Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Again, IF it was a metaphor, you wouldn't have mentioned Robertson (twice) in an attempt to actually link mainstream conservatism with Nazism. Or should I simply ignore that part of your post in favor of your more compelling argument of "whatever"?
*ding*
now i see where the misunderstanding is. i don't consider robertson or nazism to be representative of the theoretical conservatism you have quoted to me. both are extremists in the right-wing paradigm. while nazism is still relegated to extremism to the point that everyone agrees, robertson is still an important force in the political arena. if you deny this, you are kidding yourself! yes, it is true that you and other conservatives finally recognized his extreme nature after those incindiary remarks he made with falwell on 'the 700 club.' however, he is still a major political force within conservatism--albeit, an extreme faction outside the mainstream--that needs to be dealt with.
you still need examples? then why did bush speak at the extremist bob jones university? i do not think this university does represent mainstream conservatism, but extremism still holds a troublesome place in the republican party.
The case can be made that Robertson is either a moron or a Nazi. But if you look at the way mainstream conservatives criticized him for his stupid post-9/11 comments and the way most of them ignored before then, you can't use that to associate mainstream conservatism and Nazism. You're going to have to find more compelling evidence -- which I contend does not exist.
i never tried to make such a connection with
mainstream conservatism. however, i still believe that there is a troublesome extremist conservative element within the republican party.
True, I have made comparisons between liberalism and Communism -- not the violence of Stalinism, but the state-controlled economy that defines all Communism. Why have I made such a comparison? Because the liberal solution to most problems is more government control. This is at very least a socialist agenda, and the logical conclusion to socialism IS Communism.
liberals and conservatives use government control to their bidding. to generalize, liberals advocate regulation regarding business practices and deregulation regarding social practices. conservatives advocate deregulation regarding business practices and regulation regarding social practices. the theoretical base you attributed to conservativism was actually libertarianism, which advocates deregulation regarding business practices and deregulation regarding social practices. the last faction would be authoritarianism, which advocates regulation on business practices and regulation on social practices.
socialism is
not communism. i need only look to socialist democracies in europe to show you that is not the case. not all socialist nations are riddled with poverty and authoritarian rule, like commonly associated with the soviet union, china, and cuba.
socialist democracy, in practice, recognizes that certain industries are too essential to be subject to the inherent greed and cutthroat mentality that is within competitive capitalism. france, for example, controls the railroads and the utility companies, as these are deemed essential industries for the whole of society. in practice, this should mean that these should be run as non-profit industries, neither making a profit, nor making a debt. of course, i will admit that this is not always the case, and that should be dealt with swiftly.
privatization of certain key industries only leads to chaos. look at california for an example. the utilities were privatized, and, all of a sudden, we are hearing about power shortages. what happened? in the supply / demand curves, the companies deemed that too much supply was given out, hence, it wasn't profitable. so, as later discovered, the companies were whining shortages demanding higher prices, when, in fact, it was discovered that they were running well under capacity in too many instances. private industry was trying to gouge the consumer in the name of profit. likewise, as one of the utilities declared bankruptcy, it was noted that the parent company had been siphoning off millions from the utility back into the parent company.
in an ideal world, deregulation would work, but it does not in all instances. the cable industry is a similar example to above, as, upon deregulation in the 1980s, prices skyrocketed and quality suffered. i do not live in the theoretical world, bubba. the theoretical conservatism does make sense, but, in practice, it does not work.
It would be like saying the logical conclusion to conservatism is anarchy. Both observations are a bit extreme, but they both have a basis in reality...
...unlike linking conservatism with Nazism.
i think i've adequately commented on the conservatism / nazism connection.
I didn't suggest liberals were terrorist sympathizers -- I suggested PACIFISTS were sympathizers, and it happened that most pacifists have been liberals; most who have called for us to do nothing militarily have been from the other side of the aisle.
and that's better? you can criticize their actions and bring them to submission, but to label them "terrorist sympathizers" is equivalent to your accusation that i am a demagogue--"a leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace." isn't that
exactly what you did there, bubba?
i am certainly not immune to fits of histrionics in debate, and now i wish i had crafted my metaphor better. but you cannot deify yourself regarding these fits. you have them too.
That caused an uproar, so I apologized and explained myself: certainly most pacifists do not agreee with the terrorists, but their call for military inaction played right into the hands of the terrorists and would allow them to strike again. The end result of a successful pacifist demonstration would have been a success for the terrorist cause.
and, similarly, my metaphor was created to show the ludicrousness of believing everything rush limbaugh says as "true." and, fyi, i do not think of rush as part of "mainstream conservatism." that's a distinction you must make, considering my attitudes.
Finally, I did call Barbara Lee a Communist. I also called her a traitor, but I explained why: she aided a Communist country's efforts to build an airfield - considered to be a threat to national security - AND worked directly with that country, presenting a draft of a speech to them for approval.
likewise, american businesses have been using china to launch satellites, as it is cheaper, and it is thought that china has intercepted sensitive technology as a result. are they traitorous now too? because i surely think so. but that's what you get with deregulation.
if what you say is true above regarding barbara lee--and i haven't done enough research on her--it still doesn't mean she is a communist, which you obviously used in a connotation to assume that everyone opposed to the war must be a treasonous extremist. i would definitely like to read about the entire situation and find out the context as to why lee did this.
As extreme as I have been, I have - sometimes from the beginning, sometimes with further clarification - explained EXACTLY why I used those labels. I genuinely believe that they fit.
read more of my posts. i shove facts and statistics all through them. most of the posts you have given regarding the debate is theory, not practice. you still haven't adequately responded to my last major post in the debate, where i shoved it full of facts and statistics. you preferred, on the other hand, to harp on one metaphor that i should have phrased much differently on my part.
If you honestly see a link between Nazism and conservatism, you'd better start explaining in at least as much detail as I have done. You ought to be able to; after all, you can "debate circles" around me.
how many times must i tell you? i don't think there is a link. likewise, there isn't a link between liberalism and communism.
Finally, I have apologized when I've overreacted or stepped on too many toes. And I would apologize now if I thought I overreacted here -- if I thought it WAS merely a metaphor.
i am not angered by the debate. i am angered that you went way off tangent, attempting to cast me 1) as an "idiot," and 2) as a "demagogue." that's what i want the apology for, changing it from a debate on merits into personal attacks. you nearly banned me for stepping too far, and now i think you have stepped too far, but now you are above criticism for it. my demand for a formal and sincere apology still stands, and i will forget about it once you do so.
(Again, your Robertson comments prove otherwise. I believe that, when it comes down to it, you believe the "metaphor". I am thus NOT overreacting, and I will not apologize.)
i will tell you until i'm blue in the face that it's simply a metaphor. i hate robertson and limbaugh completely, and i see both of them as extremists, but not necessarily nazis. the metaphor is an attempt for you to understand why it is important not to simply assume that what someone says is true. so i took your demi-god, limbaugh, and put highly inflammatory rhetoric done in the same fashion as his rhetoric against liberals to emphasize why i think his statements are logical fallacies to assume true. i do not believe that either limbaugh or mainstream conservatism believes in nazism. as for robertson, he's too scary to categorize, but, luckily, you recognize his extremist elements. it is my hope that other conservatives have recognized this as well for the long term.
For someone who remembers everything else I've apparently said, you should have also recalled my occasional apologies.
Instead, you say that I NEVER apologize, throwing around the "pride before the fall" quote, and suggesting that I don't apologize because I'm conservative.
You say I've never apologized, which is clearly a lie and an attempt to tarnish my reputation.
oh and trying to dismiss me as an "idiot" and "demagogue" isn't an attempt to tarnish my reputation as well? what the hell did that have to do with the merits of the debate?
Why again is "demagogue" too harsh a description for you?
because i back what i say with necessary factual and logical evidence. what you've stated, mostly, is emotional and theoretical evidence. you don't like pacifists? "terrorist sympathizers." you don't like barbara lee's opposition to the war? "communist" and "traitor." you don't like me? "idiot" and "demagogue."
in fact, quite honestly, the title of "demagogue"--a leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace--suits you more than i on the basis of what you have written.
------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington
