I can't say as I can really relate fascism to the tea bagger movement, though I guess they're indirectly controlled by organizations that are very fascist regimented.

I.E. the church.

Who?

Fascism comes to every country wrapped in its national colors. It has worn the stars-and-stripes before...And the maple leaf, too.

I loathe little three-word-slogans and quotes. Too often they don't make the argument that needs making, and only turn into a sort of 'blipvert battle' between people who don't grasp the actual causes or effects of what they are arguing about but merely parrot whatever seven-second phrase they heard on the TV or radio.

Unfortunately, most of the populace of any nation is prone to "TL;DR."

The cleverness of the quote I used is not that it tells us that facism comes disguised as nationalism. Anyone in Europe over thirty would know that. It's clever because it addresses a misconception among many Americans that facism is an *external* threat. It isn't and never reall has been. Like anywhere else, facism is an *internal* threat.

Tremendously so. There was an experiment that supposedly took place not terribly far from here wherein a high school teacher was asked by one of his students why the Germans allowed themselves to be led into doing the things which they did.
His response was to gradually inculcate into his class some of the elements of fascism, putting in different methodologies for study and behavior and pointing out that this differentiated them from the other students who were 'doing poorly'.
One of the more terrifying elements of the story has to do with the way in which he presented these various little behaviors and rules as nurturing. Students worked together to keep each other up to date with schoolwork, etc., and in the end the system even subverted the parents.
After a few weeks time, he revealed exactly what he had been doing, and exactly what the students had participated in.
Needless to say, it Did Not End Well.

The roots of fascism are identical to the roots of many other social organisms. A desire to better one's self and one's station, to be accepted as part of a community, and to feel productive and like one is "making a difference".

Unfortunately, most people in the "Western Hemisphere" no longer have direct experience with fascism when it is labeled-as-such. The methods and root behaviors continue, and are employed by groups as diverse as orders of priesthood and business teamwork consultants.

"Unfortunately, most people in the "Western Hemisphere" no longer have direct experience with fascism when it is labeled-as-such."

I agree. In fact, I'm rather disturbed by the degree to which the responses to this image have demonstrated the truth of what you say.

I think we are in agreement on several things, but not all. Lots of little specific items we profoundly disagree on.

But you don't have to be on the same side (or on any particular side) to see someone whipping a mob to a lather and say 'They're about to point that at someone, and it's about to get ugly, and that will be bad for _everyone_.'

Actually the southernmost countries in South America all went through fascist, dictatorial regimes starting in the mid seventies, some of which went as far as the late eighties. Indoctrination on reprehending subversive elements (including torture and kidnapping methods) were happily supplied by the US intelligence, as it was believed that having inhuman military regimes was preferable to a communist outbreak in Latin America.

So yeah, a sizable part of the western hemisphere has had semi-recent experience with fascism. We've yet to account for thirty thousand missing persons where I live, thanks to that.

IMHO the US deserves it's own fascist backslash. It was about damn time it finally turned against it's own propagators.

The CIA has a lot to answer for... but you have to be careful who you're with when you bring such issues up. In my experience, a lot of people will get angry if you call them on such things, and find ways to justify *anything*. It's always someone else's fault, they did it first, we had to protect ourselves... whatever. So you try to predict the reaction of Americans you talk to before you blurt out something about Noreaga or the Gulf War. You make enemies if you aren't careful.

I prefer to make enemies when I know I'm going to.

Living right next to the US takes a bit of tact, sometimes. We haven't been invaded (since 1812) and so far as I know, no Canadian government has been overturned or suberted by Washington (though some Prime Ministers have been far too cozy with Republican presidents). But there's always potential for hassles crossing the border, trade barriers, and a lot of lobbying against Canadian interests.

Quote: "I prefer to make enemies when I know I'm going to." Unquote

I can honestly say that I have outlived all my enemies. Of course, a few I took out personally, but that's another story. One I dislike getting into (its messy and makes people throw up on dining room tables.)

Yes, most people. There is a little place near Munich called Dachau. It has a nice museum. I'll never forget the visit with my school class there.

Visit it if you can. Then read up how it came to it.
Or do a both with a virtual visit (tells you quite some stuff as well including a nice timeline):
http://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/english.html
Try the Virtual Tour under 'Memorial Site Dachau'.

Now guess why I always worry when I hear fanatics anywhere.

Haven't been to Dachau, though I know of it. I've been to the museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The "medical euthanasia" programs leading up to the creation of the camps do have noteworthy bearing on this conversation, yes, so you clearly escape Godwin's Law.

I'm old enough that I remember when the first wave of revelations came out about places like Dachau, in the early 1960s. Before that, people just didn't talk about it, even if they knew anything. Most people only knew generalities. It think it was a series of photos in Look or Life magazine that really blew the subject open wide.

And now we have Holocaust Deniers... *sigh*

Don't need to. I grew up listening to my father and his friends talk about the European side of 'The War.' They didn't know I was awake sometimes, and became quite graphic.

Someone wrote a book based on that event at the high school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(novel)

Good book.

Hmm..they don't like government involved in medical care, huh? Let's see how many teabaggers are on medicare, then see how well off they think they'd be without it

The teabaggers are mostly old people too.

"NO SOCIALIST MED-" *CRACK!* "OH GOD MY HIP! Thank God I have Medicare, because my Social Security pension isn't enough!"

Oh the irony.

One of the radio shows in GTA4 summed up insurance companies really well: "If you break a hip, just DIE. Just kill yourself and DIE." Might not be the exact phrase..but it pretty much is :P

GTA from III onward, is one big piece of social commentary. A parody of American society, corrupt and desensitized.

And it's creators are well aware of that, and are smart for cashing in on it :P

Hard to say, but you do know you cannot ''opt out" of those programs, right?

Yes you can. If you already have health insurance through work or your own doing, the health care bill won't be effecting you all that much. And if it does, hopefully it will be that your costs go down. The point of the health care bill is to make it easier for lower income families get health insurance by putting stiffer regulation on the insurance companies.

I mean Medicare and Social Security.

All forms of insurance are risk-sharing schemes. (I mean that in a good way.) If people at no risk can opt out, there is no risk-sharing, and no risk-sharing plan. That's why you can't generally opt out of public health. There'd be nobody but sick people who were insured, and the scheme would go broke immediately.

In the current anti-social atmosphere, I wonder if it would be possible to mandate even auto insurance anymore?

Sure you can. Never have a job. After a specific number of years with no income, you get nothing. Just like me. Ask any housewife how much SS she has coming. Well, if she takes her husbands, she does. But that is a choice, because we (houseparents) do not pay into SS. As for Medicare, its voluntary. Even the new medical law is voluntary. you can either pay the fine and have no medical coverage, or file a waver that your religion and church do not allow you to be involved and pay nothing. But when that hip snaps, you cannot abruptly opt in.

The only thing in life that is NOT completely voluntary, is being born. You can even decided when and how you want to die.

It's not completely voluntary if you have to pay a regular fine in order to not participate (which goes to the same fund anyway). Of course I don't have any special religious reason, unless I lie, but then what kind of a human being would I be if I did that?

For most of us, never having a job isn't an option, not unless we want to live out of a cardboard box on Lower Wacker Drive. That's nice someone else can pay for everything for you, but for most of us, such dependence isn't possible or even desirable.

Ugh the Tea Party.
Pure laissez-faire=Corrupt business practices. And it's gotten to this point with the health insurance industry.

I figure the Tea Party is just the tool of the Insurance industry and Fox news. They have somewhat different agendas. The HMOs just want to go on making vast profits for delivering the least service possible. Fox News, owned and run by Rupert Murdoch, probably wants to run the United States behind the scenes, through fear and intimidation. But as F&I sells insurance, that's fine with the HMOs.

*nods* Pretty much. Why do you think Glenn beck is still on the air?

Because Glenn Beck is Satan's great great-grand-nephew?

I suppose that's one plausible theory XP He IS Mormon after all :B

Nah, his sister I'd bet.

The Howard Beale effect?

Last time I read history, facists were the second people to institute socialized medicine behind the socialists, and not soon after, to solidify their power, they outlawed fire arms.

Fascism is equal opportunity. Reading history should show you this.

Yes, but facism in the wrong hands can lead to terrible suffering and hardship, along with the inability of the people to rise up against a government that no longer listens to them. Look at the Baath Party, the National Party Socialist Worker's Party of Germany, the National Facist Party of Italy, and the Nationalist Party of Spain.

And at the other end? Anarchy, Plutocracy, complete social Darwinism.

He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither.

He who lives in fear, has already lost his freedom.

There is no single other end. Fascism is not the opposite of communism or democracy. Neither is democracy the opposite of communism or socialism or facism.

It is quite possible to have all these forms in play in the same government.

Academically. I was referring to personal control through the POV of a citizen.

Facism and Marxism are much the same -- collectivist, single party states with no accountability to anyone, power over the means of production, the media, justice, and every other facet of a citizen's life, and often have a cult of leadership (though a faceless committee will sometimes suffice). The only real difference that I can see is that facist states are more likely to play lip-service to property. The owners of industry and finance are allowed to keep title to their investments, but ultimately they still lose control to the state.

As for whether any form of communism can be practised by a democracy, the jury is out. The Marxist form seems to contain within itself the seeds of its own destruction. A Marxist state cannot be democratic becaused it is a one-party state, whose leaders are basically inviolable.

Most nations practise some form of socialism, though. Even the US. We don't pay $30 to the air traffic controllers before boarding a plane -- it's covered by taxes and a portion of your fare, as mandated by the government. Similarly, there are interstate highways. And what is the entire American armed forces if not a vast government socialist institution?

When you come down to it, socialism may be nothing more than acknowledging the right of people to manage their affairs on a community level. We are not just individuals. We belong to neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties, and so on, and have collective interests such as safe drinking water. When some bozo tells us we can't rule on water standards, he's claiming *he* has the right to decide the quality of water we drink, instead.

It's probably best that "socialism" (that is, community or collective activities such as garbage collection and police) be kept out of private hands. They are of vital concern to everyone, and should not be influenced by the profit motive. The purpose of a school should be to educated childlren, all children, since it will affect the quality of life for everyone in the future -- not to make investors a profit.

"Communism" might as well be taken as meaning "Marxism." We've seen that Marxism -- inherently oppressive and self-serving -- is unworkable. Now we're seeing that "Capitalism" -- a single value system in which profit transcends "life, leberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is unworkable in a different way.

Maybe it's time we just face human nature. We are individuals *and* social beings. Not one *or* the other.

Marxism and Communism aren't necessarily one in the same, and even Communism has it's various schools of thought: Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotsky-ism, Maoism. Communism is a specific interpretation and application of Marxism, which is primarily an economic theory.

"Fascist," like "Nazi" and "Socialist," is one of those words that changes meaning depending on who is using it and to whom they are referring. Generally speaking it refers to an authoritarian system of government characterized by extreme nationalism, a belief in cultural and/or racial supremacy and a worship of military power. Historically, most "fascist" governments came to power in capitalist societies and, despite their tendency toward centralized authority in all aspects of life under their rule, fascists have rarely challenged accepted capitalist doctrines on wages, employment, money and private property.

I've come to the conclusion there is no such things as Capitalism or Communism. If an extraterrestrial civilization were to contact us tomorrow, doubltless someone would ask them whether they has a capitlist or communist society, and their response would be "We have NO idea what you're talking about."

Communism in the modern age seems to be a mixture of ideas, not all compatible. It's part Marx and Engles stupid ideas on economics, part medieval peasant uprising (to rid themselves of cities, merchants, kings and barons... in fact everyone but farmers like them), part a futurist/scientific movement, and part nationalism. The one thing they all tend to have in common is no notion that things have to be paid for, one way or another, but somebody, or you waste resources and go broke. (Not, as capitalists would argue, WHO pays for them.) But then you wouldn't expect a classical scholar like Marx, who taught himself about economics, to know that. Nor a village of peasant farmers.

Ultimately, every nation on Earth practises some collective economic activity as well as "private." And what is "private?" GM? If a giant corporation with shared ownership isn't a form of collective activity, I don't know what is.

The wiser capitalists have, at this point, realized that "pure" unregulated capitalism (as espoused by Libertarians and their like) is as unworkable and intractable as "pure" socialism. So some form of "collectivism" (or what some might describe as regulation of markets) is called for. Unfortunately, capitalists are often put in charge of regulating themselves, and thus you get the recent banking crisis that nearly destroyed the world economy.

I think the generally accepted definitions capitalism and socialism are adequate descriptors for the economic frameworks they represent. However, "Communist" and "fascist", along with "Nazi" and "racist", have been so often recklessly hurled as invectives that they've lost almost all meaning (as demonstrated the arguments here over the specific definition of fascism). And that's unfortunate, as I think it is important for people to understand what those ideologies actually represent. Otherwise, they very well could sneak up on us one day, as Sinclair Lewis warned, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

I wish I could be around in 100 or 200 years. If I made a bet that in a century or two that people would no more understand why the 20th. and 21st. century world was divided into Communist and Capitalist blocks than we today understand the division of Renaissance Europe into Geulfs and Ghibilenes. But in the 14th. century is was all-important, and consumed tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in endless wars between the two factions.

The British National Party (who are pretty much british Nazis...)

forgot about them.

Facism = mob emotions being manipulated by a clique of self-appointed "leaders" who have an agenda of their own that would probably not fly with their followers if they knew of it. Fascism uses raw emotion to carry the day, rather than logic or law. Fascism depends on notions of a mystical bond between the leader and the led, that eliminate any need for a dialog, for accountability, and most of all for elections.
In other words, facism depends on the same theory of rule as any medieval monarchy.

No. Facism is the organization of a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. Meaning that wasteful spending is cut in order to make sure the entity as a whole survives.

I dont' agree. If you mean by "corporatist" a tendency to divide society up onto medieval guilds, there's something to it -- Germany in the Nazi era abolished parliamentary government, and replaced it with a king (the Fuhrer) his barons (party functionaries) and feudal guilds to represent various sectors of the economy. Like the guilds of the 14th century, they were only meant to represent to the king the collective opinion of the guild leaders about specific issues relating to the industry.

But there's nothing about facism that demands such an arrangement.

What I think you mean by corporatism, though, is the modern corporative agenda -- the total abandonment of governing by elected officials to the boardrooms of powerful undemocratic institutions like GM or Time-Warner. The privatization of public life, in short. Except that corporations aren't actually private ownership.

Corporations aren't owned by people, they're owned by the money that is invested inthem, and only that money can be held accountable should the corporation commit a crime or go bankrupt. They have significant rights (mostly to bunk on debts or shelter themselves taxes and avoid lawsuits) that real people don't have. Ultimately, a corporation is very like a communist or fascist state.

But it's fairly obvious that ownership and control of corporations can be taken away from the owners and management any time a totalitarian state wishes to.

So I don't believe facism is one and the same as a state run by and for corporations -- that would be called a plutocracy.

That's the definition of Facism from the dictionary. Deal with it.

Which dictionary? I'll bet each has its own definition.

Then look it up. Between wikipedia, Webster's, and the New College, you'll find they all say the same thing.

My Concise Oxford English Dictionary says --

"Facism. n. Principles & organization of the patriotic & anti-communist movement in Ital started during the 1914-18 war, culminating in the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini (d.1945), & imitated by Facist or blackshirt associations in other countries."

It makes no attempt to define the characteristics of facism at all, just gives it a historical definition.

However, "patriotic & anti-communist" seems significant to me.

My New Mirriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary says --

"Fascism. n. 1 the body of principles held by Fascists. 2. a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic governmetn heaed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

That sounds a lot like what I was saying.

No, that's nationalism. Both definitions are of nationalism. the latter is more of a definition of a dictatorship than facism.

Oh, but what happened to "That's the definition of Facism from the dictionary. Deal with it."? Is the dictionary now suddenly wrong because it disagreed?

it's the wrong fucking dictionary, and it's not an accurate description. it's talking about what facism became in the 1930's and 40's, not what it truly is.

Hmmm. It sounds to me, then, like this artist is an older gentleman who grew up with a different impression of what it was, because that's what it was in his time. And furthermore, it sounds like you're just misinterpreting this entire statement, because you didn't understand.

After all, if it has two definitions, then it's all perception, now isn't it? :)

Not necessarily. both "definitions" are descriptions of what happened between 1919 and 1945. I'm not denying that that happened, but that's not what facism is. It's like Christianity is a religion based on the teachings of Christ. What has been precieved is that it is a religion based on teh teachings of Peter, Paul, and the later apostles and apistles.

And would you tell Hammurabi that his idea of 'law' was incorrect, because the definition has updated since? It's not a matter of being correct or incorrect; language is a fluid thing. Rather, this is a matter of misinterpreting concepts. You and he both think the other is talking about something completely different, and that is what's caused this.

Law, no, his punishments, yes.

Stuck on the details, see the big picture.

Well, assuming that protests against a government who is moving towards 1930's style Facism is not facist. Wooing the populace by promising things that hurt the economy, praying on nationalism by promising to raise America's popularity in the world, that is facist according to her difinition.

Still too close. Zoom out. Stop letting somebody put their words in your mouth.

I think this sub-thread has pretty much lost direction and purpose. And there isn't much more room on the right side of the column to squeeze more replies into.

"Wrong dictionary?" Now that's just silly. My dictionaries are as good as your dictionaries, so there.

Mussolini made the trains run on time too... maybe. Hitler vetted the Volkswagon and promoted the building of the autobahn. Castro gave everyone in Cuba basic health care.

All it proves is that neither history nor human beings are simple, and perhaps even Moa Zedong did some tiny bit of good, once.

The thing that has to be remembered is that anything a dictator did well, a democracy can do too, and probably better since nobody has to be shot.

IF you can get the democracy to agree that it needs doing and how to do it. For a beautiful example of how difficult this can be, look into any histories having to do with the political and social lobbying on Southeastern U.S. Wetlands. It wasn't just the corporations, it was all the little people grumbling about how they needed the wetlands saved but didn't want _their personal_ oyster farm to be ruined in the process.

Democracy looks 'fair' but it isn't necessarily 'intelligent'. It's an ugly mess, particular when suborned by special interest groups and gross imbalance of wealth and resource distribution which makes a mockery of 'one person, one vote'. But it beats the hell out of having jack-booted thugs shooting people in the streets on a daily basis then standing by while "pro-government" protesters necklace anyone who opens their mouth to say things aren't working as they ought to be.

Democracy requires participation and by participation I don't mean just going out and voting, but actually taking the time to educate yourself and grapple with the reasoning and emotions behind your vote.

Strait Democracy simply won't work because it requires too much time of its people, it is nearly a full-time job just considering what you should vote on if you're doing it right. The Greeks got around this by having a dedicated voting class, but today we include nearly all citizens as "the people" in our common meaning of democracy so that doesn't work. Something else is needed thus the idea of Republican Democracy(Republican as in like a Republic, not Republican the party) and segregate out a voting class via a larger referendum vote.

As far as special interest groups go; while undo influence by a single group is unhealthy for a republic there are also no general interest groups. In other words there is no group that speaks for all or nearly all citizens as those citizens would speak themselves. Every citizen has a special interest in themselves and those around them and it is those interests combined and focused that form special interest groups.

Civil Rights for Women, Blacks, and other minorities were and still are special interest groups.

The Military and National Defense is a special interest.

Small Business is a special interest.

It isn't THAT our government listens to these groups, it has to as they are all expressions of the will of the people, it is HOW they listen to them.

To put it succinctly instead of reiterating specifics of Athenian democracy vs. what we have today, they listen to the loudest whiners and the deepest pockets.

If this place was run like an Athenian democracy, we'd have an entire shipping industry and manufacturing and bottling facilities devoted to hemlock-based drinks.

And there are days that doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

except that arguably said drink was brewed by a special interest.

Sure it was. But the way this nation votes within a period of a few years many of the larger, more vociferously opposed special interests would've hemlocked each other out of the picture _or_ seen a need to make a compromise and actually accomplish something other than sucking up dollars and time.

Imminent death is a remarkably priority-focussing experience.

I'm not saying it's the best solution, no, but there are days when lining up everyone who is stonewalling anything legitimate getting done in a row and handing them the purple kool-aid looks downright savory in contrast to the actual Washingtonian goings-on.

Democracy never guaranteed wise government. Neither did monarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, or any other form of rule. A wise king is as likely to be followed by one who is a total fool, and undo all the good of his father.

A universal and comprehensive education is the nearest thing to an answer there is. Democracies do not do well in societes where people believe Vishnu or Allah or Jehovah bring money and will keep you from polluting the water or exhausting the soil. Blaming Satan for the Jews or Sikhs (who make all the money or defile your temples) won't solve any problems either. Only sanity and knowledge have any chance of creating a wise society.

This is why conservatives instinctively attack public schools. Granted, they have flaws, but few of them are fatal or irreparable if the will exists to create truly impartial, nurturing schools. But the neo-con doesn't want that. He wants *his* children to learn math and business administration and Russian and law. He wants *your* children only to learn to pump gas for *his* children. That's the real, the ONLY motive behind private schools.

And once the level of public intelligence has been returned to early 19th. century values, democracy is finally safe... for the rich and privileged, that is, because it will no longer work.

It's simpler than that:

Democracy guarantees that people will try to vote themselves a free-lunch while complaining about taxes.

The rich and privileged effectively buy votes at this point by influencing what passes for political education more directly. I.E., they buy 'informative' ad spots and news attention, as well as directly renting the time of Congressmen to 'inform them' of situations they 'may not be aware of' (direct lobbying).

The big difference between Fascism and Communism is the former is a alliance between State and Corporate (or Industrialist) power, the latter is just all government with an anti-Capitalist bent. Both are totalitarian regimes in thought and practice, where the individual doesn't count, just the state, whether it be "the nation" or the "the party".

hm. french here. we were first.

Here come the gun nuts.

Tax dollars are misused.
This is pretty much FACT.

This movement, however, is such an egregious... production. A disgusting parody.

Agreed.

Money is made to be mis-used. Show me a house-hold budget or a corporate bottom-line that doesn't have a few dollars gone awry. Perfection is not part of the Human Condition.

Yeah, but the difference is, when Uncle Larry has a gambling problem, you get him help. :|

I should clarify- I'm referring to the fact that corporations have more rights than people, and that our supposed tax dollars are being siphoned into places where the arrogance of the corporate world squanders it away.

The news seem to side with them Evil Money changers, allways showing them rich bloated butt-tards saying No to anything good for our elders or public in general. Look I am sure if i were well off I could get everything I wanted like some spoiled brat but I'm not. Now good values and charity doesnt seem to exist when you have all the money and don't want to give back when its due, Evil greedy insurance people.

I agree, Doctors should get what they deserve, after all they do save lives. Now this shit about saving the asses of Doctors that made a mistake surgically is dead wrong!!!!. Be apologetic, do whats right and try your ass off to make things right. If you damage a life and didn't mean it,try to make up for it, fix it!. Pay the recovery costs and stays, maybe on some cases the emotional damage (part of the expense). But don't weasel your way out completly, just fix it and be right.

This message was brought to you by the Non'money changers of the world. Maybe Hippies too

The teabagger party is peaceful... far from Facism >_>

Peaceful? Not really... not while it's hurling racial epitaphs back and forth, and carrying signs that incite violence (such as inplying that the president should be shot).

I've seen nothing like that from videos or news.
There might be one or two people like that in a crowd, but they're all there because of the misuse of their tax money on unnecessary things the government's spending money on during recession..

You wouldn't see anything that cast a poor light on the Tea Baggers on Fox, who practically created them. CNN has a strong lean to the right, also, so might not be inclined to show some old lady screaming "nigger" at the president. But such incidents have been visible on the CBC, BBC and other non-compromised news agencies.

I watch all the news stations at different times.
The only time I heard anything bad turned out to be msnbc harassing a woman with a child, trying to place drama where there was none. It's only natural the news stations that are completely left will try to demonize the tea parties.

The tea baggers don't need demonizing. They are doing that just fine by themselves.

There is an entire array of concepts and subtext all over the picture posted above to be read, about this.

Like I said, you always get a few in a big group.
It's inevitable, so pointing out 1 or 2 instances doesn't mean anything.

You are right. In fact it has been found out that ADL and SPLC are the ones that actually run those hate groups. The best way to destroy the opposition is owning the opposition to make it look bad. Glen Beck is the same. At one time he is a patriot at the other he wants the value added tax. They took over the teaparties to make them look back.

Fascism in Germany started with a false flag attack, the burning of the Reicshtach.

In America it was similar: Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU

Don't forget all the other crazy bullshit GB spews on a daily basis, now.

Here is the thing everyone, yes a few Tea Party folks are racist and bigoted assholes who yell racial epithets and call others "fags". However in any large protest or movement you will get the nutcases, and we also know the media focuses on them. Thing is this happens in protests from the Right and the Left. After all look at these anti-war and anti-Bush protesters from last decade. Just goes to show when emotions run high, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, you will get assholes

Assholes are inevitable -- I gather Mother Teresa could be a real bitch when she didn't get her way. But ordinary people with quite understandable grudges are all too easily swept up into agendas that too often turn out to be crafted by the assholes rather than you or me.

The bad thing is that people believe him. But if you pay attention you realize he backstabs big time. Controlled opposition is very effective when there is nothing else to counter it. Fortunately, the alternative media is overshadowing these people.

any news organization that attempts to "balance" two views in a sort of false dichotomy by giving them equal weight is going to be inherently biased. One could say that CNN would be leaning towards quackary for example if they were discussing the politics of psychology, and then to debate the expert, brought on a phrenologist and gave a platform to espouse his viewpoint unchallenged by objective facts.

Since CNN often allows this to occur with politicians, and that politicians deliberately distorting (or outright lying regarding) the facts end up occurring more often from Republicans (which I can substantiate with a few data sets if you need to validate this objectively), that means that CNN implicitly gives more credence to the people doing the more lying by not challenging those lies, and explicitly when they "promote" a lesser regarded opinion to equality with the generally accepted one (such as with climate change or evolution), and thus exhibit the kind of right-wing bias it is accused of having.

my fave example of what youre saying is John Stewart pointing out how flat out lies or retarded statements get a last word in and the anchor will say "well we will have to leave it there" or something to that effect. and John`s all "what? no! " the worst thing in all public discourse these days is a total inability to even agree on basic facts before politic arguments are made.

News that doesn't spout a constant barage of right wing conspiracy theories about how Muslims and single-mothers and pornographers are ruining America for the Bushes.

But all news agencies have a bias. It's a question of whether they present fair coverage of the issues and give the viewer a chance to draw his own conclusions. I've watched Fox and CNN, as well as CBC and BBC. I'm well aware of the weaknesses of each. But if I had to watch only one, it would not be the hysterical, manipulative, often factually inaccurate political propaganda of Fox. CNN is better... but tends to leave things out, and rarely questions what its told. By comparison, the Canadian and British news services are informative and far more even-haded. If you can't tell the difference... I can only shake my head.

Maybe you're not looking for the news, but confimation of what you already think?

OK you little shit I unwatched you and leave

Funny. For someone who wants the media to be fair and represent all sides of an issue, you sure seem unable to take any dissenting opinions from your own.

well thats just human nature aint it? that whole "before you complain about the sty in your brothers eye ,take the log out of your own first"?

I've seen nothing like that from videos or news.
There might be one or two people like that in a crowd, but they're all there because of the misuse of their tax money on unnecessary things the government's spending money on during recession..

translation:
"I don't see it so it CLEARLY doesn't exist! YAAR YAAR, other people's experiences are meaningless YAAR YAAR."

http://www.alan.com/2010/03/20/tea-.....browining-can/
http://freedomwhacks.files.wordpres...../protestor.jpg

See it now? Look closely.

Sorry but the United States Major news networks are simply unpaid propaganda machines.

Pretty much why they are going out of business.

The Cartoon network has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC now.

The only one growing is Fox News.

We simply don't believe NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN anymore.

And some of us don't even believe in Fox either. I personally can't take them seriously especially when I saw them playing a youtube video of "keyboard cat" playing on the keyboard. I got to the point where I pretty much just take glances at the BBC and listen to what other countries are reporting on shortwave radio. I found probably the best thing to do is review multiple sources and piece together everything from those different angles. Something most people wouldn't bother even thinking of doing.

Not to mention that Fox News is just the Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity channel.

Fortunately we all have this amazing thing called the Internet. No one here needs to depend on cable or network news for anything.

Actually that can be just as bad if not worse and you have to be extra careful with your sources. Many fall into using the websites of the same TV news sources and their subsidiaries or even worse blogs. Now not all blogs are bad, BUT you need to read their sources if they even bother to cite any. Many times people will either make stuff up not citing any sources or end up citing blogs who cited another blog and so on giving you the grape vine effect.

"I found probably the best thing to do is review multiple sources and piece together everything from those different angles."

Give this man a cigar! Or a reefer, if he prefers.

This is so obvious that I forget to bring it up. Most people tend to find a paper or news channel or website that they mostly agree with, and will accept no other information from any other source. This makes one a sucker for misinformation and propaganda. You have to expose yourself to other points of view, other angles, and contraray information before you can make any meaningful analysis of a situation. In a culture where Britney Spear's prescriptions are of more interest than the tribes who make up the population of Afghanistan, this is bound to lead to things like... a stupid war in Afghanistan.

Another thing people should do a lot more of is read books!

"Sorry but the United States Major news networks are simply unpaid propaganda machines."

Apparently you haven't seen their profit statements...They're paid plenty.

LOL, for a second there I was afraid that my chosen career wasn't profitable! Why, that would mean that all the money I've made on it so far has been some sort of clerical error!

They said the same about a small Austrian man and his workers group too aka the National Party Socialist Worker's Party of Germany.

Hardly. You want to see tyranny, look at what passed on Sunday at Midnight and is supported by most no one living here.

No one knows really all what is in it, because we are not allowed to READ IT! The Soviet Union did this stuff.

This is the way third world countries work, not the USA.

We will see what happens next but the IRS is already being armed with 10 BILLION dollars of funds to enforce "Health care." Sounds like Secret Police to me.

A National Police Force under the Internal Revenue Service, how nicely Soviet.

In a few years I might be one of the guys fighting the same Air Force I retired from and still work for.

So the Patriot Act wasn't tyranny? Arresting and holding people without habius corpus based on warrantless wiretaps in the name of "national security"?

The "Enemy Combatants" classification of the Geneva conventions places them one small mark above Mercenaries by international law.

The single act of carrying out military missions while not in uniform exempts them from treatment as soldiers. They are not eligible to be Prisoners Of War and have NONE of the protections.

The only reason you don't just shoot them on the battlefield is to question them for information.

They are nothing but criminals for carrying out military missions while not in uniform.

Technically the Geneva convention allows prompt execution. They are not considered to be soldiers.

They are really classified the same as a gang bangers who shoot 6 people in a drive by shooting. Merely a criminal in the possession of the military captured outside the USA committing a crime against US military members.

Without this classification is is just easier to shoot them dead on the spot. Too much trouble to read Miranda Rights when being shot at.

So you change the subject. I was talking about domestic spying on Americans.

And what you just said here proves you're just a right-wing bigot.

Read this one.

http://www.infowars.com/transformin.....nce-operation/

^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS.

Oh the Patriot Act is tyranny, but this new IRS clause in the health care bill just another step in increasing government police power at the expense of individual freedom.

People should be against both.

How in the world does this expand government "police power?"

actually from some sources i read a dirty little secret is the irs clause really isnt even going to be enforced.the penalty is just to trick people into complying because the idea is to get all the healthy young people to join into the health system to make things cheaper as a whole for everyone including the sick and old

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/.....-as-passed.pdf

not allowed to read it lol

heheh, because facts and evidence are completely meaningless when you have a catchy slogan.

catchy slogans??? THE SOVIET UNION DID THIS STUFF

I've been watching your comments appear, one by one, and now I have to admit that I'm completely lost. What *do* you mean by "Sunday at Midnight?"

The Health Care bill. You know, the one "obAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWma" passed.

I'm guessing, then, that the bloody horror means the demonstrations and name-calling and posturing that went on after.

yup, pretty much.

So what then is the only democratic society you would care to live in? One with no laws or police force, where you take your S&W out and enforce your idea of right or wrong, however extreme or idiosyncratic, on your neighbor?

Paraphrasing somewhat; I disagree with what they say, but I'll defend to the death their right to show everyone that they're bigoted idiots with no real interest in the community's welfare.

I can't help but agree with you that even a demented pscychopath, waving his bloody axe over his head, has a right to speak. What's dismaying is that the streak of fear, racism, and paranoia in a wide segment of the population is still as deep and broad as the Tea-Baggers have demonstrated it is.

Also demoralizing is the knowledge that waves of popular hate-mongering of this sort are where facists movements come from. Hitler would have gotten nowhere without crowds of ordinary Germans who were disenchanted with the government, afraid of any number of things (mostly harmless, but some legitimate concerns), and looking for easy answers.

The Tea Baggers are the mob -- frightened, angry, and looking for an easy fix. They're always around, but when somebody is stirring them up, organizing them, and putting a name to their anger, look around to see who's pulling the strings. *Somebody* wants to be Fuhrer.

"Also demoralizing is the knowledge that waves of popular hate-mongering of this sort are where facists movements come from. Hitler would have gotten nowhere without crowds of ordinary Germans who were disenchanted with the government, afraid of any number of things (mostly harmless, but some legitimate concerns), and looking for easy answers."

Entirely true. What we've got going right now is, if you will pardon the irreverent reference to Aesop, a contest between King Mob and King Pork...And it's being stirred by a third party that hopes to come out on top.

On the other hand, anyone who has paid attention in an economics class can tell you that there are very real issues with allocating a significant portion of GDP to life extension of dying people. It's also not difficult to find families who have been bitten in the real world by this bug.

Sure. Everyone loves Grandma, but when Grandma isn't really 'living' anymore and keeping Grandma barely alive and uncomfortable is bankrupting the family to the extent that the children haven't a prayer of seeing higher education _or even their own medical needs met_ then there is a problem of priorities which needs resolving.

It is possible to interpret this as a conflict between the aged and wealthy (or wealthy in the sense that they are expecting to receive social security) and the young and poor (not necessarily impoverished but unlikely to ever see social security support in their old age).

Living on life-support is probably a concern everywhere, but I've never heard it stated as a major problem. Maybe the U.S. goes to much greater lengths to keep the barely living barely alive? It would make sense, since the US is virtually over-stocked with expensive, hi-tech equipment that hospitals want to find uses for.

In a way, having fewer Star Trek gizmos to go around could be an advantage for slightly less wealthy countries (like Canada. As a societ we pay far, far less than Americans for our health coverage. Maybe in part its because we let "grandma" slips quietly away. I'm pretty sure nobody will move Heaven and Earth to keep my worthless carcass breathing after I'm brain dead.

The funny thing about the situation is that King Mob and King Pork ought to occupy diametrically opposing positions. But they seem to be fighting on the same side!

No, here in Germany we also keep the barely living alive as well.

On the other hand, there was a case in Poland, were one recovered from a near-death coma after about 30 years.
Fell into a coma during the cold war and wakes up in what is essentially new world.

The problem is that you need general laws which might be unsuitable for some cases.
I know there are cases, were it would be better to shut the machines off, but there are other cases as well and the same laws apply to both.

And we cannot, at this time, easily tell which is which with certainty in the case of comas. On the other hand, if we're talking about someone's bodily systems shutting down (renal failure, heart failure, etc.) in a more predictable way, that's a little easier to judge. We can say with reasonable certainty 'We can continue to maintain this person whose heart isn't pumping on its own, who isn't breathing on their own, whose kidneys and bodily filtration systems have failed, indefinitely if we pour enough money and effort in. They may not be conscious or even capable of coherent, rational thought. Their memory may be such a fragmented mess that they are effectively in a vegetative state. But we can keep the Kuckucksuhr working, even if it won't keep time and can't make useful noise.


At what point do we say "Alright, we have spent enough. This person is effectively dead."?

That's why I call it a contest rather than a struggle. It's more a matter at this point of each trying to keep its own goals met without alerting the other enough to wake up and realize that they are allied to their own ancient enemy.

From what I know of Canadian healthcare, it is one of the more successful socialized healthcare systems (compare to Great Britain's which is quietly overdrawn at the bank, shutting down hospitals and offering less ability to support while still claiming the same "right to a level of socialized support").

It's troublesome, this whole business of life extension. Very difficult to legislate when to 'turn Grandma off'. On the one hand, if heroic measures destroy the livelihood of living relatives, it seems that there are situations where the law should protect people from destroying themselves with their own sentimentality (Is it worth sacrificing ten years of the children's education for ten months of continuing Grandma in ever-worsening condition?) and on the other hand it's very difficult for politicians to continue to get elected by King Mob if they promote such a stance when society KNOWS we have the technology to stretch out those last ten months and is terrified that when their turn comes such legislation will be turned against them.

It is in a way entirely akin to arguments regarding abortion; it is struggling to define a situation in which the rights of one person, who is a current, productive member of society, may be weighed against another person who is visualized as a 'nonentity' in terms of continuing contribution to society at the time the judgement is made, and defended in many cases by trying to show that 'non-person' as being a drain or a threat rather than a 'real human being'.

Dangerous ground for a politician to tread. A fetus is an emotional hotbed due to potential. Grandma is an emotional hotbed due to longterm attachment.

One cannot even fully rationalize it in terms of the 'societal contribution' argument I make two paragraphs above, because in various historical societies part of the contribution that the old made was raising of the young. It thus becomes tied into a whole 'nother can of worms having to do with education and with who decides what education should be and how much of it children should be mandated to have.

As the technology of life extension increases, however, it must become as important an argument as the technology of abortion.

Probably all that. I'm beginning to fatigue and don't want to go over it point by point.

I do want to say that such issues are best settled by scientific opinion. Consulting the bible to find out when someone on life-support is dead or whether they're alive, isn't a sound method. No more sound than asking Pat Robertson whether a zygote is a human being of a mere tissue or whether homosexuality is "natural." What does the bible know about DNA, peak oil, or global warming? Nothing. All idiots like Robertson do is look for something that sounds vaguley related, like "the snows shall not fall on Jerusalem, nor ice-hockey be played in the temple" or something like that.

There's no substitute for real knowledge.

I feel that - once you get away from all the bigotry and religious fanaticism -- a lot of conservative types in America are just that; conservative. They don't want things to change, especially not at the hands of the federal government, because they can only see a change for the worse. I think it is an understandable position. When I found that insurance was going to be mandated I too had that twinge of fear and anger, that here I was going to get another bill to make my life harder each month, with no choice but to pay, and that the amount of benefit I was going to be getting out of it would be pretty low.

MLK said that most of what looks like evil is actually ignorance. I think most people in this country won't really know what the health care plan looks like -- most of us have jobs, or we don't have jobs and are worried about that, or at any rate some other big things taking a lot of our energy. Some of us are ignorant because the only news we really get are what, Fox news? word of mouth? less biased sources such as AOL's filter on news? There's a lot of reasons to be fearful right now -- and all you need is a lack of information and people will go with what they know for certain. Even if that "for certain" isn't great.

So... it's easy to be ignorant. But I think that most people in the USA would remain opposed if they were presented with a reasonable sounding opposition to health care, or perhaps an actual counter-proposal from the Republicans. Instead what my more right-leaning fellow citizens, not the total nutters, but the bulk of people in the "red states" for instance, are getting to see are Republican congresspeople whose tactics are basically playground whining and name-calling, and a batch of fanatics screaming patent lies and racism. I think that even people who don't quite trust this health care reform can see what the Republicans and Teabaggers are pulling, and understand that those are not people who are really interested in making things better.

Most people in this country never read the fine print on the health care or medicare plans they already have.

Are you suggesting that peace-lovin', free, democratic Merkuns should have to EDUCATE themselves?

What kind of fascist/kommie/hippy/tree-hugging/gun-toting/insert-your-anti-special-interest-group-here nut are you?

*Tongue firmly planted in cheek*

Peoples differ widely in their response to the unfamiliar and to change. Ironically, America was once a "revolutionary" country. All the same, many of the founding fathers were profoundly suspicious of change and viewed what they had wrought with distrust. Many wanted nothing to do with democracy and Hamilton advocated a life term monarch elected only by the wealthy. Adams was more liberal, but still distrusted the mob.

Perhaps it was the dramatic experiences of the Civil War, the unsettled masses of immigrants throughout the 19th. century, and the difficult challenges of settling the West that drove American culture further and further toward conservatism.

It's interesting that the Great Depression actually reversed the course of conservatism for a while. But not the ingrained dislike of the novel has set in again.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often misattributed to Voltaire).

Its a shame, going to un-watch you now.

Your loss.

Just curious...

You watch and unwatch people dependent on how their political views match your own?

Sit back. Breathe. Enjoy the art. EVERYONE will say SOMETHING you don't agree with sometime. No exceptions.

I'm not going to stick around to debate, but to clear my mind before I go to bed I'm going to tell you that I have a lot of emotional focus placed squarely on this issue and I'm not going to support someone with watches who is going to perpetuate the "teabagger" garbage. What has been said in here is beyond ridiculous, especially given both sides. I'm not having that kind of nonsense around me. I put up and am friends with countless people who are FAR and away from my belief system but once I am insulted and those I know who are fighting for the righteousness of a strong country, then I will follow through on purging that negative influence from my presence. That's all I've got to say, that is all I will say, I've got happier things to focus on.

No sweat, I'm not concerned with debating, though I occasionally do discuss.

Good luck with your happy righteousness, strong country and purging of negative influence.

"Support" me? The numbers up their in the corner of my user page mean nothing.

All you're doing is depriving yourself of art you apprently liked, and doing me no harm at all.

I am curious though, what part of health care reform infuriates you so much? Or what part of the protest against it seems so convincing? I doubt I'll lose any sleep over the matter, though.

i saw eddie burke at a teabagger meeting in wasilla, alaska. he got on staged, called obama a "monkey" and waved his gun around in the air.

if the likes of him are backing these folk, i want no part of it.

Now when did Faux Nooz show THAT, hm? Oh right, they didn't.

the "patriot" himself http://www.themudflats.net/wp-conte.....ploads/or2.jpg he wore this to the Alaska Ord-64 testimonies.

Yup, that sums it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448

Scholarship on the Web? Good luck! Many believe that Lewis wrote these lines about fascism, but nobody can cite the actual source. For instance, as far as I can tell, it does not come from his novel, It Can't Happen Here.

But....

“When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism’” – An uncredited New York Times reporter covering Halford E. Luccock in an article published September 12, 1938.
-- Quoted from http://technoccult.net/archives/201.....aving-a-cross/

Is that source accurate? Who knows? The Web is filled with information, but is it also filled with facts?




Mark

I've heard that version too. In general, it's extremely difficult to correctly attribute quotes, because if they're any good they get repeated. You never know when you're quoting the second, third, or fourth iteration of a popular saying.

I dunno. My local Tea Party is pretty much all good government types, with the occasional flake off in the corner being politely ignored.

Your pic is more along the lines of saying "all furries are gay guys who hump plushies in their fursuits".

What? You mean furries *aren't?*

: )

It's seems counterintuitive to me for government employees to support a position that wants government cut back and kept out of people's business. If they get their way, won't they themselves be put out of a job?

Quite possibly, yes. It's called having principles.

But by 'good government types' I mean citizens who are taking an interest in good government, not just government employees.

"But by 'good government types' I mean citizens who are taking an interest in good government, not just government employees. "

Understood now. I don't think you'll find any fans of bloated government anywhere except in some government agencies.

Although, sometimes its just a question of six of one, or half a dozen of another. In Ontario, the provincial government sometimes talks of selling the alcohol retail chain it runs. Virtually no-one in the province wants them to do this. It would reduce revenues, and force taxes elsewhere up. As well, most people are in favour of controlled access to alcohol, and don't want to see it sold in every corner variety store at all hours.

But the Ontario government is tempted to sell their retail monopoly because it would bring in a large sum of money they could apply to the books. Better looking books would make them look better to the public... they hope. In actual fact, all that would happen is that they'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Government assets could be liquidated and the service provided by the retail outlets could be provided by private interests. The public, though, would still be paying for alcohol one way or the other, and paying the salaries of the employees, whether they are government employees or not. So the money just comes out of a different pocket.

Most people, in fact, seem to be suspicious that the price of alcohol would only go up. The taxes wouldn't disappear, and the company who bought the retail rights would want to add a profit.

This has been tried in one or two provinces already... and prices indeed DID go up.

So all I'm saying is that government employees are not necessarily an evil.

They can be, if they become over-staffed and inefficient, but that's something that could be said of GM or the Chase-Manhattan Bank just as easily.

True enow. And reforms at GM and Chase, etc. are way overdue at well.

Why do these people fear the Socialized Medicine so much?

I suspect mostly because they know squat-all about socialized medicine, health care in other developed nations, or even where their pancreas is -- (behind the kitchen, isn't it?)-- and they're *told* to fear it.

The only alternative is that some people will fight to the death for their right to die unattended in the gutter if they haven't got the bucks to save their lives. I suspect that aren't very many such people, really.

Those people got stupified. I bet they have never dealt with this topic before. Maybe someone told them that it is part of the "evil communism".

In germany we have a social medical system for over 20 years. People have a statutory health insurance or a private health insurance.

I have another question, what is Medicare?

Medicare is a government funded health care system for those on Social Security. I'm on Social Security Disability and claim Medicare Part A (hospitalization) and Part D (Medication). I have private insurance through my employer for the day to day coverage that Part B handles.

So what to think about Obamas plans?

Mostly it's requiring Americans take health insurance and removing many of the more egregious abuses of the industry (like blocking people with pre-existing conditions from being covered and capping spending on patients). It would also require businesses over certain sizes to provide insurance to employees, theoretically open up competition on insurance and provide subsidies for low-income people to purchase insurance. it would pay for it by raising taxes on high income taxpayers (something like $200,000+ year) and certain high-end insurance policies.

There's quite a bit more but that's the meat and potatoes of it.

Many of those things will simply cause Insurance companies and businesses to drop out of the now-unprofitable insurance biz.
So all of their customers can join the new socialised health care, adding to the cost for the rest of us.
Once a company can join Social health care for less than a private corporation can give it to them, then they drop it and join Social, too.
Gonna add up to a lot of people that they don't think of being added to the National Health care, and the cost will be much higher than "planned"

Your reasoning is faulty. The more people on socialized health care, the cheaper it gets for them. If you don't believe it, why does health care in Canada cost only about 2/3 what it does in the US?

Socialized health care is the norm. It exists in every developed country in the world except the US, and is cheaper than what Americans pay. You have the most expensive health care on the planet RIGHT NOW.

Could it be that Americans have cause and effect wrong? Maybe its time to try something else.

Are you talking in terms of per-capita, per-year, or per-visit?
No idea how you can rate how expensive something is if the individual is not paying for it. Governments can set prices, so that kinda breaks the curve.

And by "cost" I am referring to the estimated cost of the new health insurance plan for the Government. I think they are grossly underestimating the cost to the Nation, in tax dollars, that will be required to run it.
Which needs to be added in to the cost to the people as well, not just the health care, but all of the government that sits behind it and controls it.

Per capita costs. And yes, government accounting is every bit as "creative" as it is in business. One accountant I've read says it's more an art than a science, and can never be anything else. And following the dollar in health care is supposed to be one of the hardest trails to follow of all.

I don't know what sort of start up costs there would be to the new health care plan that couldn't be accounted for as ordinary operating costs, but maybe there are... Scrapping just one of the new design aircraft carriers before it's built would free up a few billion dollars to pay the start-up costs. Depends on what you want more. But I have to ask, why is government spending on helping people to get well worse than spending it on stuff to wage war?

a bit longer than that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_v.....e_Bill_of_1883

Yeah the Health Insurance Bill of 1883 was the very first one on german terretory. but was writing about the actuell one. ^^

Otto v. Bismarck was a very bright man, but he had no chance against Wilhelm II. >.<

"Maybe" is a grave understatement. Look up Glenn Beck and you'll see exactly what the problem is.

Well to be fair, our system is already partially socialized, we have Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Yeah, but it still needs improvements.

Fair enough, but I find a lot of people actually believe the system is completely private and run by insurance companies.

Lots and lots of improvements. As health care measures go, these are only a few band-aids on a system that undergoes no fundamental change. The US still has nothing like the health care systems of every other developed nation in the world.

But its a start.

Actually, it's not so much the program, it's the fact that it's mandatory and that they're not permitted to opt-out that has most folks upset. Big Brother and all that.

Oh bullshit. Being forced to pay anything is called a tax and that's what the 'penalty' is. It's enforced by the IRS and everything. And a tax that saves money is easier to justify than any other tax.

Teabaggers think the government is giving something free to black people. Once a black president had been elected in a landslide suddenly all those people who had felt secure in their belief that they had a 'white privilege' became angry. Actually their whole economic existence been seriously destroyed by the previous administration, so they were vulnerable to easy manipulation. These people were easy targets for Freedomworks and all the rest of the commercial lobby/PR groups. So they created an army of marching morons to disrupt town halls. Now they're going wildly out of control throwing bricks and trying to blow up representatives with propane. Sooner or later they're actually going to kill someone.

I grew up around the local teabaggers. They do their protests at a bridge two blocks from the house where I grew up in a town that was proud to have no black people and only one Italian couple who had to change their name to move there. That was before redlining was banned in the 70s. Now they're angry and convinced that Socialist/Fascist/Communist/Muslim Obama is going to come for their guns and send jackbooted IRS agents to their trailers. They'll repeat any talking point they're told to on Fox news. They were morons when I grew up with them. Now they're morons with anger and a cause and they're joining up with the revived militia people who hated Clinton for similarly stupid reasons. So all the crazies in the US are being gathered under one banner.

Hopefully that'll make then easier to identify when the shitstorm hits and it's every man for himself...

Are you talking about some kind of "White trash" wich is living in trailerparks and crying "They steal our jobs" while they drink Beer all day?

Something like that yes. The town where I grew up in has lost virtually all industry and now depends on stores selling cigarettes (slightly lower tax), clothes with no sales tax, and fireworks to people from other states. Whereas people from PA go across the border to buy liquor. It's basically a run-down slum attached to a strip of strip malls by the interstate. Oh, and the township is the first in the state to [url:http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/we.....695242]declare bankruptcy[/url]. Any sane person would've moved away years ago like I did.

Well, it's the Scranton area. Whaddaya expect? Pennsy as a whole is a shitehole, which is why I moved to the Ozarks.

When the economy moved away -- or should I say was allowed to decay away -- from industry, it stood to reason the old industry north-east would pay the price. A bank can be run from an office anywhere. So as the American economy shifted more and more to retail and financial services, the money went south and west. I don't blame the "rust-belt" though. It was done to them by thoughtless and shortsighted policy. Now the banks are leaving for the Pacific Rim or Duhbai. Its as easy to count money there as in Dallas or Atlanta, and cheaper. Virtually no taxes. No loyalty to any flag. Nothing but abstract money denominated in the trillions.

Heh. Even Big Daddy Warbucks has his HQ in a Mexican resort...

Mmm-hmmm. And BO and crew are nothing but sweetness and light. Pull the other leg, this one's getting long.

Anyhoo, my local Tea Party types are more interested in government reform in general, getting back to constitutionality and so forth regardless of party (they view the GOP with great suspicion as well). The nutbars are, by and large, politely ignored off in one corner.

I'm not sure that going back to Gilden Age politics will solve anything. It was rotten back then, and things have only gotten more complicated since.

Nope. But the current bloated authoritarian one-party regime, pretending to have two factions while both are in bed with big business, big pharma, big finance et cetera is no damned good either.

You are permitted to Opt out, for Religious Reasons. That about covers 99.999% of all Republicans.

"God wants me dead, and to suffer a while first. So get that mercurichrome away from me, Satan!"

(A confused Australian here)

What on earth is a teabagger?


I take it we're not talking about dedicated HALO players here!
(I'm guessing these are nits trying to evoke the spirit of the Boston Tea Party? (which was more motivated by rum import duties than tea, but what the hey!))

The "Tea Party Movement" is a group of mainly conservatives who - despite record spending during the Bush administration - are against government spending now. The name goes back to an event during the American Revolution when colonists dressed as Indians dumped tea into Boston Harbor to protest a tea tax.

As you can imagine if you're against them you'd find a colorful name for them and "teabagging" is a sex act I'd rather not get into describing.

Actually, a news reporter interviewing one of the earliest "tea party protest" groups learned they were calling themselves "Teabaggers." The Daily Show caught this, and made fun of them for not knowing what the term meant.

Later, several other protest groups were still calling themselves Teabaggers until one of the more mainstream news shows pointed out it also referred to a sexual act. At which point, the term was blamed on "the liberal media smear campaign" and totally disavowed as having ever been used by them.

Hell... *I* don't know what "teabagging" is. What sort of perverty do you think I am?

: )

No! Seriously! I never got past "rimming" and "sheath docking."

*snicker*

If you don't want to know, skip the rest of this post.






"Teabagging" is a term for when a man straddles a second man's face and rubs his scrotum & balls against the second man's face. Usually, this is done when the second man is passed out drunk, and photos are involved, to provide maximum embarrassment.

Oh yes... I think I've heard of this after all. Unfortunately.

They're just a bunch of crazies who are angry their neighbors overwhelmingly elected a black man president over an elderly pissy-pants senator who now wants to take his ball and go home.

I am, as usual, impressed by a foreigner who knows US history better than 99% of Americans.

It's my job.

... I'm a wargamer!

The "TEA" in Tea Party is also an acronym for "Taxed-Enough-Already".

More of a "backronym," in that they were "tea party protests" first, and someone came up with the acronym later.

The Tea Party Movement can be best described as a "populist movement", a common occurrence in American history. It's main focus is fiscal conservatism. It's origins stems from the 2009 Stimulus Deal and 2008 bank bailouts passed by the Fed by people who saw it as reckless government spending. There is really no singular leadership at all and it isn't run by any political party.

And yes, it is named after the Boston Tea Party which holds a lot of significance in American history and folklore.

Figure you deserve a more neutral and honest answer.

(no I am not a member of the group).

It certainly started out that way. The original protests were a quirky, interesting way by some libertarian-styled groups to get attention for their cause.

Seems to have been co-opted by mainstream Republicans & heavily backed by Fox News, now. The original, populist movement has been left in the dust in favor of a heavily politicised media event.

Arr - such is the way of the world.

If they REALLY want to protest 18th century style, they should black-up their faces! (Really!)

Well the large majority do not dress up in Colonial/Revolutionary style.

AS for "black face", the meaning here is the old late 19th/early 20th century minstrel show makeup technic of looking "black" and was very racist.

Yeah, 18th century style, it was a ritual way of 'officially' hiding your identity (which is why the "Boston Tea Perty" people dressed as indians - it wasn't a disguise, it was a social ritual).

Yeah, I'm just a big ol 17th/18th century history nut! ^_^
Huzzah for John Lilburne!

the "tea party express" is the perfect example of this

The problem with most populist movements is that they tend to --

a) reduce problems to a handful of easy targets --- like Mexicans or drugs -- and demand even simpler solutions -- bigger prisons or cutting taxes.

b) exhibit marked degrees of paranoia and xenophobia.

c) appeal to people with nearly zero education, or without the curiosity to have learned anything about people who aren't exactly like themselves.

d) a degree of bloodlust.\

So far as it goes, American populist movements aren't terribly different from populist movements anywhere else. Just substitute Hindu for Christianity, or Chinese immigrants for Jews.

It pays to know what your neighbor is up to and might do next when he's ten times your size and twenty times as belligerant. So I watch the news. But also, I read a lot of books -- many are bound to be about American subjects.

One advantage of living in a country with few pretentions of importance is that you know the world doesn't revolve around you -- that interesting things happen elsewhere too. I used to have conversations with American fans in which they came flat out and said that nothing of any important or interest had ever happened in Canada. When I provided them with a list to contradict one particular correspondent, he flately refused to believe any of it. That sort of solipsism makes it easy to overlook even one's own history.

Hey, why don't I post a picture attached to a barely related quote on FA, even though this isn't furry at all, or even something related to art.



What can possibly go wrong?

"Barely Related"? You need to go back and read through the comments, bro.

Go do that. I can look or not look, as I please. Indeed... what *could* go wrong? What *has* gone wrong? Nothing so far as I can see. We're having a lively little debate with only one or two spoilsports who have to quit in a huff or draw blood. We aren't supposed to be afraid of debate in a democracy.

Bravo, sir. Excellent use of the quote.

You know, you've always stood out in this community for having considerably more advanced knowledge and mental capabilities, not to mention maturity. Here it's displayed not so much in the pic itself, but in your subsequent comments.

You may also have perceived that, given the sort of people there are around here, my complement is not really as stellar as it comparatively could be...but it's about as magnanimous as an intellectual asshole ever gets.

I hope you have more appropriate forums in which to discuss things than this one. I won't say it's wasted here per se, but...

But, unfortunately, this lovely selection of "win" is in a rather obscure portion of 'teh interwebz'.

Alas, indeed that's true.

I have several reasons why I post things like that photo. It's not just to stir up shit -- but lifting a rock sometmies lets a bit of light in where it will do good. The debate over health care reform should not only take place on the TV news or on talk-radio.

There are other groups of people that I hand around with that are well-read and have thoroughly thought out opinions. You might say that the illumination is bright enough there that it doesn't need more. But furry fandom isn't an especially bookish place and not many real ideas are ever discussed there. So that's the rock I lifted.

That's my point - bringing good ideas and insights to people who are not what you call bookish (which is a rather charitable description) is a bit like giving a cell phone to a caveman, i.e. he's more apt to smash it or have sex with it than actually make any good and proper use of it.

It's on this basis that I call it a frustrating waste of time, but if what I'm reading is correct, you seem to see it more as an act of good will, an effort to educate or at least get people thinking.

I appreciate your optimism, but I don't share it. I think it'll take a lot of effort to teach the caveman how to call for pizza delivery. In any case, I'm glad to hear you're also positing your brain droppings in more appropriate forums.

Despite my cynicism and pessimist philosophy of life, I can be surprisingly civic minded. If I thought brining ideas to FA was a waste of time, why would I was my art here either?

Tea bagging!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rJ5.....p;feature=fvwp

Do I really need to know?

what's going on in usa?

Think Germany, 1934.

That's a bit harsh, the teabaggers aren't even half as organized as the SA

Lmao, nice.

It's not quite that bad... I hope. What I'm afraid of is that substantial number of people the in the US are becomming as disillusioned and impatient as the German people in the 30's, and that it may make them as susceptible to some demigogue with a half-baked simple solution, just as it made Germany susceptible to a takeover by the Nazi Party.

If the US fell to some populist movement, it would not mean that the people as a whole supported a dictatorship or wanted to immediately declare war on teir neighbors. Most Germans simply gave in to what seemed inevitable when they accepted Hitler, and little dreamed that his plans included war as soon as humanly possible, and a total suppresion of everyone's rights. So they accepted what they imagined would be small loses of their rights, or a loss of rights by some small group or other... but not them. And Hitler fucked them over completely!

No, things aren't that bad in the U.S. today. But it takes little to go over the edge, and matters might be a lot closer to that edge than we should be comfortable with.

Just the usual, people protesting, some are being assholes, other people see and flip, retarded comparisons to Nazis are made.

Otherwords, the usual shit.

Yeah. There was similar shit on the other side during the Bush presidency, and before that in the Clinton years, etc. etc. It's a constant in the political arena.

The one difference being these days we have 24 hour media coverage and every person with a cell phone or a digital camera can be an "amateur journalist" though the use of blogs and Youtube.

Otherwise yeah, same old story, just different players.

I feel sorry for the people who originally joined the tea party movement because they were merely disenfranchised with the Republican party. Now I think we come to find out that in reality, the loons run the asylum.

Corporatist interests helped shape this faction into a literal brown shirt brigade, and now any politician who made the mistake of using this base to their political advantage are trying as hard as they possibly can to distance themselves from the violent actions while still not explicitly condemning their behavior. I personally think that they don't want to explicitly condemn threats of ad baculum when a minority of people don't get what they want, because they sympathize with it. They want to be in power, and they don't like not getting what they want. Whatever it is they believe in, their values do not put democracy at its priority, as seen even in the semantics with the typical emphasis that "America is not a democracy, it is a republic", and yet as a representative democracy, the people currently in power are (despite their shortcomings) doing much more of what we elected them to do than what the opposition ever would've.

Please excuse the mostly pointless meandering in my post.

HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE LET MY INSURER FUCK ME OVER BY THEIR OWN RULES

**This bullshit sign printed en masse by FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and other 501©4 front groups for giant monied interests.

Hey! I just work up. Hadn't had a chance to see this before you fixed it. Besides, absorbing at least a book a week is reading, isn't it?

Only one? ; )

Yes. I probably peaked at about 150 books a year in the 80s. I don't think I read quite as much as that now, but probably close to 100. Reading comments on the internet sure cuts back on how much time I have for t.s. elliot, Patrick O'Brian and Steven Hawking.

"any news organization that attempts to "balance" two views in a sort of false dichotomy by giving them equal weight is going to be inherently biased."

Classic 'Daily Show' quote: "The facts are biased against the Republicans."

"Sorry but the United States Major news networks are simply unpaid propaganda machines...""

As opposed to Fox, the bought-and-paid-for Republican news channel?

"The only one growing is Fox News."

Yes, among the rightwing/tea bag zealots who need their delusions reinforced.

"We simply don't believe NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN anymore."

To quote a famous punchline, "What do you mean 'we,' white man?"

"We will see what happens next but the IRS is already being armed with 10 BILLION dollars of funds to enforce "Health care." Sounds like Secret Police to me."

The source for your info, please. (And if you say "Glen Beck" you're instantly disqualified.)

"So what then is the only democratic society you would care to live in? One with no laws or police force, where you take your S&W out and enforce your idea of right or wrong, however extreme or idiosyncratic, on your neighbor?"

Check out this week's 'Doonesbury' strips - set in a Starbucks where everyone is carrying visible weapons (as permitted by law in several of our most Second Amendment worshipping states.)

"Sure. Everyone loves Grandma, but when Grandma isn't really 'living' anymore and keeping Grandma barely alive and uncomfortable is bankrupting the family to the extent that the children haven't a prayer of seeing higher education _or even their own medical needs met_ then there is a problem of priorities which needs resolving."

The 'death panels' charge against the health care bill was a 100% TOTAL RIGHTWING BULLSH*T LIE. They took a provision - authored by a Republican or so I heard - that individuals would have the right to consult with THEIR OWN DOCTOR about their personal end-of-life choices. ('Do not resuscitate,' etc.) They knew that and THEY DIDN'T CARE as long as they could frighten and manipulate people with their lie.

"Why do these people fear the Socialized Medicine so much?"

Because they've been systematically lied to by people they shouldn't trust, to the point they ferverntly hate something that could actually IMPROVE their lives by for example, preventing health insurance companies from denying them needed coverage.

AND TO WRAP THINGS UP...
I think it's quite possible the Republican Party may have laid the seeds of its own destruction by encouraging and cozying up to these crazy fringers (okay, they're not all crazy, only 98% of them). Now that a lot of them are not just threatening but attacking politicians who voted for the bill (bricks thru windows, gas line cut to a relative's house, etc.) people in general are realizing how nuts they are.

Also, now that the media are reporting on what's actually IN the bill & not right-wing delusions/lies, people are starting to say 'hey that sounds pretty good, why are the Republicans so against it?" Not exactly the way to get a majority of the country to support your party. And if the Republican back peddle to try to win back mainstream voters - then the teabaggers will desert them too. As the old saying goes, 'good riddance to bad rubbish!'

Man, I don't think I have ever gone on this long in an FA comment...

I love you right now.

Gawrsh!

Wasn't discussing the 'death panel' bullshit, chum. I was simply talking in terms of economics. When your economy and legal system is becoming geared more towards supporting the dying than educating and enhancing the lives of the living, sooner or later something is going to have to give.

I took the liberty of tangenting off your discussion of Grandma, since that's the relative the people peddling the 'death panels' lie talk about when the subject comes up.

In terms of society allocating its resources, it's not a choice between the young and the old. Right now we're choosing to allocate trillions of dollars into a (to quote the 34th President of the United States) 'military-industrial complex' that enriches itself at the country's expense. (Rent "Why We Fight," a fascinating documentary on the subject.) Before you (or anyone) starts accusing me of wanting the US to disarm itself defenseless, no, I just want a realistic military budget, not an unlimited one.

In the meantime, teachers, police and firefighters are being laid off, libraries are reducing their hours, social programs and municipal services are having their budgets cut, while the military budget grows ever larger... A society that is unable to invest in its future.. won't have one.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

The problem comes back to big business, not the military. The military costs so much because big business profits ridiculously on what is seen as a necessity by modern nations. I agree with you that teachers, police and firefighters should not be laid off. The amount pocketed by the corporate heads should be cut instead.

Shame we can't cut some of those corporate heads for what amounts to 'war profiteering' in peacetime.

Unfortunately, those same corporations have a tendency to stick their wallets into the political arena and swish them around any time they want something done. And they have been very effective, historically speaking, at removing politicians that fail to toe their line.

The situation is not something that can be fixed by waving the magic wand and saying simply "Military spending is the problem. Cut back military spending."

The situation is tied up in terms of imbalanced economic and military power between a double-handful of nations, as well, so it isn't even a situation that can be easily resolved by the actions of one nation, regardless of relative GDP or military power.

I'll toss you another quote in trade from the same man:

"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field."

On the whole I applauded the election of Obama. I fact, I put in print the assertion that "the America we used to admire and look up to is back." That was a little premature, and I knew it at the time. What I was certain Obama would fail at, and is vitally important, is to cut back America's committment to the military policing of the world. It's costing far too much and the country can no longer afford the luxury of telling two-bit leaders of third world countries what the price of cocoa beans should be, or how many McDonald's they should open.

Obama has *no* plan for that... never did. Probably could not implement one if he had even thought about trimming the military's hedges.

But *I* have a plan. It would begin with closing most US bases around the world. Sure, they're handy. It's nice to know you can mount a surprise attack on Iran or Tibet inside of 24 hours. But is it essential? Aren't those 13 nuclear powered aircraft carrier groups supposed to provide that abillity? Bring the soldiers home! Let Europe and S. Korea defend themselves. They're big boys now, whose economies are, to be blunt, in better shape than America's.

Of course, you don't want to add all those people to the unemployment roles. I don't just mean 300,000 some-odd soldiers, but also the hundreds of thousands who wash their laundry, deliver their pizza, sell them girly magazines, and check them for venereal diseases. Also the people who manufacture bullets, helmets, spare parts for Hummers, stealth bombers and all the rest of the toys soldiers need to play with. Something like a third of the US economy is directly or *indirectly* servicing the military. You just can't bring all that to a screeching halt.

So, my plan is to simply fill up all of America's bases *in America*. Occupy yourself for a while. It'll keep the economies of parasitical states like Alambam solvent for a while and keep all those soldiers off of the unemployment roles as well. Gradully, you can build down the size of the army and those states addicted to being on the military payroll can learn to go straight.

Now, I can say this. The worst that will happen is a few of you will call me a commie or a hippie or something even less meaningful. But if Obama said it, I think he'd probably have his head blown off before the end of the week.

Not necessarily by some angry Tea-bagger, or by Rush Limbaugh either. More likely by some hireling of the CIA or Pentagon.

And did I mention, there's a whole bunch of black helicopters outside my window, doing a square dance with flying saucers? Yeah... I've already figured out somebody is going to call me a conspiracy-nut.

There's an element that you miss in terms of the effect those military bases have around the world. Part of it has absolutely nothing to do with projection of military power. Part of it has to do with getting diverse segments of the world familiar with (and hopefully friendly to) "The American neighbor as a part of community." Unfortunately, while this was a key element that was very much pumped and carefully founded in the past (Germany and Japan being the best examples), it is a policy which has foundered under administrations whose goals were not long-term on behalf of the nation, but long-term on behalf of themselves getting re-elected or getting their chosen successor elected.

If things had been handled as cleanly and neatly as they were in Germany in the late '40s, for instance, the Persian Gulf would be ever-so-happy to have American neighbors in there keeping those horrid expansionist evil Iranians in check and keeping the Israelis from getting uppity.

Of course, that's NOT AT ALL how it did work out, but if you look back you can see the shape of it trying to form and failing horribly as it is undercut by other governmental projects.

Yes it absolutely IS cultural imperialism. Yes, in the past it has been extremely deliberate and coordinated (but not since the sixties). On the other hand, cultural imperialism happens as a result of economic imbalance. You can't really make it 'stop happening' except by closing your borders to trade and tourism, jamming broadcasts from out-of-country, and mandating traditional language and ceremony. U.S. cultural imperialism at least in this organized sense was meant to try to create reliable friendships and overseas relations for mutual support, not the world's policeman but the world's usually benevolent older brother.

This may seem like a dishonest and underhanded policy, but you have to look at the alternatives in practice at the time. It beat the tar out of, as an example, how the Warsaw Pact handled East Germany.

We've forgotten how to go from 'You are a problem and we invade you.' to 'Sorry, okay, look, let us help you up, let us dust things off, fix what we broke, can we be friends? We'll be right over here.' in a way that works. Damn shame. As national characteristics go, the idea of making friends instead of the traditional step of handicapping enemies (a la the Treaty of Versailles) was one of the things that the old U.S. had going for it.

All hail Sarah Palin, Holy President for Life!

Ook!

Truthfully what is shown in the picture is no more radical or out there then all the other major protest and populist groups that have come and gone over the last few decades.

Meanwhile, to keep things classy, here's something from the horse's a- I mean, mouth:
http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/st.....us/10935548053
"Don't retreat - Reload!"

Nahhhhhh, that couldn't possibly mean anything else, unless Sarah's proposing everyone switch to water bomb trebuches, right?

As much as I'd like to know more, I REFUSE to read anything written by that crazy-ass bitch of a hick.

Hey, Taral. Overall, you are actually getting remarkably restrained responses in these comments. Not exactly what I expected. Commenters may disagree, and want to tell you their positions, but everyone's mostly been polite.

Makes me proud to be a member of the Furriest Party International.

It is most gratifying to see a 95% reational discussion going on. If only things were conducted with the same degree of civility and intelligence on the streets or in congress!

So opposing socialized medicine is now fascism, eh?

I guess that means that Communism is already here as its putting crosses in jars of urine and burning the flag.

Hey, the stinky skunk is back!

"Crosses in jars of urine"? Wow Stinky, that's a golden oldie from 19-f*cking-87* and sure is completely and urgently relevant to the issue at hand. [Covers mouth with hand to hide snickering]

No, opposing socialized medicine isn't fascism- but threatening people with death because your side didn't win a vote comes close. And besides Stinky, IT AIN'T SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! I'm not a doctor but I RP one online, and as such I'd say you're suffering from a clear case of O'Reilly-Hannity Derangement Syndrome.

Smell ya' later!


* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Just goes to show that the Commies have been here forever bearboy.

if 51% of Americans want to be communist, then america should be communist. Thats how democracy works. If the people we elected vote for socialized medicine, then we should have socialized medicine. Thats how America works and I fucking love America.

Fortunately that isn't how America works, that is how pure democracy works.

Thank all that is decent we are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.

Democracy are two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

If the people we elected vote for

But yeah, i don't like the party system either

if 51% of Americans want to be communist, then america should be communist. Thats how democracy works. If the people we elected vote for socialized medicine, then we should have socialized medicine. Thats how America works and I fucking love America

So since 68% oppose it then you surely agree that we shouldn't have Obamacare, right?

Or are you only in favor of democracy when the people vote your way?

Where did you hear that 68% of people oppose the healthcare reform?

Too stupid to click the link provided?

Then let me Google that for you.

That's right! I have a list right here of 57 names of known Communists who were signers to the Declaration of Independence, and a letter from George Washington to Nikolai Lenin assuring him their evil master plan was proceeding right on schedule.

And that's MISTER Bearboy to you, Stinky!

oh, cigarskunk, you're incorrigible.

but threatening people with death because your side didn't win a vote comes close

That would mean that you liberals have had the lock on fascism for over 15 years now and you don't even like the American flag or Christianity.

O'Reilly-Hannity Derangement Syndrome

Is that like the Bush Derangement Syndrom you and your's suffered from for the past eight years?

Assholes like you never cease to amaze me - you spend the past 15 years wishing death on people like Rush and Hannity and then suddenly you become the victims when someone finally wishes death back on you.

If it's any consulation though, I did condemn the violence equally to the way you and your's condemned violence against the GOP for the past 15 years.

Because Rush and Hannity are total fucktards, and Glenn Beck is the master of fucktardery. And I don't have a problem witht he flag at all-I DO have a problem with Christianity though, especially when it's in power. You know, shit like the Crusades and the Holocaust happens when they're in power.

Because Rush and Hannity are total fucktards, and Glenn Beck is the master of fucktardery

So its ok to make death threats against people whom you dislike personally but its completely evil to make them against people whom you agree with - fair enough, at least you're not pretending to be honest.

You know, shit like the Crusades

Christian retaliation against the Muslim conquest of Europe - real evil - I take it you would have prefered that Europe have remained under the rule of the ME warlords?

and the Holocaust happens when they're in power

That was done by the National Socialist Party - you know, the party led by a vegetarian non-smoker who promised the people of Germany gun control, universal healthcare and nationalized their auto industry to make the Volkswagon, not Christianity - stop blaming Christians for stuff the left did.

Not because I don't like Rush, Hannit, and Glenn; it's ok because they're hate-spewing bigots who corrupt the minds of whoever listens to them. Their abuse of the 1st Amendment to try and make themselves such worshiped people is tearing this country in two.

And that's only after they tore down the Roman Empire. It it hadn't been for the rise of Christianity (and thus the centuries of dumbed-down serfs and such), we would've been on the moon centuries ago instead of decades.

Who were not true Socialists; they simply used the name because it made people want to join them. You also seem to forget the fact that Hitler was a devout Catholic, and forced his beliefs onto others (killing all of those Jews, gays, "gypsies"...you know, things the church doesn't like.). Calling the Nazis left-wing is like saying Glenn Beck is sane; it just isn't true.

Not because I don't like Rush, Hannit, and Glenn; it's ok because they're hate-spewing bigots who corrupt the minds of whoever listens to them

That sounds like you don't like them.

But that's ok - at least you're willing to admit that your standard is its ok to murder people you disagree with but its bad to murder people you agree with.

No, I don't agree with murdering them. It's a fantasy of mine, but I wouldn't approve of going to that extreme. Also, my wishes don't reflect that of the party as a whole. And again, I DON'T like them, but that's because they're FUCKING HARMFUL. This whole Teabagger bullshit is the exact same bullshit that was going on in Germany in 1934; just a bunch of pissed off people who want to find an easy way out and someone to do it for them.

Actually this is no different from what you and your's have been doing for the past 15 years, so if you want to avoid Godwin, then compare the behavior you're seeing now to standard Democrat behavior since the 1994 elections.

Christian retaliation against the Muslim conquest of Europe - real evil - I take it you would have prefered that Europe have remained under the rule of the ME warlords?

You know all nine of the large medieval crusades of the 11th, 12th, and 13th century were fought in Asia and/or Africa, right? Not Europe.

Only Crusades fought on European soil were the following:

Norwegian Crusade 1107-1110 - Sigurd I of Norway, fought Muslims in Spain before crusading in the Levant.

Northern Crusades 12th through 16th centuries - Against various Slav, Old Prussian, and Baltic pagans to convert them to Christianity.

Aragonese Crusade - Pope Martin IV against the King of Aragón, Peter III the Great, in 1284 and 1285.

Hussite Crusade - Against "heretic" followers of Jan Hus in Bohemia in the period 1420 to circa 1434.