Many leftists are in bed with terrorists and anti-Semites. Many leftists are anti-Semitic themselves.

The loony left is way off the deep end...look at their hatred, their lies, and now even their violence. Let's face it, they are going around creating havoc at Republican HQs, even doing drive by shootings from time to time.

One sad point is that the MSM won't expose the far left for what it is.

Remember all of the fawning TV coverage of those antiwar rallies...never a hint that so many of these people were connected to international socialist groups, with sympathies to regimes like North Korea and Cuba...never a hint of the rabid anti-Semitism at these rallies.

The public is being duped by the MSM. There is probably nothing better for our democracy, our freedom, and our security than that the MSM be overturned and replaced by something resembling a fair media that values the pursuit of truth above the pursuit of a political agenda.

The MSM is dragging this country down.

Can somebody explain this
to me?

Why would extremist want to register these people as Republican? Is it really sneaky, or really stupid?

"Based on my own personal research, I can assure you that many far left "progressives" are never more than a few degrees of separation from terrorists and criminals."

Neither are many conservatives. Your claim, of course, fails to consider that having friends in low places cuts both ways, which makes it seem rather short-sighted.

How many degrees of separation are/were there between W and Saddam? Osama? Think this through logically, before you flame.

W-->Bandar Bush-->some Saudi mullah-->Bandar's cousin in the Royal Family-->Al Qaeda.

W-->George HW-->Saddam. Or, alternately, W-->Rumsfeld-->Saddam.

George HW-->Noriega.

Etc. The list goes on, on BOTH sides.

This isn't just "oh, i met a guy who met a guy who knew Osama." This is "I am in close diplomatic contact with someone who is supporting someone who funds Al Qaeda/the Contras/etc."

The left gets to be linked to Palestinians, Communists, eco-terrorists, etc., while the right gets to be linked to neo-Nazis/Aryan Nations, the Mujhadeen, the Contras, and crazy lone gunmen like Tim McVeigh and Atlanta bomber Eric Rudolph.

the sheep must obey their masters after all.....

Doesn't wash, moebius.

The ties you draw between the right and various unpleasant folks are ties of enmity; support at one time, but the reasons for those bonds have evaporated, and now we've been cleaning out the cesspools.

The ties between the left and terrorists and their support networks are ties of friendship and support.

You don't see the Aryan Nation, or McVeigh/Rudolph supporters marching at a right-wing gatherings. When they show up at a Protest Warrior meeting, call me.

(Noriega? Oh, wait, we got rid of him. Mujahedeen? Hm, they seem to be missing, too. Contras? Relics of the Cold War; sure beat a Soviet-dominated Nicaragua. Hussein? Funny, he's out of the party circuit of late...)

International ANSWER, ISM, CAIR, various groups under the Tides Foundation - yep, they're at the left-wing rallies.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the friends of the far left progressives happen to be our enemies in this war.

Just chase the many links on the Socialist Workers Party website. It's an education. The International Left and its American sycophants are on the warpath. They've hijacked the DNC and the leadership of major US labor unions, especially the non-skill newer versions like SEIU and others aggressively organizing the civil service sector and other governmental employee domains. It's a global movement. Why do you think they're targeting those employment sectors? Did you ever think of the MSM reporter and talking head "bias problem" as a byproduct of the union cultures that dominate their employment environments? Did you ever think of the dominance these movements have in Universities where union culture pervades faculty and staff thinking? Few cultures are more virulently anti-Semitic than the International and Domestic labor movements. Few modern large-scale civil organizations are more militant or have a more prolific history of thuggery and violence.

But Moebius is from gaga-land and a member (if only on the net) of the New Democratic Brownshirts.

Sheesh, I was born and raised as a Democrat. Where did I go wrong? Or where did they? With their greatest ever governor of the United States. I call him GOTUS. Clinton as Nero - fiddling with his dick while New York and Washington were slated to burn?

What have I missed about this man and his army of MoonBats? Pliss inform.

Tommy Paine,

Take a deep breath and decide to go to bed. You are deaf to former and no show for the party disengaged Democrats.

I have no idea from where you come, but I stand very tall by my principles whether as a Democrat or newly minted Republican of the McCain persuasion.

I know this. You folks are sad and my president is not. He's hopeful.

And mostly I want to say that that you are a small dick asshole despite all Bill has done to counter such personal strife.

Let me put this to you baldly. Some fight while liars lie.

"The ties you draw between the right and various unpleasant folks are ties of enmity; support at one time, but the reasons for those bonds have evaporated, and now we've been cleaning out the cesspools."

Noah D, it does sorta wash. You can't so easily disregard past connctions just because the connections are no longer there. It doesn't matter that these were connections of enmity. If I hire a hitman to kill someone -- in the end I'm just as responsible for the death. Who likes a hitman -- not me. But, I can't just tell you, "well, I really hated the hitman, so it doesn't count". I will be in just as much trouble as the hitman.

I won't agree with either side here, because I don't really care about this subject too much. Don't know why, it's not getting me too exicted.

Anonymous Scientist:
But is a government responsible for the actions of previous governments, which probably consisted of completely different individuals?

- lets see how many steps between any given conservative and support of fascism.
*****************************************
More separation than that of the Left and the Anti-Semitic Socialism that was the

German National Socialist Workers Party

A Conservative Government CAN be totalitarian, a Socialist Government MUST be.

"But is a government responsible for the actions of previous governments, which probably consisted of completely different individuals?"

How "different" is this government? The Old Guard that call the shots today (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) who were around when we were killing nuns in Latin America, helping Osama get his hands on Stingers and Saddam get his hands on WMDs (ahh, good old Iran-Iraq. The enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Just because they aren't all kissey-kissey now doesn't make them less culpable.

Who knows WHO the Right is connected to that will become the next mass murderer. After all, we weren't all that concerned with Osama in 1991.

Also, how "representative" are these Leftist groups that "extensive research" has been done on. In my line of study/work, I've interviewed members of both the European Far Left and Far Right. Guess what? The Greens in Germany are one remove from Anti-Fascist NGOs, who are one remove from Anarchists. The CDU-CSU is one remove from some kooky newspapermen or generals, who are one remove from the Neo-Nazis.

The left gets to be linked to Palestinians, Communists, eco-terrorists, etc., while the right gets to be linked to neo-Nazis/Aryan Nations, the Mujhadeen, the Contras, and crazy lone gunmen like Tim McVeigh and Atlanta bomber Eric Rudolph.

Except that the "right" in the US -- the Republican party, mainly -- does not support the goals or rhetoric of the neo-Nazis, the Mujihadeen, McVeigh, or Rudolph. The Contras -- maybe, but they're not exactly a running concern right now, and they were more tools in a little thing called the Cold War. You may have heard about it; it was in all the papers.

In contrast, the mainstream left openly supports both the goals and the rhetoric of the violent, disgusting left. For example, a deputy manager of the Gore-Lieberman campaign has taken over as head of La Raza, a group as racist as any neo-Nazi organization. Also, look at Sharpton -- a racist who's incited murder, but was warmly received at the DNC and given time to speak to the convention.

This isn't just "oh, i met a guy who met a guy who knew Osama." This is "I am in close diplomatic contact with someone who is supporting someone who funds Al Qaeda/the Contras/etc."

Oh, yes, because "diplomatic contact" is never made with someone you disagree with.

"More separation than that of the Left and the Anti-Semitic Socialism that was the German National Socialist Workers Party."

If you believe that "Socialists" and "National Socialists" are equivalent because they both have "Socialist" in their name, you're crazy. Or ignorant. Take your pick. It's pretty clear that the first and most consistent opponent of Fascism and Anti-Semetism in Europe came from the European Far Left.

A number of Socialists and Communists died in the Nazi concentration camps (those were actually the first people that got rounded up). There's a monument right outside the Reichstag for members of Parliament who died under the Nazi regime. Guess what? Vast majority were SPD and KPD.

I won't deny there's anti-Semitism on the Left. To say that there's "more separation" on the Right is a foolish rhetorical argument...close is close is close (sort of like "we behead fewer people then they do!"). I also won't deny that there's significant anti-immigrant feeling on the Left...just as there is on the Right.

"Oh, yes, because "diplomatic contact" is never made with someone you disagree with."

I was actually being charitable. In reality, Bush has been dealing with the Saudis (including the Bin Laden family) for what, 25 years now? Doesn't mean Bush is funding Bin Laden. It DOES mean that W and Bin Laden were getting money and support from some of the same people. And of course we continue to prop up the Saudis, who are tied to leaders who continue to covertly support Al Qaeda.

moebius:
A greater number of Socialists and Communists died in the Stalin's concentration camps. What is your point? That Stain really wasn't communist? That Communists were not socialist? Maybe you should read a litle history of the National Socialist Workers Party:

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

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

On anti-semitism on the Left, who was it hmmm that wrote the classic anti-semite screed "On the Jewish Question"???? Hint: His first name was Carl.

PS: Clinton had ties to the Saudis too. Sometimes you have to deal with smaller turds to fight bigger ones (witness our alliance with the blooddrenched tyrannical genocidal Soviet Union in WW2).

"you have to deal with smaller turds to fight bigger ones"

A great conversation dwindles into bathroom talk!

The Right in America are classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, neoconservatives and Christian conservatives.

The "Right" in Europe are just non-Intenational socialists (hence some call themselves National Socialists). At one time it also included monarchists, but they are all dead.

The Left in America and Europe are international socialists.

Anon: Do you have a better synonym for people that stone women to death?

Actually, moebius, the first to be rounded up were Jehovah's Witnesses, because they refused to salute the Nazi flag.

Bit off topic. Recently someone posted a list of instances/articles where the Bush administration has been compared to Nazi germany. Can anyone direct me to where that was published? Thanks in advance.

RE: Anti-semitism on the Right/Left, keep in mind the different meanings of each word in Europe and America.

Anti-semitism has its roots in Christianity. However, since the enlightenment this has slowly been reduced to near non-existance among Christians.

From Christianity, anti-semitism spread to Islamic culture. Here it exists and continues to fester (along with all the old "Blood Libel" lies) with the current Isreal/Arab conflict.

In the 19th century a new strain of anti-semitism was born with self-hating Jews such as Karl Marx. This Leftist anti-semitism saw Jewish culture as a reactionary force that needed to be destroyed. Finally, the "Capitalists" of the Marxist conspiracy theory were said to be Jews (because many Jewish families were in banking and finance).

The anti-semitism of the National Socialism was very much based on the Leftist variety, thought it sometimes played up the Christian anti-semitic fears of the populace.

Today we are seeing the merger of Islamic and Leftist anti-semitism, a new unholy alliance of anti-semites. The Left has always seen Isreal as a "reactionary imperialist" force in the Middle East against "indiginous peoples" - (classic Leninist philosophy). Now the two memes are merging and mutating into a single sick creed.

(See "The History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson for relevent historical details)

Surprisingly, this odd little debate spins on a doctrinal conflict that concerns "the sanctity of the individual." Totalitarians see only groups; individuals are subordinate to the group. Within the Jeffersonian-Trotskyite doctrines, though representing a superficial Right/Left paradox, both are champions of the individual against the machine. This is a good model for understanding the paradox in the traditional model of Conservative/Liberal. So many of our popular terms are fatally conflicted. The deconstruction of our rhetoric is taking a hugh toll on our culture as the explosion of competitive victimhood continues to exploit the crisis demand for media content. If we could lose all the labels and get back to three concepts; three critical words that have almost disappeared from our common discourse: Bigotry; Totalitarianism; and, Ignore-ance. This is what I find so perversely fascinating about today's DNC and Kerry. Their rhetorical propensity for Ignore-ance, Totalitarianism and Bigotry would make Lavrent Beria and Stalin blush.

moebius

The Left (which doesn't necessarily include liberals, though the distinction is harder to tell these days) has come to the point where they openly advocate and follow through with violence. Prior to the Rep. Convention in NYC the calls and coordination for harassing and attacking delegates and tactics for sabetoging the security was posted on many Indy sites. Recent criminal violence has taken place at Republican headquarters in several states and criminal property damage where the perps have been caught and questioned ellicited a response from one of the perps that his criminality was really nothing more than "activism" and justified because Bush is a "bad man." The veil has fallen, the Left has never supported the rights of those that don't toe their political line.

Please let me know when "conservative" university names a literary award in honor of Tim McVeigh. Here we have the City University of NY giving an award in honor of a terror-enabler.

Can't quite understand who you were calling "turds". Were you talking about Saudis? Do you ever think that there may be a Saudi or a Middle Eastern person on the other side of your monitor that may take offense? I think it's brave (or stupid maybe) to call a whole group of people turds. Actually, I don't care that you said what you said. I've just been taking note of some of the analogies that people make to support their claims. It's interesting that people will provide a brilliant discourse, then finish with something like "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining". Funny, that's all.

Surprisingly, this odd little debate spins on a doctrinal conflict that concerns "the sanctity of the individual." Totalitarians see only groups; individuals are subordinate to the group. Within the Jeffersonian-Trotskyite doctrines, though representing a superficial Right/Left paradox, both are champions of the individual against the machine.

Now that's my type of comment!

Anon: When I called the "Saudis" turds, I was talking about the Saudi regime.

Do you ever think that there may be a Saudi or a Middle Eastern person on the other side of your monitor that may take offense?

Oversenstive whining.

5 yards, repeat second down.

TBear, "the racist": Don't be so hard on yourself. I personally never thought for a minute that you are racist.

Bill: I will take my licks on that one, but I really didn't mean to accuse TBear of racism. I was just pondering the vociferousness of people on blogs in general. I just find it curious that a meek person can be outspoken and agressive in this forum. Gotta love the web!

I dunno, Willem: Trotsky? He was a totalitarian. All power to the mob, and here's hoping they murder the rich, rather than an elite group murdering the rich. Anti-elitism isn't anti-totalitarianism. Hard to picture ol' Trotsky the terrorist as championing "the sanctity of the individual".

The existance of Right (Nazi, Fascist) vs. Left (Communist) is the result of a fractional fight between two groups (Parties) of totalitarian socialists in the 1930s/1940s. Both sides saw each other as apostates, hence their hatred.

With the destruction of National Socialist and Fascist Parties in the late 1940s, these terms should have ceased to have any meaning. Yet they continue to this day.

I have two theories to why this distortion exists:

1) According to Socialist docterine, enemies of the Party were "reactionary." Hence liberals (methological individualists, which include conservatives and libertarians) are "reationary," which according to the Communists is the same as Fascism and National Socialism. But clearly (real) liberals, conservatives and liberatarians are NOT the same thing as Fascists or Nazis, nor do they share any tradition. But it made sense within the flawed Communist viewpoint.

2) It is just a useful form of proganda to keep the sheep in line with the Party's docterine, since being branded a Fascist or Nazi after the 1940s was to be liquidated. Remember that Trotskyists (who are still Communists) were branded Nazis and Fascists by the Communists.

As the socialist Left wormed its way into American politics, this "Right-Nazi/Left-Socialist" meme went with them. Gradually the enemies of socialism adopted "right-wing," though the liberal-individualist tradition had nothing to do with the European Socialist Right.

Anon: I was kidding.

Willem: Trotsky was a communist. An apostate, but still a commie.

One can connect George W. Bush to death squads, subversion of the US constitution, and a whole host of other human rights atrocities through his appointees and attempted appointees such as Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, Otto Reich, John Poindexter, and Henry Kissinger.

Ronald Reagan's administration was pro-Saddam. Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand.

Let's also forget Bush's ties to the Saudi Royal Family, which beheads innocent human beings at a rate that would make Zarqawi blush and would rather see little girls burn alive than have them touched by male firefighters.

Let's also conveniently forget that Timothy McVeigh's views and rhetoric were not that different than your typical right-wing radio host in the 1990's. Let's also forget that Mel Martinez, your candidate for Senate in in referring to federal employees as "armed thugs."

But, of course, that stuff from the 90's doesn't count. After all, Clinton was president back then.

Mel Martinez=your candidate for Senate in Florida.

And he implicitly encourages hate crimes and violence against homosexuals:

"Apparently unwilling to leave any doubt about the outcome, however, the Martinez camp dropped a political bomb: McCollum's support in Congress for a bipartisan hate crimes law that strengthened protections for gays, women and minorities. For this noble effort, McCollum was savaged in a Martinez ad as catering to the "radical homosexual lobby." The campaign mailed fliers to voters in the Bible Belt of the Florida panhandle that labeled McCollum "the new darling of the homosexual extremists." The attacks were so mean that Jeb Bush called on Martinez to stop."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/florida_senate_race/index1.html

Yes, the right is clearly morally superior.

Oh, and I forgot that Islamist hate groups in the US have no better friend than Republican uberactivist Grover Norquist.

Geek: One can easily also connect key Democratic figures to such dirty business. And let's not forget Clinton's ties to the Saudis. But hey that is in the 1990s, so who cares?

Speaking of the "Good Times" of the 1990s, who was president when the ATF sent an armed assalt on a compound filled with American school children? Who sent armed assalt agents on a 5-year old Cuban kid? But hey, your point is to smear "the right" not discuss, correct?

McVeigh is a red herring. As I remember, his actions were univerally damned by everyone. Nor do I remember McVeigh stating his views or rhetoric. And I bet you $100000 they had NOTHING to do with traditional conservative or libertarian thought. Unless I missed a tome out there titled "Edmund Burke, FA Hayek, and Bill Bukley Advocate Exploding Day Care Centers." Maybe Molly Ivins wrote it.

Geek: Show us where he implicitly encourages "hate crimes and violence" against homosexuals? Or is disagreement now "hate crimes" and "violence"?

I guess that makes sense, since storming GOP headquarters and punching Republican party leaders is just "free expression."

2+2=5 and all that jive.

But thank you for the unbiased link to Salon.com.

Geek, Esq -
I'm going patiently explain to you why your logic doesn't hold water with the people that you criticize, and why you are a completely ineffective proponent of your cause:

1. You use Salon.com "analysis" piece as a source. I used to love Salon. Used to be a paid susbcriber. Still love certain features on the site. Salon is so far off the deep end, it's not even funny.

2. You equate Mel Martinez's intemperate opposition to hate crimes legislation (which I stridently oppose, and I'm for gay marriage, by the way), to Islamic terrorism? And you assume that his ranting against the "radical homesexual lobby" is tantamount to inciting hate crime?

This is called moral relativism gone amok.

3. Bush's ties to the Saudis are your strongest point, but are not analogous to what I'm saying. I'm talking about activists that raise money that goes directly into explosives, activists that I've heard, with my own ears, claim that the shahids that are blowing up women and children are freedom fighters. That have sanctioned and actively support the killing of American troops by "brave freedom fighters."

You want to piss me off? Wade into that pool of water with me. Pretty please.

You want to compare financial ties to a government that doesn't do enough to quash terrorism and has members that donate to charities associated with terrorism as a valid point? Guess what, we're all guilty, every time we buy gas. And then you bring up inappropriate opposition to ludicrous "hate crime" legislation as equivalent?

This is a joke.

This isn't as simple as "the right" or "the left."

In my post, I talk about "far left progressives." And yes, about 60% of the far left progressives that I've met directly sanction terror as a means to an end.

If you would like pictures, I can drop you some links.

The core of leftist ideology says that (a.) the rich should be stripped of their wealth no matter what society prefers and (b.) any reasons society gives for leaving the rich alone may be ignored as mere brainwashing by the rich. In fact, Marx dismissed "reason giving" as a delusional activity reducible to the play of economic forces, such that the leftist himself need give no reasons for championing leftism, there being no such thing as reasons anyway. So, leftism maintains that a society must be made adhere to economic egalitarianism, regardless of its claims to have reasons (some of which pertaining to the "sanctity of the individual") to prefer not to do so. Since failure to adhere to economic justice is theft and oppression, and as protestations pertaining to the sanctity of the individual may be ignored, the leftist felt no qualms about killing 100 million individuals in the 20th C. in order to fulfill its arational and brutal goal.

"And I bet you $100000 they had NOTHING to do with traditional conservative or libertarian though."

Uhhh...

Okay, Tbear...despite getting my BA in History, with a focus on 20th Century Germany, I've read the Wikipedia entry on "National Socialism."

You know what? NO ideological relation to Socialism OR Communism...it is the ideological bastard child or 19th Century Romanticism. The rise of Nazism (according to Wikipedia) was a reaction to Bolshevist insurgencies in Europe and Russia post-WW I.

From Wikipedia:

"For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist."

The rest of the article, which you evidently didn't read, makes the same point; your argument that "Socialism=National Socialsm, and therefore we can tie the Left to Communism AND Fascism AND Fundamentalism" doesn't hold much water.

While both sides appealed to the working class (much in the same way both Right and Left in America appeal to workers), Fascism (being Corporatist) was designed to harness capitalism to enhance the power of a particular nation, sort of a kissing cousin of Mercantilism.

Using the rhetoric of Socialism doesn't make the Nazis any more Socialist than using the rhetoric of "unity" makes W a "Compassionate Conservative." Sheep's clothing is sheep's clothing, and wolves are wolves.

moebius: Fascism, syndicalism, national socialism clearly stem from the non-marxist socialist tradition and NOT from the liberal tradition.

In fact, both Marxism and the non-marxist socialist tradition of the Fascist and National Socialist party SHARE a common root with Romanticism and the socialist classical economists.

My point stands.

Further, from the point of view of Marxists, National Socialists were not "true socialists." From the point of view of National Socialists, Marxists were not the "true socialists."

From the point of view of the Amercian liberal tradition (as it exists today in conservativism and libertarianism), THEY BOTH WERE SOCIALISTS. They are both wolves.

PS: Centralized economic planning and de facto control of industry and private property does not count as capitalism, free markets or methological indidualism as public policy.

"The Right in America are classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, neoconservatives and Christian conservatives. The "Right" in Europe are just non-Intenational socialists (hence some call themselves National Socialists)."

So, essentially you're saying that 1) everyone on the Right in Europe is actually on the Left, and 2) that National Socialism is just an extension of the Left? Making the Green Party and the Nazis morally and ideologically equivalent?

Tbear, congratulations on having absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. I guess Ann Coulter can only get you so far.

For example, the German Right:

-Classical Liberals/Libertarians: The Free Democratic Party (technically center-right), part of the Liberal International (interesting concept, that), calls for free market reforms and social liberalism not far off from big business Reps or Libertarians. Back in the day, these guys ended up mostly towing the Nazi line, though there were honorable Liberals like Stresseman that fought the faschos to the end.

-Christian Conservatives: What the f*** do you call the Christian Social Union? Their entire platform rests on a hardcore conservative Catholic doctrine. Anyone who knows anything about German politics would tell you that you can't fit a volleyball between the Christian Right in the US and the CSU in Germany. The CDU, while clearly more progressive in its economic policy than the Republicans, are hardly "Socialist."

In Weimar, Zentrum (the old Catholic party) was disbanded along with the SPD and KPD, though they faced less political persecution under the Nazis (the Nazis at one point incorporate a Christian social group that styled themselves the "Stormtroopers of Christ").

-Big Business: "Some call you the elite. I call you my base" has a long tradition in Weimar as well. The corporate class, so heavily represented in the Republican party, has a long tradition of support for the Right and Far Right in Germany. The DNVP was the major pro-business, pro-capitalism party, but it thought it could bend Hitler to its own wishes for control over the Reichstag (it was wrong). Today's CDU is the descendent of the DNVP and Zentrum, though the Nationalism has been (until recently, very effectively) scared out of them.

-Neocons: Ya got me there; there are only the stirrings of a Thatcherite movement in the CDU. And thank God for that.

Maybe next we can discuss how Mormans view Catholics as non-Christian and vice versa. Then we can have a Morman call a Buddist person a "Catholic."

Then I can point out how a Buddist is not a Catholic nor a Christian and that both Mormons and Catholics share and claim a tradition with Christianity.

See what I am saying?

>>>>"moebius: Fascism, syndicalism, national socialism clearly stem from the non-marxist socialist tradition and NOT from the liberal tradition."

So everything that doesn't stem from the Liberal tradition is Left? The Left is clearly more "classically Liberal" on social issues than the Right...does that mean you want to lump the Republicans in with the Fascists because they rail against the "decline of American morals" and make pronouncements on what is and isn't right in the American home?

"In fact, both Marxism and the non-marxist socialist tradition of the Fascist and National Socialist party SHARE a common root with Romanticism and the socialist classical economists."

Are you able to find any sort of evidence to back this up? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

-Socialism was concerned with the elimination of national borders, Romanticism with their celebration.
-Socialism was concerned with putting economic activity in the hands of workers to for the betterment of the working class. Romanticism (as espoused under National Socialism...there weren't any properly Romantic 19th century political economists) was concerned with putting economic activity in the hands of the State, for better ment of the Volk.
-Socialism denied the existence of God; Romanticism was strongly influenced by Christianity.

Yeah...all kinds of links.

>>>"Further, from the point of view of Marxists, National Socialists were not "true socialists." From the point of view of National Socialists, Marxists were not the "true socialists"."

I'm sorry...I didn't realize you were an authority on 1930s Germany political campaign appeals. Can you give supporting citations? Do you have any idea what you were talking about? Do you understand the concept of propoganda, or saying one thing and believing another ("lieing")? The Republicans say they are the "party of Lincoln" and "the party for Black America," but does anyone actually believe them?

"From the point of view of the Amercian liberal tradition (as it exists today in conservativism and libertarianism), THEY BOTH WERE SOCIALISTS. They are both wolves."

Considering Liberals and Conservatives are two very different things, and the Republicans are a tense mish-mash of the both of them, I'd say that makes the Republican Party about 50% Socialist, by your reckoning.

"1) everyone on the Right in Europe is actually on the Left"

I am generalizing, but my point is the Right/Left are context specific based on geographic locaiton.

"2) that National Socialism is just an extension of the Left?"

From the point of view of American liberals, yes.

"Making the Green Party and the Nazis morally and ideologically equivalent?"

Not equivalent, but similar and related.

The Free Democratic Party is an example of a liberal party, though it still isn't the same as American and British liberalism. It is also a tiny party and not yet mainstream (though we can hope!).

The Christian Conservatives are not liberal, and stem from the "Church/Throne Conservatism" of European politics. Note this has nothing to do with American consertavism, as the US never had a king or church. In substance though, they are social democrats.

As far as Big Business, anyone who studies free market economics knows that Big Business is no friend to free markets or of capitalism. Corporatism is not the same as free market economics or liberalism. Big Business funded the Bolsheviks too.

Are you saying corporate class doesn't have the same influcence in today's Democratic Party? Soros, Buffet?

"So everything that doesn't stem from the Liberal tradition is Left?"

America was founded as a liberal nation. Leftism is an import. In the U.S., I would say yes.

"The Left is clearly more "classically Liberal" on social issues than the Right..."

More than the liberarians? And I don't accept that social and economic are two separate realms. That is another Left meme I don't accept.

"does that mean you want to lump the Republicans in with the Fascists because they rail against the "decline of American morals" and make pronouncements on what is and isn't right in the American home?"

Which Republicans? There are libertarians in the GOP. (A lot more since the Democrats went hard Left.)

"Are you able to find any sort of evidence to back this up?"

Marx was a romantic. And a socialist classical economist.

And how do you know the Nazis were lying? They said it, they did it.

If you are speaking of truth, then both communists and national socialists were liars, as socialism itself is untrue. But that wasn't their perspective.

"Considering Liberals and Conservatives are two very different things"

But related...

"and the Republicans are a tense mish-mash of the both of them, I'd say that makes the Republican Party about 50% Socialist, by your reckoning."

Sadly true.

Bill:

Are you going to defend Martinez's statements? Referring to law enforcement as "armed thugs" and smearing someone who supports hate crime legislation as a radical homo lover is gutter language that has no place in a civilized society.

There are raging idiots on either side. I'm not going to claim the Stalinoid creeps of ANSWER as my fellow travelers. However, the whole idea of picking out the most egregious examples of assholishness on the far left and using them as exemplars of the entire left progressive movement is disingenuous--and you're smart enough to realize that. You've got pictures? Big deal. You've proven that the existence of immoral idiots on the left. I don't think anyone ever disputed that.

I could very easily cherry pick the foulest posters from freerepublic and LGF and hold them up as representative of the entire "conservative right." One can hardly browse a right wing discussion board without finding calls for mass murder.

Do you know what Bill O'Reilly called for, in exact words, in response to the four dead American contractors in Fallujah. He wanted all 500,000 people killed.

His exact language: A "final solution."

Mass murder advocated as a "final solution" by the most popular conservative TV personality in the US.

There's also the "Nuke Mecca" crowd that runs the gamut from a number of LGF people to Rich Lowry of the National Review.

And how many millions of books to fascist thug-wannabes Michael Savage and Ann Coulter sell to their fans?

Also, don't forget that CAIR is in tight with Bush--mainly because pre-9/11 they shared very similar social views.

"The Free Democratic Party is an example of a liberal party, though it still isn't the same as American and British liberalism. It is also a tiny party and not yet mainstream (though we can hope!)."

The FDP has been anchoring Center-Right coalitions for over 50 years. They're at 10% (which from a non-Amerocentric perspective is very respectable), and probably not going anywhere. All the political movement in Germany right now is on the Left and the Far Right.

"The Christian Conservatives are not liberal...Note this has nothing to do with American consertavism, as the US never had a king or church."

You've failed to explain the ideological differences between, say the Christian Coalition/Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson and the European Christian Democrats. I'll give you a hint: they're not.

Right now, Tbear, your argument rests on an untruth (not a lie...just not an understanding of the truth): that the Republican Party is dominated by Classical Liberals. The truth: it is not. It is a party at war with itself, and it contains three related, but not equivalent, wings:

-The Classical Liberals: The Milton Friedman types, who are rather disgruntled that Bush has tried to Build the Beat as much as Starve it. If we were a PR system, the Libertarians would be pulling 5% just off of disgruntled Conservatives.

-The Christian Right: These guys more or less control the Reps in the South and the Mountain West, and they're making gains in the Midwest. They are very much your traditional Burkian conservatives. They are NOT Liberals; though they are status quo Free Market they are definitely NOT socially Liberal.

-The Neo-Cons: Who actually run the Administration, and have expanded rather than contracted government (in all fairness, to build up Homeland Security). They have accepted invasions on privacy through the Patriot Act (DEFINITELY not Classical Liberal), and they take a very Romantic view of the World System (the whole "American mission").

-Big Business: Closest to the Liberals, in that they obstensibly support the "free market" (but only when it benefits them).

That's at least 2 parts non-Liberal and one part liberal. With Big Business, it's more like 2.5 non-Liberal, 1.5 parts Liberal.

Start singing the Marsailles, you closet Commie. =)

Geek: You lied and we caught you. Calling someone a "homo lover" is offensive, but not the same as violence.

You lied. Your credibility is shot. But I promise I won't use you as an exemplar of the entire left progressive movement.

Tbear: I suggest you consult a dictionary regarding the word "implicitly." As in, not explicit. As in, using hateful rhetoric towards homosexuals in criticizing someone for expanding hate crimes legislation to include gay bashing.

Shorter Mel Martinez: People who think that it's wrong to bash fags must be fag lovers themselves.

He said that, in code.

"You've failed to explain the ideological differences between, say the Christian Coalition/Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson and the European Christian Democrats."

They are different because the American Christian Right does not appeal to a tradition of a state-church, only that the US is a "Christian nation" (notice they can't agree to which type of Christianity). And I don't agree nor claim they are classically liberal either.

I am afraid it is your position that is based on untruth:

I understand very well that the Republican Party is not dominated by Classical Liberals. I understand it is probably corrputed nearly to the point of spoilation.

But my broader point is that it is by far the more liberal (in the classical sense) of the two major parties.

Geek: I suggest a class on logic. Being critial of legistlation is not the same as bashing in someone's skull or shooting their brains out.

I am against "hate crime" legisltaion and yet I am not against the crimes of murder or assalt, nor do I "hate fags" (though I bet you accuse me of otherwise).

But let's keep degrading the language further. I am against Affirmative Action! So clearly I want to hang black people! But burning a nazi swastica in someone's yard because they have a Bush sign in it - free expression.

geek, esq:

1. homo lover

If Martinez said that (and I don't see quotes around your description, and refuse to sit through an ad at salon), then he is a bigot. But he is still not equivalent to a terror supporter.

2. All of your outrage relies on your parsing of my description of "far left progressives," which you selectively switch to "all left progressives."

What wil satisfy you so that I'm talking about ANSWER thugs, Pali activists, Indy Media folk, DU denizens that organize anti-war marches, etc?

What will work for you next time?

"Far, far left?"

"Far, far, far left?"

Far, far, far, far left?"

Typical of many people that read something and get defensive, you take an all too quick interpretation of what you've read and view it through your perception. that's fine, and there's a way to register a complaint about any problems wit you have with my level of description. But don't spit my words back at me in a different format. I may not agree with most "left progressives," but i know perfectly nice ones that think that all violence is horrible and tofu is tasty, and puppies are cute, and hey, I like tofu and puppies as well.

In contrast, your screed uses the following reference:

Yes, the right is clearly morally superior

You are practicing hypocrisy, and accusing me of doing something that you objectively just did to a greater degree, with less nuance, specificity and distinction.

Deep breaths.

Martinez called McCollum "the new darling of homosexual extremists" for his hate crimes vote. It wasn't a criticism against hate crime legislation in general.

Re: the difference between the far left and left progressives. The problem is that the term "far left" has been abused to the point where one doesn't know whether one means the World Workers Party or Dennis Kucinich when it is used.

Bottom line: I should have assumed you were using it in a reasonable manner. My bad.

Tbear:

1. I have a theory, and it's not a terribly novel one, but it is related to this thread: power corrupts..., and you know the rest. The more politically active or powerful you are, the more likely you are to be connected to someone who most moralists would consider "Evil." It's just a fact, and it's been true since Grecian times. Right, Left, no one is immune.

2. We have come to a difference of opinion. You believe that "Non-Liberal=Socialist" and therefore "all non-Liberal movments=Socialist." I believe that "Non-Liberal= multiple potential ideological movements, such as Conservativism, Socialism, or Romanticism/Fascism." I doubt that anything I can say at this point will convince you, but I'd like to sneak that one past a scholar of political philosophy (which I admittedly am not...my knowledge is limited to survey courses in grad school).

3. Finally, a word on Tim McVeigh: Tim McVeigh grew out of the deep government mistrust that came from incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge. Interviews with McVeigh revealed that his major ideological influences were the Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, and John Locke (classical Liberals or men influenced by them). His actions were a specific revolt against what he perceived as the government's conquest of American personal space...fairly Libertarian, I wager. If you want to start on the research into the connections between McVeigh/Nichols and the Libertarian/Michigan Milita/Michigan GOP movements, I'd be happy to hear the results.

Sigh...no edit function:

"but I'd like to sneak that one past a scholar of political philosophy"

=

but I'd like to [see you] sneak that one past a scholar of political philosophy"

"But my broader point is that it is by far the more liberal (in the classical sense) of the two major parties."

A fair argument could be made that, if we aggregate all of the policy positions of all the "significant" parties in America, the Greens and Libertarians would actually be much closer together, and the Reps and Dems would form a separate bloc. Greens are far more willing to support free trade with the 3rd World than the Dems, and

Oh, and Tbear: I find it quite amusing that you'd even consider the possibility that the Greens and Nazis are related in Germany; if I were a German Green I'd just be offended and threaten to fight you in the street. Currently in Germany the Greens share policy positions on issues of immigration and cultural diversity with the FDP, while the CDU and SPD are looking very much like our Big Two (VERY ambivalent on immigration).

Calling the Greens in any way anti-Semetic or racist is completely unsupportable.

1. Actually that is a very conservative opinion, and one I happen to agree with. According the Romantics and their ilk, people are born morally pure and are only degraded by forces outside of their control i.e. class, race, capitalism, etc.

2. Actually I agree that not all non-liberals are socialists (such as Islamists, though many of them are influenced by national and international socialism).

But I think my point still stands that A) national socialists and international socialists share the same tradition of romanticism and socialist classial economic thought and B) American conservatives are actually of the liberal tradition with no roots in fascism or national socialism.

3) I would like to see a citation on his supposed beliefs. McVeigh was certainaly anti-US government, but so are American Communists and Islamic terrorists.

McVeigh's mass murder of civilians and children were compleley inconsistant with libertarian and conservative beliefs and were condemned as such by the Libertarian/Michigan Milita/Michigan GOP movements.

So what is your point? That conservatives and libertarians advocate mass murder? Please tell me this isn't the case!

RE: US Greens and Libertarians together -- nope. The Greens have an inconsistant platform, but if they claim any tradition it is with the romantics/socialists. And the two parties share very few actual policies.

"If I were a German Green I'd just be offended and threaten to fight you in the street."

You would use violance against me because of political beliefs? Street fighting, an old Nazi tradition....

But I didn't say all Leftists (including Greens) were racists or anti-semites, only that they share traditions with Parties or idealogies which have (hence the large number of Leftist anti-semites).

This whole thread just shows the inadequacy of the various terminology. These terms are quite often used in intellectually dishonest ways, I'm not disparging anyon here for that, to paint someone one way or another.

The origins of the left and right terminoloy from the french revolution really don't even apply to american politics. In american politics you can say the Dems are obviously more socialistic than Reps. But even that is not that accurate. A number of Dems are statists in that they think government can and should do some things, but they don't necssarily think capitalism is bad. Some Dems are full on socialistis though. But Dems can't admit to being socialistic because that's a bad word in american politics so they prevaricate. The Reps do the same thing on other issues, of course.

But it seems to me that the Reps condemn the crazier elements of their side and the Dems have embraced an element of the crazy progressives. I'm purposely not using left and right terminolgy. This is because a) its confusing b) its the leadership of the parties not some "side" that are responsible for what they do and c) This whole right/left is just a manifestation of the True Believer needs an enemy phenomenon. Are libertarians part of the "right"? They tend to agree with alot of democrats who are apparently "left" on issues such as free speech and gay marriage. If your a fanatic you need an enemy and so people make up sides even though they don't really exist.

I dunno, Willem: Trotsky? He was a totalitarian. All power to the mob, and here's hoping they murder the rich, rather than an elite group murdering the rich. Anti-elitism isn't anti-totalitarianism. Hard to picture ol' Trotsky the terrorist as championing "the sanctity of the individual".
Posted by Jim at October 8, 2004 10:16 AM
*****************************************
I agree I have heard armchair Marixists praise Trotsky and claim that all the faults of the Soviet Union could be laid upon Stalin's betrayal of the Revolution, of course they ignore Trotsky's essays on the necessity to exterminate the Kulaks when they do this.

ctob: I completely agree that Left/Right is an arificial construct (created by socialists) to help expand their control. Let's not bury historical fact. The fact is that national socialists and international socialists spring from the same tradition.

What are the implications of this? Of what relevence? Well quite a bit if you seeking to understand the world better.

But the immediate use is to dynamite the
propaganda that "Conservatives = Nazis" and "Free Enterprise = Fascism."

That is why I feel this is valid discussion.

geek, esq -

I'm not going to draw a broad conclusion about "the left" based on this:

http://pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1097227258250840.xml

Does it ever strike you that they don't use prefixes like "Democratic Senator Vince Fumo ..." in articles like that? I had to scan down to the fourth paragraph to distinguish for sure that he was a Dem (though it was implied).

While I find all the back and forth postings informative, well written, and even sometimes amusing, I want some questions answered about the original topic of this thread: Why did the FBI "order" the turn over of the hard drives, was there a legitimate subpoena or search warrant signed by a Federal Judge, and if these hard drives were physically located on foreign soil does a US subpoena/warrant hold water? Can we get back to that?

>>>>>"Conservatives = Nazis" and "Free Enterprise = Fascism.":

Certainly more plausible than "Greens=Nazis."

A more accurate representation of my argument is that "Conservatives:Fascists as Progressives:Socialists as Liberals:(Anarchists? Survivalists?)"

Maybe you know this, but the Greens are considered "Left-Libertarian" in Political Science. And I assure you that not all political scientists belong to the VLWC.

>>>>A) national socialists and international socialists share the same tradition of romanticism and socialist classial economic thought and B) American conservatives are actually of the liberal tradition with no roots in fascism or national socialism.

You've sorely missed the point I've been trying to make. Romanticism as a Political Philosophy has NO theory of economics; it's all culture and Volk.

Yes, Marx has roots in Hegel, who could rightly also be called an influence for later Romantics like Nietzche. BUT Marx and the Romantics came to two diametrically opposed conclusions (class matters vs. nations matter) from the same base assumptions (that groups, not individuals, are the drivers of history; that history is a history of conflict, etc.). They were contemporaries; Marx is not a Romantic disciple.

It's also worth it to note that while Romantics accepted Hegel's argument that it was nations that do the moving, Marx worked hard to turn Hegelian philosophy on its head. Read "the German Ideology," where Marx argues the Hegelians got it all wrong, essentially because they had their heads up their asses, and couldn't see what was actually going on in real life (history as materialistic, not value-driven).

If there is a true ideological descendent of the Romantics, it is the neo-consservatives that this board seems so fond of. They too believe in teleological history and world-historical struggles. When I see this Administration, the historical movement I'm most reminded of is Bonapartism; making the world safe for liberty, fraternity, equality one conquest at a time (the Bonapartists, at least initially, left a string of semi-democracies in their wake).

>>>>Karl Marx wrote "On the Jewish Question." So there.

Tbear, have you actually read "On the Jewish Question" beyond the title? I'll refer you to the Wikipedia (which you seem so fond of appropriating to come to wrong conclusions) entry on Marx, which considers "On the Jewish Question" as an ironic deconstruction of Bruno Bauer. I admit I've only skimmed the work (it's online and easily accessible), but that was my takeaway BEFORE reading the Wikipedia piece. Marx, of course, was Jewish and had anti-Jewish attidutes, but you're not reading very deeply into the piece if you think that's what it was about.

>>>>>>"McVeigh's mass murder of civilians and children were compleley inconsistant with libertarian and conservative beliefs and were condemned as such by the Libertarian/Michigan Milita/Michigan GOP movements."

The Saudis condemned Bin Laden after 9/11...that doesn't mean they haven't encouraged or supported him over the years.

McVeigh's attack was an explicit attack on the American Government, which he saw as trampling on his freedoms (he and Nichols had a specific shared reverence for the 2nd Amendment; "an American with a gun is a Citizen, an American without a gun is a Subject"). It is unlikely, but unknowable, that he saw the employees of the Murrah building as "civilians" at all.

"But it seems to me that the Reps condemn the crazier elements of their side and the Dems have embraced an element of the crazy progressives."

You mean crazier elements like the Christian Coalition? Or the Klan? That's sort of the major Right-Far Right linkage I've left out; anyone remember David Duke? Anyone remember what he ran as? By even letting him in the US Presidential race, the Republican elite tacitly supported his past life as Klan Wizard.

Bill--

Idiot Dem and an even worse reporter.

Plenty of idiots on both sides, as we both agree.

"3) I would like to see a citation on his supposed beliefs. McVeigh was certainaly anti-US government, but so are American Communists and Islamic terrorists."

Go to:

time.com/time/2001/mcveigh

And then look for the "Interview with Tim McVeigh" from 1996. It's not all politics in there, but his grievances with the government are pretty standard Libertarian faire.

As for the connections, it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist. McVeigh and Nichols attempted to join the Michigan Militia (attended meetings, but couldn't get a membership), and Terry's brother James was a member. The Oklahoma bombers allegedly provided weapons to Militia leader Mark Koernke, according to the federal government.

The rest, the Michigan Militia-->NRA-->Republican elite isn't hard to figure out. Friends in low places.

What a lot of people forget is that this isn't the first "War on Terror" we've fought; America quite successfully prosecuted a war on the domestic terrorism, Libertarian survivalist militias, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, and at least 80% of those militias disbanded.

Anyone rembember why George HW Bush gave up his NRA membership? In a letter he sent to the media, Bush criticized a letter sent by NRA honcho Wayne Lapierre days after the OKC bombing, in which he called the government "jackbooted thugs."

1) It isn't more plausible, and Greens certainly have their roots in romanticism and the socialist classical economists. The rest of your "argument" is gibberish or a pathetic appeal to authority (a fallacy).

2) You are digging your own hole here. Marx was certainly a romantic and shared the same premises (as you admit).

3)And I did't claim that romanticism included economic theory, only that Marx was both a romantic and an advocate of socialist economic theory (from Ricardo et al) and subsequently both these ideas were a strong influence on both national and international socialism.

4) Your understanding of the neocons is laughable. Neocons are people, not ideas. The particular ideas of neocons is across the board, but most are just regular National Review conseratives. (Cute how you kiss the arse of the Bonapartist totalitarians.)

5) I read it online. And thank you for again proving my point of anti-semetic traditions in Marxism and its socialist kissing cousins.

6) I am a conservative/libertarian and I consider McVeigh a murderous, terrorist fuck. Am I lying? Are all libertarians and conservatives lying when they agree with me? PS: Advocating the 2nd Ammendment is not the same advocating murder. Fuck you for me having to explain that.

7) Speaking of the Klan, how is US Senator Robert "N-Word Lovin" Byrd doing these days? Anyone know his party affilation and thoughts on the Iraq War?

www.salon.com/books/2001/04/07/ mcveigh

A further piece by Salon. If you don't trust the credibility of my sources, we can talk about this further.

What poop.

Being anti-US government is not the same as being a libertarian.

Libertarians are against the initiation of force. Look it up in Wikipedia dumbshit.

"McVeigh and Nichols ATTEMPTED to join the Michigan Militia"

(Emhapsis mine) Can you read, retard?

"The rest, the Michigan Militia-->NRA-->Republican elite isn't hard to figure out"

Look up "non sequitur" too, you moron.

The rest is a crock of shit based on branding NRA and Libertians as "domestic terrorists."

You get a good glimpse of the leftist mentality here: Own a gun, vote Republican or Libertarian = "terrorist."

Blow up a school bus or punch someone because they are Republican = "activist."

PS: I wouldn't encourage you to try to attack me in the street like the good street-fighten man you are (as per your earlier threat).

There is a reason such political thuggary is discouraged in the US, and it is directly related to the 2nd Ammendment.

Wow! Did I touch a nerve? I get told to eff myself AND I get called a moron, all in the space of an hour!

The personal insult is the last resort of the beaten man. Not that I don't do it, myself. But I certainly don't base my arguments on ad hominem attacks.

McVeigh's comments in Time are very traditional libertarian comments. The man took his own personal philosophy, and carried it out to what he thought were the logical conclusions.

>>>>1) It isn't more plausible, and Greens certainly have their roots in romanticism and the socialist classical economists.

Show me a cite, or at least throw out the name of a text where I might find support for your argument. It's that simple.

>>>>2) You are digging your own hole here. Marx was certainly a romantic and shared the same premises (as you admit).

Oh, I didn't realize that you were a Marx scholar as well as an expert on 20th Century German politics. Marx's roots are in Kantian/Hegelian ideology, just as the Romantics, though as I've stated they came to diametrically opposed conclusions. Saying that the two are therefore equivalent is like calling Nazis, Republicans, Communists, and Democrats the same because they all believe in the concept of government.

>>>socialist economic theory (from Ricardo et al)

Ricardo has nothing to do with socialist economic theory. Ricardo wrote specifically on Comparative Advantage, and was unquestionably a Liberal in the tradition of Adam Smith. Basic Political Economy. Marx addressed Ricardo in his work...only to dismiss his theory. Of course by your logic, because Marx addressed Ricardo, Marx is a Libeal.

4) Your understanding of the neocons is laughable. Neocons are people, not ideas.

Of course, Romantics are people, as well. But they are also people that are easily identifiable for a particular ideology. You don't have to look to hard to see what unifys the neo-cons.

5) I read it online. And thank you for again proving my point of anti-semetic traditions in Marxism and its socialist kissing cousins.

And you no doubt ignored both the Wikipedia analysis that "On the Jewish Question" was not anti-Semetic AND are unfamiliar with critical reviews from Robert Tucker, late of Princeton, who stated rather explicitly that "OtJQ" was not anti-Semetic. God forbid you engage with facts.

6) I am a conservative/libertarian and I consider McVeigh a murderous, terrorist fuck. Am I lying?

See...there you go again. McVeigh=Libertarian so all Libertarians=Terroists is the same sort of error of reasoning you've been making all along. Like saying Greens and Nazis are the same. Or anything but classical Liberals = Nazis.

I'm sure you're not a terrorist (well...PRETTY sure). I'm also sure that some classical Liberals/Libertarians (by belief, if not affiliation) are or have been domestic terrorists (McVeigh and Nichols being the most prominent examples). I'm also fairly sure that the whole survivalist milleu that springs up through the NRA and the Militia's (all this talk about "Big Brother" and "jackbooted government thugs") does nothing but encourage them.

7) Speaking of the Klan, how is US Senator Robert "N-Word Lovin" Byrd doing these days?

Racism affects both Left and Right; no argument there. Is Byrd a Klan affiliate? Do you have a cite to prove it? Because it's indisputable David Duke was Klan, and it's also indisputable that he contested the Republican Primary for US president, and was an elected Republican official.

Furthermore, does the fact that there are racists on the Left somehow erase the fact that there are racists on the Right? Does the fact that there are terrorists on the Left change the fact that there are terrorists on the Right?

>>>>>"McVeigh and Nichols ATTEMPTED to join the Michigan Militia" [Emphasis Mine] Can you read, retard?

I can, and apparently I can parse sentances, as well. I acknowledged that the two were not official members of the militia. I also noted that Terry Nichols' brother James WAS, and that the OKC bombers have ties with Militia leaders, who have ties with the NRA, etc.

In the future, attempt to read for the intended context and meaning, rather than interpreting phrases as you see fit.

It's good to see that rather than engaging with the argument, you go for the whole "He's a Liberal! Look at him and laugh!" ad hominem track.

What I find most amusing about this argument is that so far you've been unable to marshal any citation, even a partisan one, in favor of your views. Though I'm doing some political and historical analysis here, I can at least point you to the specific texts I'm using, some authors or scholars who can roughly support my views.

If you want this conversation to continue, please begin doing the same.

And thanks for threatening to shoot me, by the way.

Wow! Did I touch a nerve? I get told to eff myself AND I get called a moron, all in the space of an hour!
Posted by moebius at October 8, 2004 05:11 PM
**************************************
Then I must also have touched a nerve when you directed towards me

"you're crazy. Or ignorant. Take your pick"

I pick crazy, in an insane world sanity is vastly over rated' ;-)

Oops..mabye I should be charitable: you DID use two cites:

-You used the Wikipedia info on National Socialism, and got their links to Socialism completely wrong.

-You cited a Marx piece, the content of which you may or may not have read, then perceeded to "not get the joke," in opposition to what's been written by relatively objective academics on the subject.

Dan Kauffman:

Fair enough, and my apologies. In my defense, I hope my insults are at least artful...and certainly more restrained than calling someone a "retard" or telling them to go f*** themselves.

RE: False assertion that McVeigh was a libertarian:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

RE: Greens as part of the romantic tradition

Read their platform. Compare with romantics such as Rousseau. Rinse. Repeat.

"Oh, I didn't realize that you were a Marx scholar"

Fallacy: Appeal to authority.

Plus I never said they were equivalent, just that they shared roots and premises. No soup for you.

"Ricardo has nothing to do with socialist economic theory."

See: Labor Theory of Value

RE: Neocons

There are many non-romantic neocons. Hint, they write for National Review. They call themselves "conservatives."

RE: "On the Jewish Question"

I didn't say it was anti-semetic, only that it was a source of some of the anti-semtic tradition you see on the Left. Do you own reading glasses??

RE: McVeigh=Libertarian

This simply is a dishonest lie and a pathetic smear.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

RE: Or anything but classical Liberals = Nazis.

I never said this either.

"I am also sure that some classical Liberals/Libertarians (by belief, if not affiliation) are or have been domestic terrorists"

Name one. And McVeigh is not a libertarian.

RE: "all this talk about "Big Brother" and "jackbooted government thugs"

I will remember this next time you whine about the Ashcroft "Police State."

RE: Racists on the Right

I don't deny there are racists on the Right. But I deny they are really libertarians or conservaives.

RE: Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd

Look it up.

RE: Duke no longer welcome in GOP

Look it up.

"Terry Nichols' brother James WAS, and that the OKC bombers have ties with Militia leaders, who have ties with the NRA, etc."

Fallacy: non sequitur

PS: It's neat to see you dodge most of my points. Makes my day.

RE: Your pathetic appeals to authority

A fallacy. Look it up.

"And thanks for threatening to shoot me, by the way."

Nope. I didn't. I said I might if you tried to attack me in the street, as you threatened to do.

Next.

You cited a Marx piece, the content of which you may or may not have read, then perceeded to "not get the joke," in opposition to what's been written by relatively objective academics on the subject.

Posted by moebius at October 8, 2004 05:22 PM
***************************************
Some of my sources on the subject of Marxism are by no means "objective academics, they live in what used to be called Lenningrad. ;-)

PS If you take the electric Train from Kupchino and go one stop past Pushkin to Pavlovsk (costs about 16 rubles or maybe 50 US cents) there is a REALLY neat restaraunt modeled on an old style Russian Wooden Fortress communal dwelling. I recommend the elk or reindeer, pass on the bear it's kind of greasy. ;-)

2280 http://harley-parts.owns1.com harley parts
harley davidson parts
motorcycle parts

6486 http://harley-parts.owns1.com harley parts
harley davidson parts
motorcycle parts

2331 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org

4597 You can take Generic Viagra to cure ed. We also offer name brand Viagra

5684 http://www.slots-big.com slots
online casinos
poker online.
internet poker
online poker
online poker

6556 http://www.online-casino-one.com
online casino
craps