This is What They Promote

Grext xrticle!

To me free speech does not mexn one cxn shout down x spexker so thxt she/he cxnnot spexk. Mob rule!

I xgree thxt these mobsers xre hurting their cxuse.

(Three keys not working todxy!)

No problem, I can read it, Thanks.

lol Leo that looks much better than any of the attack dog postings.

Well, Leo. Brace yourself because apparently the Westboro Baptist Church crowd are here in San Antonio this weekend: AKA WIngnutz 'R Us
Aren't we just sooooo special... ;>(

That stuff was so sick, I couldn't read it.

Let's just call it what it is, schizo ranting. Phelps is gone, gone, gone.

Phelps is certainly alive and spreading hatred to the best of his ability.

Glen Beck apparently fantasized on the air recently about poisoning Nancy Pelosi. The nut does not fall far from his tree. They need to tone down the hysterics instead of stir them up. Yes, a black man was elected president but it is no reason to go off the deep end shrieking socialism.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, where Beck is concerned, Julia. Thanks for sharing that though, it's typical...

Well done, Ron. They are certainly an argument for making health care, with strong support for mental health, accessible to all. I know I certainly WANTED to take drastic measures at times when the bastard 43 was in the White House, but I was willing to use the tools I have, my votes and my voice, to make change happen.

That appears to not be enough for some, Em Jay. My point exactly, but I think the sane people out there see them, and this, for what it is, and that it isn't a step toward the American way, but one toward fascism.

I'm afraid you are right, Ron. My big question is how much more can this country take before another revolution occurs? Curse Beck and his cohorts anyway. Someone needs to jail him for domestic terrorism.

I've noticed, Ron. That's why I've been leaving the "and they have been buying up every gun they can find" comments. They have, and there are people trying to instigate the less intelligent followers to do their bidding (or shooting) for them.

Also why I'm not giving mine up... I've been threatened, even here on Gather, several times. One, I have to believe would have tried to carry it out, had he known exactly where to find me...

I hear you, Ron. A guy threatened to slit my throat, right here on Gather (and he's still around). I also mention this often, hoping people will remember if anything ever happens to me.

Are you keeping up with them? Do you have an arsenal of war machines? That's what they're buying. I wonder, when people say they have guns for protection, if they've really armed themselves to protect against what will be coming after them. ;-(

Well, I don't pretend to be able to take on the organized overthrow of the government, but I can keep a wingnut from murdering me, I think...

Ron, the wingnuts are armed with war machines. And they didn't use them to overthrow the government when the supreme court gave away an election, and when the Bush administration took away their rights. They saved them, bought more, and are planning to use them on the people who tax their "hard-earned money" or threaten their right to carry their arsenals everywhere they go, or who look or think a little different. These guys aren't buying a couple of hunting rifles. They're buying tens and hundreds of automatic weapons, and teaching their children to use them.

Then no, I'm not keeping up. Hopefully, the government would have some say in that situation, but of course, that would depend on a lot...

Well, yes, hopefully the government would have some say in that situation. But, the situation is that they started stockpiling when they feared "this" government would come down on their misinterpretation of the second amendment, and their gang mentality, and are threatening this President (and anyone who supports him).

Great post, Ron. They are turning off people who go to town hall meetings expecting common courtesy and being able to express their views or listen to other's view.

They are cutting their own throats. I hope Dems, Independents & moderate Repubs are objective enough to realize this & don't resort to the same tactics.

They do not realise the GOP attack dogs they support will grind them into the dust the first chance they get.

In many cases, they already have and still these Bushbots are too dumb to know it -- drafted to champion the don't tax me interests of the well-heeled.

Greedy people have a tendency to be that way when they fear that their money might be touched ... when money is the most important thing in their lives. Excess in capitalism has become a tenet of American Christianity, a belief, a right.

not to mention the ultimate hypocrasy of those so called beliefs.

And the connection between right wing bomb-throwers (or to the other groups--namely, the paid operatives of the insurance industry that are disrupting the town hall meetings) and the tenets of Christianity is...?

Help me understand.

I think there is a tendency to connect the religious right and true Christians that is unjust, Dave. Good point.

Thanks, Ron. You are probably aware that I'm a "left-wing Christian" and so I don't associate with many of those positions.

I know that, Dave, and appreciate that there are many that aren't actually serving the Devil, like Phelps and others. I used to belong to a national organization of them, headed by Walter Cronkite, as a matter of fact.

What makes much of it worse is that many of the extreme right wing don't feel they are doing anything wrong and the constitution protects their right to do it.

Don't you wonder where these people draw the line?

Do they think because they have a 'right' to speak in the grocery they also think that means they can stand in an aisle and shout, "I already have CoCo Wheats so I want you to take these boxes off the shelves immediately before they get some too."

(Okay, silly question. We know where they draw the line - when they have what they want.)

Silly question? Not really it is an excellent question. The: ""I already have CoCo Wheats so I want you to take these boxes off the shelves immediately before they get some too" is quite apt. I say that because greed is never fulfilled ... not ever and they will push until you have no CoCo Wheatss. It is an issue of satiation IMnshO to steal Jerry's words. Or: "MY dog is bigger than your dog" mentality.

Everybody's dog is bigger than my dog, but my dog has attitude, and knows who's legs to hide behind when attitude isn't enough, lol.

Here is an example of American Christianity at work. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977766440

Isn't that interesting. One has to wonder what the former administration saw in those folks? I really would like to know what the real story is there...

That is awful

Yes, Ron, so would I.

In part, it is a question of outsourcing, Ron. Let's face it, GWB and Rumsfeld couldn't get enough uniformed boots on the ground. Contracting was a way to do that, and further obfuscate the costs of the war. Plus, there were all the back door benefits of paying off political friends. Erik Prince is an extreme Right-wing conservative who has contributed millions to Republicans.

I fail to see any connection to Christianity. Prince and his fellow Blackwater executives have a crusading penchant for killing Muslims. Is that a qualification? Not in my book. It does provide a convenient way for Liz to smear Christianity, though, even if that was not a part of your article.

Dave, I think you're right, partially, in the reasons, but I suspect more... As for Liz smearing Christians, I don't think, since she is one, that her intent was to smear all Christians, but there is a large and growing segment I have no doubt she doesn't have to smear, because they do just fine at that themselves. Instead of protecting those people, Dave, I think you'd be doing much more good for your religion, in all truth, if the true Christians, loud and long, denounced these idiots, and not by just issuing a statement or two. Perhaps some high profile active opposition would help. JMnsHO.

I am denouncing these idiots here. Saying that Blackwater is an "example of American Christianity at work" doesn't help.

It "might help" at least bring some attention to the most militant among us ...

Dave I disagree ... it provides a much too convenient manner in which to smear Christianity. And that might be the problem. George Bush for a very long time was the most public face in this country put on Christianity. Erik Prince is one of his filthiest henchmen. I have read off and on a good bit regarding Prince. I have never seen his name not connected with "his" very Christian views, background, being and leadership. I have never seen him denounced by anyone in connection to his Christianity. Is he a good representation of real Christianity? I hope not. Is he a very public face put to Christianity today in America? Yes. Is this any reflection upon you? No. Should you take it as one? No.

That's what I thought you meant, Liz, and thank you for taking the time to come back and confirm that. This is, in my view, the problem, both for Christianity and the Republican party. Extremists grab the headlines for both. Until the faithful of both institutions clean their own house, so to speak, which is kind of what you are doing here, the associations will remain. Sitting back and watching it all unfold, giving protest by lip service alone, without actively joining the opposition to them, will not work for either institution. It's a matter of how you wish to be defined, in the public mind, right or wrong. JMnsHO.

Liz, I am denouncing him. I don't find the views Christian. Maybe I approach things differently. I don't see OBL as representing Muslim faith any more than I see this idiot espousing what you call "very Christian views."

Here's a pretty good summary of Blackwater/Xe and Prince on a recent "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" that discusses the purportedly Christian views of Prince and members of his company. If you see anything in this material (or GWB administration military policy for that matter) that has to do with the tenets of Christianity, please point them out to me. (There is a 15-second commercial at the beginning of this video which is posted on the official MSNBC website.)

Olbermann

Jeremy Scahill's 8/4/2009 article in The Nation

I also understand that all kinds of nefarious deeds are done in the name of given principles, philosophies, and religions that nevertheless have nothing to do with them. When Nixon proclaimed that he wanted "Peace with honor" did that place a taint on all the peace protestors? Did his seven additional years of war and 21,000 additional war dead discredit those protests? After all, he employed the language of peace.

No, Dave, but he sure didn't do the Republican party's image any good. Sorry, but that's a little more apt an analogy, to my mind...

You don't see the analogy because it is outlandish, Ron. Try applying it to Prince and Christianity and you may see what I'm getting at.

Well, I think you missed MY point Dave. Prince, while calling himself a christian, I have no doubt believes in hardly any of it's most basic tenets, but my point is, each is more defined by how the public sees them, not some outlandish example. It is that image, in the public's mind, that you have to erase, and I can think of no other way to do it but by open confrontation,... newsworthy confrontation, to be exact...

I am with Liz all the way on that one ! Dave, it is time for you to wake up and admit that "your" religion has a very bad reputation in many circles just because of the thinking and actions of a great many of them on the farther Right ... most of us have had personal dealings with those perverted and sick mentalities and we all have heard of them, they watch FOX and supported their "fellow" (brother) GWB and his imperialism. It cannot be denied in honesty.

My religion has a very bad reputation with me, Jerry, if what you mean by "religion" is the misappropriation of labels by nut-jobs like Prince, or the slander of a Liz, for example. I disagree that Blackwater/Xe represents an example of "American Christianity at work," Jerry, and so far none of you have talked me out of that position. You'd have to point to the cornerstones of my faith and draw a connection to the actions of a Prince or his cohorts, which none of you are willing to bother with.

Ron, by accepting this association you are modeling the behavior (from your position) that you decry in Christians: the failure to draw (or prehaps recognize) meaningful distinctions. I'm suggesting that "the case" is the responsibility of us all. It isn't some rhetorical wrestling match within a community.

Oh gosh, I forgot to mention that internecine quarrels are not newsworthy in this day and age, Ron. Maybe on Speaking of Faith.

Well, not if it won't sell advertising. There are ways it would, conflict, controversy, etc. but issuing statements isn't going to do it, I think.

Dave, I think I drew a distinction, quite plainly, above. It is, though, more of a problem for Christians, than it is for me, I admit. Same with moderate republicans.

I'm a child of the 60s. I remember all sorts of excesses in protest. I remember the "outside agitator" theory too. I think a lot of these people are sincere even though some are probably following scripts provided by others who prefer not to attend the meetings in person. :)

I think it's a fine idea to let the people disrupt the town hall meetings. Nothing promotes your cause better than a bunch of people looking like idiots on national TV.

Agreed.

Some of them probably are sincere, but when someone travels to another congressional district, town or whatever to disrupt a meeting for local residents that Interferes with the rights of those residents.

And even those that are constituents, as Christos noted, should be respectful of others when they attend. Stating your opinion is one thing, denying others that right is another...

Good Job Ron... Great Post!!!!

Excellent post Ron, with insightful thoughts, which needed to be pointed out.

Thank you for this.

Glen Beck is a bait and switcher A-hole. He intigates then tries to act righteous.

The GOP is not promoting any of this. Normal people like myself went to a town hall and behaved. Some other people are less able to control themselves and let their frustration out. It's not like the rest of us are happy about what's going.

You've got crazy people from both sides. How many times have we seen people at rallies with Bush pictures morphed into Hitler's. We did not scream too much about it. Now you have the entire media outraged.

Give me a break.

No, the GOP isn't promoting this, but they are hardly trying to stop it. I specifically mentioned there were sane Republicans, Christos, even thanked God for them. Actually, Insurance lobbyists are promoting this. Either way, a morphed picture or two are a little different than trying to intimidate others and disrupt the democratic process, not to mention inciting someone to attack a military installation. These folks are fomenting much more than a little hatred here.

That the GOP isn't stepping up and shutting this behavior down says a lot. All they're concerned with is "defeating Obama" when the issue is not Obama, but the health and well-being of their fellow citizens. The Christians don't devote time to shutting down those who use the label and promote their own superiority.

How can I have any respect for either group?

Exactly, EM JAY. I was a republican up to 5 years ago. I was a church attending christian up to about the same time. Now, I'm a non partisan and an Esoteric/Agnostic. I have no respect at all for them. With some of those I even feel antagonistic.

The reason I didn't scream about the Bush/Hitler references was because of Prescott Bush's connections to Hitler, and the entire Bush family's propensity for breaking the law and thinking they are above the law, and the fact that his administration was full of crooks and their actions followed right along the Hitler "roadmap". I don't think there is a rational argument for lumping people who posed a legitimate comparison to those who are blowing smoke to try and cover their hides.

This is typical of Republicans - blame others for what they have done so when they get caught it doesn't seem as significant as it should. Turdblossom mentality.

EM JAY, how did this become an issue about Christians? The insurance industry (and undoubtedly with assistance from the GOP) has orchestrated and paid groups of operatives to show up at Town Hall meetings and shout down the elected representatives.

I did devote some time to disparaging Erik Prince's claimed Christian connection above. I hope that pleases you.

I was trying to show that these two groups (GOP and Christians) seem to be comfortable with the extremists taking their name and speaking for them, even if they abuse the group's purpose or beliefs. They do not actively denounce them. Staying silent is the same as agreement in my view.

I don't feel any comfort, EM JAY. Why wouldn't I be less comfortable than you with the idea of extremists distorting the tenets of Christianity? I'm even progressive, so I have problems with many political views put out by right-wing Christian groups that are, at least arguably, related to Christian teaching. Here's a little "noise" to consider. But I am with you on this: more noise is good noise in this case.

2004 denunciation of right-wing Christian support for Republicans by mainline Christian consortium

Progressive religious leaders have been working hard to make it clear that religion and religious people are not exclusively on the “anti” side of the gay rights movement

Background and commentary on opposing Christian Zionism

Christian opposition to the execution of Saddam Hussein

Progressive and Religious: How Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist Leaders Are Moving Beyond the Culture Wars and Transforming American Public Life (a book review)

The Third Way is a think thank that is sponsoring an initiative dubbed "Come Let Us Reason Together," which joins progressives and evangelical Christians in "finding common ground between centrist evangelicals and progressives on the most divisive cultural issues of our times."

Those are all steps in the right, pardon the pun, direction Dave, but it took many years for the religious right to sully the reputation, and it's going to take a lot more than those to redeem it, unfortunately. Plus, you have many going in the other direction, according to the last Pew poll on religion, that shows mainstream churches losing members, and the more extreme ones gaining. I don't know, at this point what you can do to reverse the trend, but I'd say someone better get a lot busier, if they want to change those statistics, and those perceptions.

READ THIS : ...

http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund177.html

I'm afraid to, Jerry....but I will, when I get a little time.

There's a bit of ferment. The United Methodist Church is growing worldwide, Ron--although not in the US. There is retrenchment in major segments of US Evangelism, where their mostly failed political agenda (thankfully failed, from my perspective) is being reexamined (see The Third Way link).

The so-called "reputation" of Christianity is what it is, Ron. I agree that 30 years of politically active right-wing Christian initiatives have proven unpopular with many Americans. That those initiatives are not unpopular with tens of millions of Americans concerns me more than your opinion of the reputation of Christianity. That's why the idea of "Come Let Us Reason Together" appeals to me. As a progressive, I find resonance between many of my Christian beliefs and initiatives that are on the progressive agenda. I'm less concerned about trashing someone else's views than in seeing social justice become encoded in the way America goes about its business (health care, gay rights, care for the environment...).

Well, good luck with that, Dave. My experience with conservatives of most stripes is that to try to compromise with them is looked on as weakness, and they will use anything you cede to demand even more.

I saw something that I liked quite a bit in this document from "Come Let Us Reason Together" in July, 2009. It is a policy position on reducing the incidence of abortion in the US--and incorporates both progressive and evangelical Christian principles. This, and not nuking the opponents out of the water, may represent a way forward.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents

While there may be a meeting of minds on ancillary issues such as this one, the two positions, on the main dividing points are irreconcilable, as far as I can see, and offer no hope of changing, barring a miracle.

Well said Ron!

Good post Ron, I believe these nut jobs in their own minds are thinking they are the only real Americans left.

Well, I think they will find out they are the only "real Americans" of their particular type left, eventually. Disagreeing with policy is American, disrupting the democratic process in favor of intimidating others is hardly what most think is important in an American citizen.

Big difference in freedom of speech and intimidation but then which law enforcement agency is paying attention to the rule of law today?

Thanks for posting this Ron. I had seen something about this on MSNBC while I was eating at a local restaurant last night... then today I found the story about the Westboro crowd descending on us like a plague of locusts this weekend!

Yeah, well, those nut cakes live in this state, about sixty miles away from my house. They are worse than most here, but still, living in this state is like just giving up your voting rights most of the time... They don't call it the Bible belt for nothing, and no one ever accused Kansans of not being conservative enough.

Thank you for posting this, Ron.

I'm all for demos and disrupting the system, but, it ticks me off when it's people speaking for the companies. Shouting down people who want to make a better country and promoting policy that protects corporate profits. These people are tools and are easy to manipulate because they feel so disempowered now that they know that the Emperor has not clothes.

The right wing rhetoric reached pretty intense levels back in the 60's resulting in the assasination of JFK, RFK and MLK. They just couldn't tolerate all those uppity civil rights people and those damn peace loving hippies.

The rhetoric level in much more intense now than then. I hope someone is keeping an eye on the crazies. They are armed and dangerous.

I hope so too, Robert, but they never seem to...

Here's a quote from one's article today. Names will be withheld, to protect the guilty:

"Come a revolution I'll be there training troops if nothing else. I might not be able to go into combat because of my health but I know what the troops need to do and can teach them."

Enough said...

Robert, you should take a look below.....I don't think there's enough government agents to watch all of them.....

Ron you stated "We may disagree on how to best take care of this country, and the people in it, but real Americans are never ready to tear it apart for mere political ideology." I'm assuming that in your world view then George Washington, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and the rest aren't "Real Americans"?

Maybe it's wise to not trust an administration who's "leader" is the puppet of George Sorros and the DNC, who's reconstructed the failed Clinton administration, who lies as easily as he breathes and is far too quick to condemn law enforcement strictly on racial bias with no regard to the facts.

Here's a quote from Nancy Pelosi. "I've seen the videos of those inbred church-going rednecks attending the town hall meetings, and I've got to say they make me want to puke," said an angry Pelosi. "President Obama is trying to make their lives better, and all they want to do is ask questions. Well, I've got your answers right here (grabbing her crotch), you filthy, mutant Nazi racists from Hell." Some people don't believe that giving all of their money to the government to redistribute to the grasshoppers isn't making our lives better and resent enabling those who don't want to work to support themselves to continue and expand their lifestyle.

And with all this going on from the liberal fascists you wonder why some conservatives react like they do? It could be that equal and opposite reaction theory coming into play.

Sandy I love all of your disinformation. Tell me where are all these "wingnuts" buying "tens and hundreds of automatic weapons, and teaching their children to use them. " legally? I realize that facts are of no concern to liberals but to legally buy a fully automatic weapon you need a special permit from BATF. Even if you could find even ONE instance of someone buying hundreds of automatic weapons keep in mind, with the resurrection of the Clinton administration, Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge.

Maybe it's a wise thing to take steps to counter a government that wants it's citizens disarmed (like in 1930's Germany and in violation of OUR Constitution), thinks all resources belong to the government first, and thinks that it is superior in all ways (morally, socially, ethically) to the citizens but has no morality in it's actions.

Slyphian, I was almost ready to thank you for sharing the great Pelosi quote (I missed that one, even though I am a huge fan and try to keep up. When and where did she say that? I'm guessing it was either in your fantasy or mine.)

But then you lost me when nothing else you said made any kind of sense.

You do realize that "liberal fascist is an oxymoron - an impossibility, right? And that no matter how many times you project the sins of your gang onto other peace-loving, caring groups of people, intelligent people and sane people will see through your attempt and snicker, or cry for your ignorance?

Facts are of concern to me. The fact is, people are buying automatic weapons, in bulk, and teaching their children to use them. Paranoid people who think President Obama is out to take their guns from them are buying guns, in bulk, and teaching their children to use them. You know that, as well as I do. So what is your point in trying to "pretend" you don't believe it? Would that mean you realize it is as disgusting as I do?

Your last paragraph argument might - MIGHT - have a bit of credibility if you gun-lovers had tried to counter the Bush stolen administration that tried to take every other right away. Since belonging to gangs is the only right you are defending, I think you look a little - no, a whole lot - crazy.

Sandy, do you mean automatic, or semi automatic? I think you mean the latter. The term automatic is sometimes applied to semi autos, but the purchase of fully automatic weapons are restricted quite stringently by federal law.

Then of course there is the possibility of converting certain semi-automatic weapons to automatic.

Didn't they outlaw those kits, Dave. Been a while since I have been involved in reading about this stuff, but I thought I read that.

The federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and has not been replaced. A patchwork of state laws has emerged. New weapons are built to prevent easy conversion. I don't know what specific legal prohibitions exist at this point, but I'm not an expert on them.

And unless the rules and regulations have been change it is ridiculously easy and cheap to get a permit to be a federally licensed gun dealer, and that license allows a person to buy even fully automatic weapons. I have know two people who held such a license. One was the responsible owner of a private gun club and the fully automatic weapons he bought were not for sale, but were for supervised use by club members on club property. The other was an irresponsible and would sell fully automatic weapons to anybody who came up with his asking price.

Good point, Carol.

"Ron you stated "We may disagree on how to best take care of this country, and the people in it, but real Americans are never ready to tear it apart for mere political ideology." I'm assuming that in your world view then George Washington, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and the rest aren't "Real Americans"?"

Well, since they founded this country, not tried to tear it apart, I'd have to say they were real Americans. What they struggled to build, unique among nations, though, should not be torn apart by a bunch of fruitcakes spouting Insurance lobby propaganda...

"Maybe it's wise to not trust an administration who's "leader" is the puppet of George Sorros and the DNC, who's reconstructed the failed Clinton administration, who lies as easily as he breathes and is far too quick to condemn law enforcement strictly on racial bias with no regard to the facts."

Maybe if you believe all that you wouldn't. I don't, and never have "trusted" Obama, or any other politician, but in this case, he's right. Living and dying should not be decided on the basis of whether or not you can increase the bottom line of an insurance company, period.

"Here's a quote from Nancy Pelosi. "I've seen the videos of those inbred church-going rednecks attending the town hall meetings, and I've got to say they make me want to puke," said an angry Pelosi. "President Obama is trying to make their lives better, and all they want to do is ask questions. Well, I've got your answers right here (grabbing her crotch), you filthy, mutant Nazi racists from Hell." Some people don't believe that giving all of their money to the government to redistribute to the grasshoppers isn't making our lives better and resent enabling those who don't want to work to support themselves to continue and expand their lifestyle."

You are actually quoting a satire piece? Pelosi didn't say any such thing. Are you insane?

"And with all this going on from the liberal fascists you wonder why some conservatives react like they do? It could be that equal and opposite reaction theory coming into play."

It could be their tin foil hats are out of adjustment. After seeing you quote a satire piece as the actual words of the Speaker of the House, I'd say you need to adjust yours.

"Sandy I love all of your disinformation. Tell me where are all these "wingnuts" buying "tens and hundreds of automatic weapons, and teaching their children to use them. " legally? I realize that facts are of no concern to liberals but to legally buy a fully automatic weapon you need a special permit from BATF. Even if you could find even ONE instance of someone buying hundreds of automatic weapons keep in mind, with the resurrection of the Clinton administration, Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge."

I'll let Sandy handle that one, she's rarely inclined to state facts without some justification, in my own experience.

"Maybe it's a wise thing to take steps to counter a government that wants it's citizens disarmed (like in 1930's Germany and in violation of OUR Constitution), thinks all resources belong to the government first, and thinks that it is superior in all ways (morally, socially, ethically) to the citizens but has no morality in it's actions."

What are you talking about here? Reference to any bill with a chance in hell of passing, please. As for the superiority thing, I think that's probably your perception, but then, I might be biased by your reference to satire as fact...

You know, the sad thing is that Slyphian hasn't even scratched the surface of what some of these folks will, and do believe...

This phrase "liberal fascists" is an oxymoron, by the way. The first thing Fascists did upon taking power was kill or imprison all socialists. I love how a lack of historical knowledge allows some to fracture the meanings of words, at will, for political purpose.

George Washington, et al, WERE people who were willing to tear apart the current government for political ideology. People willing to stand up for what's right and for their beliefs. In large part to a unresponsive, repressive government who taxed them too much. Starting to sound familiar yet?

Maybe, and according to you, they are AMERICANS, starting an American tradition.

Apparently you'd rather just have a politician dole out your health care on his or her whim. A nanny government who knows what's best for you. After all the politicians have already done so well with Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and just about everything else it's touched.

Yeah, the insurance companies are ONE problem with our current health care system. Have you noticed though that the politicians have left their core constituency (lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, one of the largest costs in health care) out of any "reform"? But then maybe they don't need to include it since you can't sue the government anyhow and eventually ALL health care will be government run.

I'm talking about a politician with a long history of loving every gun control proposal that comes across his desk. One that lies so glibly and easily and is so "photogenic" that most people don't realize that they have been lied too (Reverend Wright, Michigan primaries, to name two recent ones). One that automatically assumes that the white cop is wrong and the black "victim" has to be in the right and appoints a judge who has publicly stated that a latino woman will make better decisions than a white man.

And yet none of this worries you? Or are you going to pass all this off as "satire" also?

Are you insane?

From what I've read here, I'd guess well on the way. But I'm only psychic, without an M.D.

Sandy, since I didn't vote for Obama, by action and definition I'm NOT insane.

Ron:

Fascism: A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a dictator and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.

Fascist: An advocate or adherent of fascism

From the American Heritage Dictionary.

A fascist can be either liberal or conservative. In this country they tend more towards the liberal side and in other countries more towards the communist side.

I've yet to see a person who believes in property rights, smaller government, working for what you have, freedom, gun rights, personal responsibility and most of the ideas that made this country great act like a fascist.

Nice try though.

Slyphian, it is your thinking that allows fascists to gain power ... IMnsHO.

"George Washington, et al, WERE people who were willing to tear apart the current government for political ideology. People willing to stand up for what's right and for their beliefs. In large part to a unresponsive, repressive government who taxed them too much. Starting to sound familiar yet?"

It wasn't our own democratically elected government Slyphian. Jeez, how dense can you get? How the hell do you figure you've got taxation without representation? Did you not vote (if so, that's your fault)? Did you not see who was legally elected by a majority to offices all over this country?

"Maybe, and according to you, they are AMERICANS, starting an American tradition."

Duh.

"Apparently you'd rather just have a politician dole out your health care on his or her whim. A nanny government who knows what's best for you. After all the politicians have already done so well with Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and just about everything else it's touched."

Well, first of all, I'd much rather have the government running my healthcare than the greedy bat turds that prey upon this nations weakest right now. Or go without, which is what a slug of people, increasing in number every day, are doing...

"Yeah, the insurance companies are ONE problem with our current health care system. Have you noticed though that the politicians have left their core constituency (lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, one of the largest costs in health care) out of any "reform"?"

Are you aware of the negligible percent of our healthcare dollar that is consumed by lawsuits? I think not. Here's a hint, it's less than five percent,... way less. Just because the insurance companies use it to prop up the exorbitant malpractice insurance they charge, doesn't make it a major problem. I think government should offer a public option for that, too.

"But then maybe they don't need to include it since you can't sue the government anyhow and eventually ALL health care will be government run."

There is no basis in fact for that statement. You can keep the insurance you have now, if that's your wish.

"I'm talking about a politician with a long history of loving every gun control proposal that comes across his desk."

So what, you think he can get that through congress? I don't.

"One that lies so glibly and easily and is so "photogenic" that most people don't realize that they have been lied too (Reverend Wright, Michigan primaries, to name two recent ones)."

Opinion, nothing more.

"One that automatically assumes that the white cop is wrong and the black "victim" has to be in the right and appoints a judge who has publicly stated that a latino woman will make better decisions than a white man."

Considering the bent of Alito and Roberts, and that bunch, and their corporate coddling ways, I think she will.

"And yet none of this worries you? Or are you going to pass all this off as "satire" also?"

Hey, you quoted satire as fact, and deserved to be exposed for it. Now you're stating your own paranoia, and expecting me to accept that as fact, too. Not gonna happen, bucko. You are off the deep end, in my view.

"Fascism: A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a dictator and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.

Fascist: An advocate or adherent of fascism"

Yeah, well that's just a start. Study a little history, or see what Benito had to say about it, himself, since he was the first fascist, and basically defined it. Or stay ignorant, your choice...


"From the American Heritage Dictionary.

A fascist can be either liberal or conservative. In this country they tend more towards the liberal side and in other countries more towards the communist side."

Well, since American Heritage Dictionary conveniently doesn't seem to be available to check online, I can't say for certain you are wrong, but if you're not, they are. I frankly suspect you made that up. Fascist and fascism, as an epithet, has been used and abused by many, but it still is defined by the Nazis and the Fascists of Italy, and there is no question that it is right wing, and hated liberalism. Here's the very first definition I DID find with a Google:

From worldnet search -Noun

* S: (n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism))


"I've yet to see a person who believes in property rights, smaller government, working for what you have, freedom, gun rights, personal responsibility and most of the ideas that made this country great act like a fascist."

Since you don't even know what fascism really is, I don't doubt you think that.

"Nice try though."

It wasn't a try, it was the truth. That you can't admit your mistake is not my problem.

Well, now I finally found an American Heritage Dictionary online, and it's definition of Fascism HERE and as I suspected, Slyphian made his definition up. Why am I not surprised...

"Sandy, since I didn't vote for Obama, by action and definition I'm NOT insane."

Disregarding the fact that there is no way voting for Obama could be considered an indicator of madness, considering the worse choices we were given, there is this: No insane person thinks they are insane. If they think they are, they probably aren't. Just sayin'. Who'd you put the considerable power of your vote in, Slyphian? I can't wait to hear this one...

Well, Ron, once again you show how easily misled the public is. Your "facts" have little to nothing to do with reality.

I realize that a library or a book is something totally unfamiliar to people like you.

Believe in Obama bin Laden all you want. Bury your head in the sand. If you prefer the nanny state, taking care of you, telling you what to do and how to think from cradle to grave you always have the option of Canada. They welcome people like you.

You'll believe what you want in spite of any facts.

Well, since you get your information from the people engaged in trying to fool all of the people, all of the time, it's hardly surprising you think so, Slyphian. Some of the best minds that money can buy are continually figuring out ways to turn you against your brother, and your own interests, to benefit the wealthy. It might surprise you to know I'm not that fond of Obama. There were better choices. Not to mention all politicians can't be trusted, period. You know, it strikes me, since you've totally exposed yourself as a liar, and easily fooled, I'm not too worried about what you think, anyway, though.

Sly sounds like he gets all of his information direct from FOX.

You know, the sad thing is that Slyphian hasn't even scratched the surface of what some of these folks will, and do believe...

Ron, are you talking about the radical fringe on the right or Obama and his followers here?

As much as we denounced the criminal bush cabal we NEVER threatened to kill them or their insane followers.
There lies the difference.

By the way I called my so-called rep the other day and found the Washington number didn't work ,odd.

Called his Bowling Green office and requested politely they remove me from their call list and vote for health care reform.

Now I will see if politeness works with this puppet of the repugnicon party.

Wanna bet I am ignored?

There was at least one well known actor, a very liberal activist, I can't remember his name right now though, who did mention killing (threatened) conservative leaders during the Bush reign. Alec Baldwin I think it was.

The difference is that Bush didn't attack American Citizens on U.S. soil, nor has his administration bowed to, and made themselves subservient to, foreign heads of state.

Obama has resurrected the Clinton administration who brought us Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge, among other terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens while ignoring attacks by foreign terrorists.

Obama though has brought some new ideas along with him though. Such as kow-towing to foreign heads of state, capitulating to communist leaders/kidnappers/terrorists by sending Bill Clinton to meet with Kim Jong Il as North Korea "requested"

If he's anything like my two senators and one congressperson, good republicnots all, not only will you be ignored, your interests will be subverted at every turn to benefit the people that have filled their campaign coffers to the tune of over 1.3 million dollars for every single member of Congress and the Senate, Don.

Slyphian,
Opinion and distortion. As for Baldwin: Well, I saw a lot of idiots rushing out to join Baldwin, if he did, didn't you? Today we do see a lot of idiots following every word Rush or Hannity or Billo or Beck says. Some of them have acted on those words already. Absurd. You folks want to revolt, please do, it's about time you quit subverting this country on the sly.

"Ron, are you talking about the radical fringe on the right or Obama and his followers here? "

Well, since you're obviously not one of the latter, it should be obvious to even the dimmest among us that I meant the former, and in particular, you...

Ron, I refuse to argue this (or any other) point with someone who is either deranged or just here to waste our time (Syph guy). Out of courtesy to you, I'll answer the question you asked of me.

I know the definitions of assault, automatic, and semi automatic weapons. I know that some are legal and others are not legal. I know that the wannabe-Hitler-thugs who are contemplating a violent attack on this country because they hate President Obama and anyone who looks like President Obama or supports President Obama have all of the above. They aren't your typical "law-abiding" citizens.

Fair enough, Sandy. I'm not aware of the particulars of this story, myself, and just thought you might have meant semi autos.

I do disagree about Slyphian being a waste of time, though. One, he might learn something, and two, even if he doesn't, he's making my case from my article for me.

Nope. I meant what I said, but appreciate your asking to clear it up.

I can only speak for my time and I've given more to Slyph than I want already. But I'll see you soon, Ron.

Thanks Sandy, for the input, and the answer. Now I gotta go research nuts buying illegal firearms....

Well, Sandy you're about as good a psychic as you are a MD.

The wanna be Hitler thugs just got elected to office. Banning private ownership of weapons. Asking, more like demanding, that protesters to the government line be reported.

Contrary to your opinion it's not "people like Obama" or those who "look like Obama" whom I have a problem with . I didn't vote against Obama because he's black. Unlike liberals who voted for him only because he is black, race isn't that big of an issue to me. I voted against him because of his morality, his character. Qualities that don't exist for a liberal.

Defending oneself against an attacker, whether it be an individual or a government is far different from "contemplating an attack" on that entity. Democrats have shown their adherence to the Constitution and their respect for individual rights. If you choose to become a victim of an FBI sniper while you hold your child, to have your child shot in the back or to have your church razed to the ground after months of siege that's your choice.

Since we're delving into history it was the militia, the average citizen, the citizen soldier, who liberated this country from an oppressive government. Too bad that part of our history is being so conveniently ignored.

Since SAndy has elected to waste no more time on you, I think I can answer some of that total crap for her.

"Well, Sandy you're about as good a psychic as you are a MD."

It's an inside joke, lighten up.

"The wanna be Hitler thugs just got elected to office. Banning private ownership of weapons. Asking, more like demanding, that protesters to the government line be reported."

Again, you are very confused about what side of the middle Fascists were on. Fascists are right wing, very right wing. No one has banned private ownership of weapons, that's BS they use to stir you up. Believe me, that ain't a gonna happen, no matter what Obama wants. If the legislation is introduced, which it hasn't, I'll be fighting it just like you. As for asking or telling people to report those protesting, I'm not aware of that, and as for opposing you folks, no one had to ask or tell me, I oppose groundless hysteria on my own, with no one having to tell me to do anything. Especially when it has become a danger to others.

"Contrary to your opinion it's not "people like Obama" or those who "look like Obama" whom I have a problem with . I didn't vote against Obama because he's black."

OK, absent any evidence to the contrary, I'll give you that one, until I hear different.

"Unlike liberals who voted for him only because he is black, race isn't that big of an issue to me. I voted against him because of his morality, his character. Qualities that don't exist for a liberal."

I kind of think you have it wrong there. I voted for Obama because he was the lessor of the evils available. There may have been those that voted for him for that reason, but I kind of think it had something to do with not wanting another four years of the evil empire, myself. As for morals not existing for liberals, I'm not the one that tried to lie here, and about something as silly as a definition. I'm sure that's the tip of the iceberg for you, and I can't imagine how you judge liberals as having no integrity, having none yourself. I also don't understand how opposing basic health care for all your fellow citizens can be termed moral, in the least. I'd put my morals up against yours, any day.

"Defending oneself against an attacker, whether it be an individual or a government is far different from "contemplating an attack" on that entity. Democrats have shown their adherence to the Constitution and their respect for individual rights. If you choose to become a victim of an FBI sniper while you hold your child, to have your child shot in the back or to have your church razed to the ground after months of siege that's your choice."

You seem to think the relatives of the man they were trying to arrest that died at Ruby Ridge were soley the responsibility of the government. He was asked, repeatedly, to give himself up, and instead he put his family in danger. While the whole thing was a massive tragedy, and the agents involved were, in my opinion, totally incompetent and a few maybe even trigger happy, it's hardly accurate to blame the government, exclusively for that debacle. In both that and the Branch Davidian case, massive mistakes were made, but in both cases, agents were still trying to enforce weapons laws we have democratically enacted, and they were doing what they were hired to do. That they screwed both up royally is something I won't argue with you, but the people involved knew what the laws were, and broke them, and should have expected to be prosecuted. From there, what happens is going to be a wild card no one can predict, and they should know that, up front. This isn't an anarchy state, where the life of any citizen can be taken at will, but if you put yourself outside the law, you should expect unpredictable consequences...

"Since we're delving into history it was the militia, the average citizen, the citizen soldier, who liberated this country from an oppressive government. Too bad that part of our history is being so conveniently ignored"

It might interest you to know that although in the beginning, militias were pretty much our only defense, we would likely have never won our independence, had we not raised a real army, and had we not been able to obtain experienced officers to train them from Europe. As for their part, I don't believe anyone ignores that, history stresses their role, in fact, but the militia ran on numerous occasions, when faced with the British's well trained armies. And then you try to equate the revolutionary war, with today's situation, and you're talking apples and oranges, there. You may see it that way, but it sure as hell don't make Obama the king, in power by supposed divine providence, he was duly elected the president of YOUR COUNTRY, by a majority of the citizens, nor is he taxing us without representation, stationing his troops in our homes, and treating us like unruly children, though on the last point, maybe for some of us, he should.

Except I didn't lie about any definition Ron. The simple truth is I can READ and can actually OPEN A BOOK. The Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary copyright 1982, before liberals started trying to redefine everything they don't agree with as wrong and evil.

I believe in the beliefs that were alive and that started our push (and eventually our war) for FREEDOM. That being that the government is the servant of the people, not the people being the servant of the government. You have heard of "The Federalist Papers", I'm sure "google" will be more than happy to spoon feed you the current politically correct (liberal) version. But try the book.

Yeah, Randy Weavers wife and son could still be alive, and the Branch Dividians still around (maybe) if they capitulated to the government. It's amazing how you condemn Bush for his infringements on civil rights (rightly so) yet exonerate the Clintons for every violation of civil rights they committed or were committed in their name.

If you want to be subservient to a government that protects your "rights" only as long as you do what they tell, when they tell and how they tell go right ahead. I think Iran is still accepting new citizens and so is Afghanistan

Here is a link to Whitehouse.gov where Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office tells people to send in emails or if you "see something fishy" and report it to the government.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

I know, more "satire" right?

Keep in mind, Obama once said that he could no more disown the Rev. Wright than he could his own grandmother. That was just a few short weeks before his disowned Rev. Wright (most people would call that LYING). But we're supposed to believe him now with his empty promises about nationalized health care.

"Except I didn't lie about any definition Ron. The simple truth is I can READ and can actually OPEN A BOOK. The Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary copyright 1982, before liberals started trying to redefine everything they don't agree with as wrong and evil."

I doubt that, extremely. The fact is, if it did say that, it would have been dead wrong, according to history, and every credible fact about fascism one can find. I suggest, again, you read some history on the subject.

"I believe in the beliefs that were alive and that started our push (and eventually our war) for FREEDOM. That being that the government is the servant of the people, not the people being the servant of the government. You have heard of "The Federalist Papers", I'm sure "google" will be more than happy to spoon feed you the current politically correct (liberal) version. But try the book."

This is ridiculous. The present government is our own, duly elected by a majority of the people. Just because you suddenly find yourself not in agreement with the majority doesn't mean it's suddenly oppressive. I suggest if democracy doesn't suit you, there are plenty of totalitarian governments you'll like a hell of a lot less. Get over it, you lost an election, not your freedom.

"Yeah, Randy Weavers wife and son could still be alive, and the Branch Dividians still around (maybe) if they capitulated to the government. It's amazing how you condemn Bush for his infringements on civil rights (rightly so) yet exonerate the Clintons for every violation of civil rights they committed or were committed in their name."

Did I condemn Bush for his infringments on civil rights here? I could, easily, but I don't remember doing that. As for Ruby Ridge and Waco, the people were criminals, and a lot of innocent people died because they were, quite plainly, too crazy to realize they were putting others in danger. Kind of like you, and now, I suspect.

"If you want to be subservient to a government that protects your "rights" only as long as you do what they tell, when they tell and how they tell go right ahead. I think Iran is still accepting new citizens and so is Afghanistan"

I got news for you Slyphian, these United States only protects your rights so far, if you fail to follow it's laws, and that's ALWAYS been the case. In fact, I don't know of a country at all that coddles criminals to the point where if they put up armed resistance to a lawful arrest, they can be assured of not dying. You are one confused little bugger, aren't you?

"Here is a link to Whitehouse.gov where Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office tells people to send in emails or if you "see something fishy" and report it to the government.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

I know, more "satire" right?"


Oh for petes sakes, that's politics, reacting to a political reality, not like they're sending the government out to arrest you because you're considered a subversive or enemy of the state. Now if they were asking people to contact the FBI, or even the white house security chief, I might see it differently, but they are just trying to keep track of and react to a political trend or reality. You see bogey men behind every bush (except GW Bush, maybe)?

"Keep in mind, Obama once said that he could no more disown the Rev. Wright than he could his own grandmother. That was just a few short weeks before his disowned Rev. Wright (most people would call that LYING). But we're supposed to believe him now with his empty promises about nationalized health care."

Hardly indicative Slyphian. If someone claimed my best friend was a racist, I'm not going to disown him right up to the point where it's been proven to me that he is a racist, either. That doesn't make me a lying scumbag. Well...to you it might. In my view, that's just loyalty to a friend, and when he found out what the truth was, he broke all ties to the man, because he strongly disagreed with that point of view. Commendable behavior, in my book. Get over it. I know you'd like to make a lot more out of it, but that's just political spin, as most would do the same, at least I know I would.

After reading your posts and replies all I can say is lace up your jack boots, put on your brown uniform and be a good party member. Tyranny starts with small steps.

Get people used to tattle telling with small, fairly innocent things and escalate it.

You'll go to no end to condemn Bush, even to the point of being an apologist for the Democratic Majority in Congress while Bush was in office. You'll go to no end to exonerate Obama (as well as the Clintions), no matter what he does, and defend him to the point of unreasonableness.

Ignorance is golden, isn't it Slyph?

L F O L

Kevin, it sounds like you're speaking from personal experience so I'll defer to your expert opinion on this.

I'm sure Kevin has met a lot of wingnuts. Lord knows I have...

Slyphian M , your a good representation why some believe that conservatism is actually a symptom of deeper mental problems... Why else would someone be all that confused about the truth? And have all theat hate and resement and anger..

When someone is accused of having mental problems from a crazy person, well, 'nuff said there.

You should try letting go of that hate and resement??? I'm going to guess that you actually mean "resentment". But hey, maybe you're using the same (non)dictionary Ron is.

Well, you can use any dictionary you like, Slyphian, even an imaginary one, it doesn't change the meaning of the word in all the rest of them, and in history. Amazing.

Come back to reality Ron. It's more real than something you "googled".

Well, scan it in, and post it. You know, your language doesn't even sound like that a dictionary would use. And, like I said before, if it does exist, then there is a reason that it isn't in the present edition, and it isn't that liberals changed the definition of fascism. We didn't define it, Benito Mussolini did. In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. These are excerpts of that entry:

"After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism."

And other quotes?

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” Benito Mussolini

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Adolph Hitler

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Musselini

Sure seems to me you embrace fascism a lot further than liberals do, Slyphian...

Not quite sure what you are trying to get across...but as a conservative I see the liberals as the ones trying to get violent and physical lately...especially when they are trying to shove down America's throats a health care reform that a majority does not want...but then 75% of Russians did not want Communism back in the start of the USSR... but a few pushed it through anyways and the rest is history....