Free Republic

“Nah, Chris follows the MSM Rule of Republicans. That would make Craig a “sexual deviant” and Barney Frank a proud gay American. See the difference?”

I do see the difference. It’s the hypocrisy that is so blatant. The republican party splits the country on gays only to have someone from the party whose been known to be a homosexual for decades exposed. Not only a homosexual but a bathroom kind of stall queer. The kind of individual that solicits strangers for bjs(a senator non the less). That is ultimately disgusting. But again no news here since everybody knew. Meanwhile he travels around the country going to churches promising to fight for “family values” while he’s on restrooms soliciting strangers. Are you high? This is what the republican party fights the most against. People knew and said nothing. This sort of thing will cost the party a lot of votes. I think others that knew about this should be punished also. But if we try to blame the media. Than we just show how we are just like everybody else and we deserve to get killed on the ballots.

IT SEEMS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS SO DIVIDED THAT EVEN DURING THESE TIMES BOTH PARTIES POSITION THEMSELVES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION. THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE TO THE DISASTER WAS OBVIOUSLY INADEQUATE...PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FIRED. THE PRESIDENT HAS ADMITTED RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE ISSUE IS REALLY NOT A REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATIC ISSUE. IT IS AN ISSUE OF INCOMPETENCE. THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAPPENS TO BE REPUBLICAN (WHAT IF IT WERE A DEMOCRAT HOW WOULD WE BE REACTING?) AND IT IS BUSH'S IDEA THAT LOYALTY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN COMPETENCE (NOT ALWAYS THE CASE IN PREVIOUS REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS, LOOK AT REAGAN AND NIXON...INCREDIBLY COMPETENT FOLKS). SO SOME OF THESE ISSUES HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WAY OF DOING THINGS. IT IS HOWEVER STUPID, TO UNQUESTIONABLY SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT AT ALL COSTS (HE REALLY DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE, YET THE CONSERVATIVE TALKING HEADS KEPT SHIELDING HIM FROM ANY RESPONSIBILITY, I ADMIRE THE PRESIDENT FOR TAKING RESPONSIBILITY....HOW DOES THAT MAKE SOME OF US THAT BLINDLY SUPPORT ANYTHING ANY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DOES JUST TO KEEP GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION AT BAY...DOESN'T THAT COMPROMISE OUR STATUS AS THINKING PEOPLE AND CITIZENS?). I WISH FOLKS IN BOTH PARTIES WOULD BE BETTER CITIZENS AND BE CONCERNED MORE WITH THE COUNTRY THAN THEMSELVES. NANCY PELOSI FOR INSTANCE, REPRESENTS EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH THE OTHER SIDE. ANYBODY STARTS THINKING ABOUT LEGISLATION IMMEDIATELY SHE GIVES A PRESS CONFERENCE, ALWAYS REACTS PROMPTLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE COUNTRY.

"Lutheran's believe in The Ten Suggestions!"Texas Cajun

Actually the Lutherans Missouri Synod (numbering a few million in the united states) plus Lutherans in Latin America, Africa (also numbering in the millions) are very conservative. The above minister belongs to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (more liberal organization which is probably going to announce gay ordination within the next 6 months). Although it has the name evangelical in its name it is very liberal, and not evangelical (in the most common and current sense of the word).

"Women shouldn't be pastors in the first place." wk4bush2004

So they can be astronauts, prime ministers, neurosurgeons, fighter pilots, cops, they can be killed for their faith, but oh no...ministers that never.....give me a break.....

Interesting how newsmax really distorts what people say. She didn't suggest keeping Jesus out of the academy. But rather that evangelicals (who represent only 1/3 of of the 90% Christian student population) were getting preferential treatment. That their religious beliefs were being previledged by the academy and that other groups such as catholics (1/3 of all Christians in the academy) and non evangelical protestants (the other 1/3 of Christian students) were not being respected by the 1/3 evangelical bunch.

Her charges are probably exaggerated and are perhaps partly due to the fact that she belongs to a more liberal denomination (Missouri synod excluded of course). Regardless it is very likely that there is some truth in what she is saying. However let us properly represent what people say otherwise we are disagreeing not with her but rather with newsmax since what she actually said was severely misrepresented. Let's keep it fair.

"As for the professional standards in his work: He is slipshod, lazy, and not much of a writer. He is very undisciplined as a communicator. He is heavily weighted down, ironically by his incredibly lofty opinions...of himself. And he truly needs an editor. Yes, he publishes a lot. So does Sidney Sheldon. It's guys like these who make me feel sorry even for trees raised for pulp."

Well as one who actually has read some of his stuff (unlike the great majority of those here who are giving an opinion on something they've never read) I do agree that his language is at times dense (it's the way a lot of people in the humanities write today specially in literary criticism, for instance). However Race Matters reads very well, and I'd say is accessible to anybody in college. As far as his marxism, well I love reading Miton Friedman although he's to my right.

"And there's another reason for West's success: Traditional academic rigors are not applied to him because he is a ... Black Liberal. Academe went south about 30 years ago, and took Common Sense and professional standards with it, and most of it hasn't recovered. In the humanities, at any rate. The loonier the premise, the more prolix the impenetrable prose to explicate it. Liberals writing for liberals edited by liberals. Yeah, tough standards. Libs get a pass. Black libs get a bigger one. Every campus wanted at least one Black star. West became a superstar in the Ivies. "

Look he graduated with honors in Harvard, and did very well in Princeton, so he has good credentials. You might not agree with what he says and that's fine. However he is an intellectual of caliber. Let us give merit where merit is due. You don't graduate from Harvard and get a Ph.D. from Princeton if you're incompetent. I have met Cornell West. He's very kind and friendly. He makes it a point to talk to students and shake everybody's hand. He's an incredible orator. He was in the dissertation commitee of a friend at Princeton recently. The guy was able to make a dull thesis defense into an exciting event. I'm telling you the guy has extraordinary rhetorical ability. I'd love to see him in the pulpit of my synagogue or in any church. THE GUY CAN PREACH! On another note, all these other (white ivy league professors) in the dissertation committee were far less knowledgeable when push came to shove Cornell West asked the most relevant questions in the commitee. He is just as competent as his colleagues are, and possibly more.

"Before you misread me: I think he's brilliant. But fatally infected, thus useless."

I agree with the brilliant part.

"I truly don't know why you brought up something two-and-a-half years old, when we're all busy stoking this hurtling train of a presidential election express, but something tells me you're looking to provoke...and be provoked."

Well I guess I just don't think he was getting a fair shake in the board however I see that you've been more just with Cornell than most on the board.

"Let me oblige, by dissing another Black writer. Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize for literature, one of the biggest jokes in the history of the printed word."

Well, I don't want to change horses but try reading some of the other noble laureates from the past. Pearl S. Buck comes to mind, or Joseph Brodsky....Toni is a far better writer than any of these two. If there is a current american author that you think deserves it more than she does go ahead and name one. What I'm saying is that there are worse writers that have won in the past and the only reason people mention her is because she's black while they are oblivious to the past. On another note consider other languages that have almost never won. What I'm saying is that if you're not writing in english,French, german, spanish etc, your changes are already diminished. There's a lot of good literature in other places where non european languages are spoken.

INTERESTING HOW EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD HAS AN OPINION ON SOMEBODY THEY DON'T KNOW AND HAVE NEVER READ. CORNELL WEST WHETHER YOU LIKE HIM OR NOT IS A TOP INTELLECTUAL. WITH TONS OF PAPERS PUBLISHED (IN THE TOP JOURNALS OF THE FIELD) AND DOZENS OF BOOKS. HIS CREDENTIALS ARE IMPECABLE. SO WHY DON'T WE ALL DROP THE RACIST OFFENSIVE TONE AND ATTACK HIS IDEAS WITHOUT THE AD HOMINEMS. I DOUBT ANYBODY WILL BECAUSE NOBODY HERE IS IN GRADUATE SCHOOL, OR STUDYING TO BE A RABBI OR A MINISTER. YES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE HIS BOOKS ARE WIDELY READ. SO LET'S ATTACK HIS IDEAS, NOT THE MAN.

"Fascism does not eliminate the "capitalist class" but it does control their actions. Fascism is a form of socialism because the government controls the economy. It is also called "corporate socialism." Not all socialists line the bourgeoisie against the wall and shoot them. Not all Socialists are Marxist.
However they were unwilling to grant the masses what they needed since they were not proposing an overthrow of the capitalist class, the church or any of the wealthy.

Is this what they needed? In whose opinion?

You say that the working masses were manipulated into supporting fascism but you offer no such excuse for the Catholics. The truth is that, as in Nazi Germany, the church under fascism had to be careful about what it said in order to continue to survive.

By the way, blaming Christianity for European anti-jew pogroms is also a leftist mindset, as well as a blood libel against all Christians." tail gunner


Tail gunner I'd really appreciate if you would address my arguments regarding defense of faith, property, the family and in general the european-catholic way of life on the part of fascism. Because fascists stood for many of the things you would identify as conservative and Right wing. You have not touched on this...I really would appreciate if you did.

As far as the Christian responsibility of the killing and destruction of Jewish communities in Europe this most definitely is something that even the catholic church, and European protestant denominations have admitted too. But however, let us not discuss this right now. Please address my argument, because I believe it is at the root of our debate.

"Blaming "the right", capitalists, conservatives, and the Catholic Church for Nazism is a leftist mindset. The Nazis hated all these groups and worked to destroy them all." tailgunner.

I have decided to not talk about Nazis anymore but rather fascism. It is in fascism that we see these things as worldwide trends. Franco had great support from the catholic church. And so did Vargas (in Latin America), and Mussolini. All these men (fascists) rose to power as a result of a worldwide economic crisis. Capitalism was in serious jeopardy...the socialist and communist parties had their memberships on the rise. Unemployment and crime were ramped worldwide.

It is in this context that authoritarian regimes came to power. There was great fear in all these nations of communist take over. With great dissatisfaction among the working class. Fascists rose to power in many nations. They were anticommunists, they were pro family and pro catholic. They manipulated the masses (even many unions) into believing that it was their turn. However they were unwilling to grant the masses what they needed since they were not proposing an overthrow of the capitalist class, the church or any of the wealthy. It was rather their strategy to seek internal enemies inside the country external enemies outside the country. These enemies were the communists, the Jews, Russia, etc....so they would galvanized the energy and dissatisfaction of masses and channel them against these enemies.

"Than where was the right? Where were the defenders of religion, the family and property?" Maimonides

"Are you saying this is what the Nazis stood for?

The Nazis were gangs of homosexuals who set up nationalized whorehouses for SS men to breed the Master Race.

Is that what you think conservative family values stand for?" tailgunner

Again I want to avoid the Nazi thing. I will rather talk about fascism in general. Fascist were anticommunists, they supported family and were befriended by the church because the church saw what happened to the Orthodox church in Russia and although they might not agree with everything the fascists did. They were however seen as a much better option than the communists. The communist threat was very real. So the church and the conservatives mobilized. Look Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Portugal, all these countries were very religious. Church attendance was high. The fascists rose to power in all these nations and were hardly ever opposed by any conservative. They were rather championed as the defenders of the faith against the communist atheists. Against the Russians. It is also important to look at the big picture. The big picture is a scared to the core Europe and Latin America...scared to the point of allowing fascists to rule with an iron fist. The rise of the fascist then is an alliance between the capitalists, church, conservatives....etc....they needed an authoritarian regime that could arrest at will, without any regards to civil rights...etc....this of course was a radical response to a real threat. It was also necessary an authoritarian regime to keep order. The lower classes were restless, unemployed and just fed up. Each group that supported the fascist did so out of extreme necessity. The capitalist did so out of a fear for strikes and chaos. Beyond that in the not so distant future he feared that his business, factory, etc...would be confiscated in a communist take over. He would be looking at being executed, placed in jail at the very least. A bleak prospect. Remember Russia was the largest country in Europe and that did not stop the communists. So the fear of the communists was ever present. The church supported the fascist in spite of the violence associated with a fascist regime because of the atheist communists. The lessons were fresh in Rome's mind of only 15 years earlier when priests were executed in Russia. Church property confiscated. Beyond that the systematic encouragement on the part of the Communist state of atheism. A communist take over in western Europe would mean the end of catholicism and possibly protestantism. Again these were real fears. Conservatives supported the fascist government because of their fear of the end of the family as they knew it. They would also be looking at a possibly even more authoritarian regime than the fascist. Property would be confiscated, perhaps even small farms. So even small farmers, large ones, the petite bourgeoisie all supported the fascist government. So there was a strategy of containing the communist advance and also to bring order to societies that were being hit hard by a worldwide capitalist crisis. The Jews unfortunately were caught in the crossfire. Hated, or at the very least ignored by catholics and protestants alike. Not having much of a stake in the economy of these countries and when they did there was a sense that they shouldn't since they weren't real "Germans," "Italians," "Brazilians," etc...Although conservatives in many instances, many orthodox Jews lived secluded lives separated from everybody else by laws and traditions written thousands of years earlier. So observant Jews only really talked to and knew other Jews. There relationships to gentiles were largely professional and superficial. They were isolated from politics, the decision making of these nations. Other Jews seduced by the Utopian nature of socialism, where there would be no more Jew or gentile, rich or poor; where all would be able to live in peace in an almost messianic age courtesy of Karl Marx. These Jews were persecuted and killed and arrested due to their socialist and communist leanings. Other Jews were accept in society, specially the wealthy ones, but they would still have to marry within the Jewish intelligentsia.Since it was still taboo to marry a Jew. Although liberal Judaism had made strides in Europe in the 19th century...breaking down the wall that separated Jews from their gentile neighbors still many Christians hated Jews or simply ignored them. It is this "ignore" that ultimately allows for the fascists to kill them. Because nobody would stand up for them. Again the killing of Jews was not a new phenomenon. Something widely practiced throughout the centuries specially in Spain, Portugal, Russia....eastern Europe. All this done in the name of God by church going Christian folk. After all they had killed Jesus a belief still shared by a few church going folk. Things have changed and Christianity is no longer the aintisemitic religion it used to be. The point of all this is really to point out that the fascists were conservatives and supported by conservatives in a time of world crisis. One must understand the concept of world chaos to get the picture that they were right wingers supported by the right opposing left winger communist/socialist bent on world domination and revolution.

Half your sources can't be verified. Please no Internet unreliable nut jobs. Quote from a published book or magazine rather than website that cannot be verified. Is the fact that every university (even Christian, conservative ones) in their history and political classes refer to fascism as a right ideology a vast conspiracy? Did you know fascists stood for family values, religion, patriotism, property and anticommunism? Did you know the catholic church welcomed the rise of fascism and so did many protestants because the fascists stood for religion, family and against the atheism of the left. Now if they were not right wingers what was the right doing? Who were they? Because apparently they disappeared since everybody was left according to you.

"Despite the widespread republican sentiment, Spaniards support the monarchy because of their reverence for King Juan Carlos - born in exile during the Franco dictatorship, brought back and groomed to succeed him as head of state after Franco died in 1975 and a hero for putting down a coup attempt six year later by generals nostalgic for right-wing rule." AP-NY-05-22-04 0557EDT

This is the associate press calling fascism a right wing ideology not I. Again your article is a link from an unreliable Internet source. I cannot even verify the veracity of your piece. You gave no bibliographical information. But to leave that aside. Even if they call themselves socialists "which they did" changes nothing. Because fascism was a response from the right to the threat of revolution from the communists. It was a strategy in response to the 1929 world economic crisis and the Russian revolution. They had support from the catholic church and conservative groups in general that saw communism as a threat against religion, the family and property. It is odd that you believe that fascism is not a right wing ideology because fascist considered themselves right wingers. (they still do). But regardless of that don't you find odd that you claim that no right wingers existed in Europe? Because at the time there were the communists on the left (with very organized parties). The fascists on the left according to you. Than where was the right? Where were the defenders of religion, the family and property? According to you and the other members of the board the right disappeared from Europe from 1920s-1945. Odd, no right wingers for many decades. Where did they go?

"This is Communist disinformation that they have successfully pushed for years. Nazism IS socialism, pay attention to the name: The National Socialist party. While you are correct that Nazis and Commies are enemies, it is because each group wants to be THE socialists that steal all the wealth and have an orgy of execution (genocide) and they each must eliminate the other to accomplish their goal." Navy Patriot

As much as I don't agree with what you said I would like to praise you in your polite response unlike some other members of the board that prefer to be rude and crude. i.e. Defcon.
Well what would you call a right wing totalitarian regime? See...Nazism is a form of fascism...and fascism is widely recognized by all as being a right wing ideology (specially scholars). Again...I've been surprised at the opinions of the members of the board who seem to believe otherwise. But nevertheless...to turn the argument on its head how would you define fascism? Or perhaps even better what would a right wing totalitarian regime look like?

"Get informed of this, Newbie:
I believe ALL democrats are socialists.
And I believe you need to eat my shorts"
Defcon

What can I say? Not much of a statement there. I guess no rational arguments left just name calling. I will let your quote speak for itself testifying to who you are. Your own words condemn you.

"In my book, yes, it most surely does.
The democratic party of the U.S. are all socialist left wingers"

Look these inflammatory statements are just misguided. There are several multimillionaires in the democratic party. You think they want a socialist system where the state will take their, property and money away, their factories. I don't think so. So get informed and understand that your statement is just as absurd as the statements of the radical nuts on the other side that call George W. a fascist.

Look. They did not condemn capitalism. Specially since Germany had a huge capitalist industrial complex. As a matter of fact their charge was the opposite. It was rather that Marx was a Jew and that Jews besides killing Christ had also invented communism. Fascism is fascism. Do you not believe that capitalism has its authoritarian version in fascism? That fascist are right wingers is an established fact. I won't waste my breath anymore on this. Please read, rather than relying on your personal opinion.

I don't know about documentation. As far as McCarthy I don't want to change horses here. That's another discussion. Nazis are right wingers that is a fact. Does not say anything about the right. It's just where they stand in the ideological spectrum. I'm sorry it bothers you that Nazis are right wingers. That does not say anything about conservatives. Fascism is a right wing ideology. I'd encourage you to read on it. This is a established fact. I will no longer even attempt to put forward any arguments because this is an established truth. I'm sorry it bothers you. I'd encourage you to read.

look Nazi germany was a capitalist state. There was a greater presnce of the state than in most capitalist countries, however it was still a capitalist nation. It was a stratified society. The only property confiscated was taken from jews, gypsis, homosexulas, jehovah's witnesses and a few others. So that is the core definition today of right and left. There was no attempt to redistribute income. They still had class and poor people. If all this doesn't work read any political science bopok.

Trotskysts are communists/socialists. Lenin advocated the existence of small capitalists firms. Does does not negate that the state is "the dictatorship of the proletriat." Trotsky was still a marxist. So the proletariat controls the state. There are many currents within socialism and commuinism. Maoists, albanian model, christian marxists, environmental marxists...trotskists, etc...they advocate the ownership of the means of production collectively. Thus they are all marxists. As opposite to capitalists (private ownership of the means of production.)

As far as what 99% of the population thinks that's irrelevant. The fact is that nazis are capitalists...thus right wingers. Again this is a well defined point in any political science book (even ones written by conservatives).

Look. The idea of right and left comes from where they used to sit in the parliament. So, it is an imperfect definition. However, traditionally right has been defined as capitalistic, while left has been defined as socialistic or communistic. It is important to notice that other modes of production have existed in human history. Feudalism for instance. Hunter gatherers, etc. Nazis are capitalists. They are populists and tend to encourage a larger state than most capitalist countries. However the state does not detain the ownership of the means of production (the classic definition of a soviet, Cuban, etc type of state). That was not the case of Nazi Germany. Capitalist states can be totalitarian. Nazism is a version of totalitarian capitalism, the same that the soviet system would be a version of totalitarian socialism. i.e. the Nazis are right wingers...because they are capitalistic. The Bolshevik are left-wingers because they are socialistic. That is the key definition of right and left. Admiting that these are imperfect terms. however if I don't convince you. Go ahead and read a book. As a person with background in political science i can tell that every political science textbook will place Nazism as a right wing ideology.

Look my post was really about the Brazilian incident. However if you want to argue that Nazism is not a right wing ideology...it is a fact that it is. I did not say anything about republicans. Again Nazis were in 1930s and 1940s Europe. There were no republicans there. The left wing groups in Nazi Germany the communists and socialists were killed and imprisoned by Hitler they were his biggest enemies. That is a historical fact. I'm not labeling all right wingers as Nazis. It just happens to be the fact that Nazis are right wingers. The same that Lenin and Stalin were left wingers. So are socialists and communists. Does not mean that all left wingers are socialists and communists. As far as the nationalization and confiscation of property. You're really thinking in terms of economics. Not everybody in the right is for the free enterprise system. The same that not everybody in the left is for the confiscation of all private property.
So again my post was about the use of contradictory terms by the Olavo fellow. And by the way...there are militia that are left wingers the same that there are militia people that are Nazis (I've met a few).
Ultimately these terms left and right need to be used in context.