PAC money influences votes. I remember hearing of a study done of every bill voted on in the house or senate for an entire year. 100% of the time the bill was passed or defeated in the direction in which the lobbyists had spent the most money. 100%!


    Spinner,
    In that case, and my position would be that your representation is accurate, tell me how I should distinguish either party's "ideals"? I'd suggest that it succinctly represents both the cause and the outcome of our collective disconnect; yet you would still support the current ongoing efforts to establish the massive bureaucracy necessary for this Health-care Bill, and belief it is outside the control of these same PAC and special interest beneficiaries?

    Has one dollar of the Stimulus money (I or II) created a US job? What did it do? Buy out the losses at the Banks (Commercial Bank PAC Contribution: $1,560,025.00/ American Bankers Assn $770,250) and insurance interests (Insurance Industry PAC contribution: $4,594,739) . Create opportunity for cash rich speculators (Securities & Investment PAC contribution: $1,303,882 ) to buy the foreclosed houses at a depressed market value. Pay out Millions in executive bonuses and compensation. Referring back to the PAC payouts by the unions, (Industrial Unions PAC payouts: $3,041,216. ) insured that the bankrupt auto makers couldn't go bankrupt and cause renegotiation of the pension and health insurance funds.

    Sounds like it was a lot of money to be paying out to political campaigns until you consider, between Bush and Obama it produces a Trillion dollar return in benefits! Now tell me, whichever side of any debate you or anyone else find yourself, do you really expect any action undertaken by Congress will be pointed to benefit you, or produce something that has a primary function of serving the general public?

    Maybe one good thing has come from this discussion. It's seems we've come to a point when we can define the difference of liberal and conservative. The liberal beliefs in 'good intent' and rationalizes success, while the conservative doesn't and rationalizes its failure. Meanwhile, the results proof both sides don't have the their eye on the ball. It's the money - PAC money with the expectation of a ROI that is the catalyst for any action. Oh, and in case anyone is dreaming of 'tort reform' being included; the Lawyers contributed $2,541,623. in the current election cycle.

    quote:

    That said, I still think that the only people who benefit from this deterioration of dialog, polarization of interests and flat out divisive acrimony are the people who have always profited from the status quo.
    So tell me something, here we are in general agreement regarding the influence of PACs to the detriment of the general public. We can still have our philosophical disagreements of where to allocate assets and how to prioritize resources once integrity is reestablished, but for now, which party do we support?

    My answer is neither. Ergo my 'non-incumbent' party; which Sanity considers my religion. I've been a member of a few 'religions'; maybe its time I started one!

    quote:

    But don't start calling me brother quite yet...
    Well Sanity can I at least pass the plate since you enjoyed the 'sermon'?



    SpinnerofTales -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 5:00:32 PM)

    quote:

    In that case, and my position would be that your representation is accurate, tell me how I should distinguish either party's "ideals"? I'd suggest that it succinctly represents both the cause and the outcome of our collective disconnect; yet you would still support the current ongoing efforts to establish the massive bureaucracy necessary for this Health-care Bill, and belief it is outside the control of these same PAC and special interest beneficiaries? ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth



    No, Merc. I believe that there is a certainty that someone is going to make money off of this. I am also certain that whatever is passed will be flawed, twisted and corrupted. But I think it still may be better than what we have currently. Probably not much better, but perhaps better.

    When you cant win, you can't break even and you can't get out of the game, your options are limited.





    Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 5:17:57 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales
    quote:

    In that case, and my position would be that your representation is accurate, tell me how I should distinguish either party's "ideals"? I'd suggest that it succinctly represents both the cause and the outcome of our collective disconnect; yet you would still support the current ongoing efforts to establish the massive bureaucracy necessary for this Health-care Bill, and belief it is outside the control of these same PAC and special interest beneficiaries? ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


    No, Merc. I believe that there is a certainty that someone is going to make money off of this. I am also certain that whatever is passed will be flawed, twisted and corrupted. But I think it still may be better than what we have currently. Probably not much better, but perhaps better.

    Spinner - I respect your position on the health care issue although I don't believe it, or agree with it. I consider all examples used to sell their position to the general population on either side are generated from those PAC sources cited.
    quote:

    When you cant win, you can't break even and you can't get out of the game, your options are limited.

    I sincerely hope I never feel, or have to take a position on any issue, as a result of similar surrender.



    SpinnerofTales -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/2/2009 6:05:46 PM)

    quote:

    I sincerely hope I never feel, or have to take a position on any issue, as a result of similar surrender.

    ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth



    It is not surrender, Merc. But sometimes you don't get to choose the greater good and have to settle for choosing the lesser evil. Like you, when someone comes up with a better idea, at least I'll be in practice.




    FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/7/2009 9:20:39 AM)

    FR:

    Rules for Radicals (Paperback)
    by Saul Alinsky (Author) "WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be..."

    ...

    Product Details

    * Paperback: 224 pages
    * Publisher: Vintage (October 23, 1989)
    * Language: English
    * ISBN-10: 0679721134
    * ISBN-13: 978-0679721130
    * Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 5.2 x 0.7 inches
    * Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)

    * Amazon.com Sales Rank: #51 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)




    SpinnerofTales -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/7/2009 9:44:19 AM)

    quote:

    Rules for Radicals (Paperback)
    by Saul Alinsky (Author) "WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be..."
    ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



    By that definition, Firm, we're ALL radicals.

    However, having never read Alinsky, I stand by my initial stand that my style of using humor to point out ridiculous arguments and nonsensical positions is not a stance learned from a book. It's who I am. If my writing style or position on the issues offend you, I most cordially invite you not to read them anymore.




    thebongripper -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/7/2009 9:57:17 AM)

    But I thought conservatives were nazis?


    Ha just kidding. I think that anyone that calls themselves a democrat or a republican is most likely moronic. My view is that there is no democrat or republican, only your personal views and beliefs.

    I believe that this whole country is fucked unless about 200,000,000 people wise up and realize that are government is seriously going to fuck us in the ass if we keep letting congress strip us of our rights.

    We take so many liberties for granted that we don't take the time to respect and preserve them.



    FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (9/7/2009 5:45:07 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

    quote:

    Rules for Radicals (Paperback)
    by Saul Alinsky (Author) "WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be..."
    ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



    By that definition, Firm, we're ALL radicals.

    However, having never read Alinsky, I stand by my initial stand that my style of using humor to point out ridiculous arguments and nonsensical positions is not a stance learned from a book. It's who I am. If my writing style or position on the issues offend you, I most cordially invite you not to read them anymore.



    That was the attention getting line for the book from Amazon, not my words.

    I was pointing out the sale of his book is now 51st on the Amazon best seller list.

    Firm



    Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.0625