Socialist Prof. Pluss is Purged, but Socialist Ward Churchill Remains
In the name of academic freedom, radicals like Professor Churchill are permitted to spew their kind of leftwing socialist hatred both on and off university campuses.
But Farleigh Dickinson University has just fired a socialist academic, apparently because of his views.
The purged professor is Jacques Pluss, 51.
Dean John Snyder says Pluss was fired for missing four or five days of class, not for the provocative teacher's views. Pluss says he was ill and provided doctor notes to justify these absences.
"What I suspect is somebody on campus discovered I crossed the line of political correctness," says Pluss.
Pluss, it turns out, is a National Socialist, a Nazi, who during his off-work time hosts a racist webcast program called "White Viewpoint."
Dean Snyder acknowledges being aware of Pluss's extra-curricular racist advocacy.
"It's not politics, it's hate mongering," the Associated Press quotes Snyder saying about Pluss's activity. "It's just hatred directed at the very students he taught."
Pluss taught at Fairleigh Dickinson since 2002 but told AP he joined the National Socialist Movement in February this year. He says he never mentioned this affiliation, nor his activities nor views, on campus.
What do we learn from this? We learn that it's not enough to be a socialist to remain a college professor; one must also be the right (i.e., left) flavor of socialist.
If only Pluss had remained the kind of socialist who preaches hatred and violence based on class -- e.g., kill the Jews because they are rich, or because they were "little Eichmans" serving capitalism who deserved to die in the World Trade Center on 9-11 -- he would still have his job and be getting promotions and invitations to speak as a celebrity at other universities.
But because the Franco-totalitarian Pluss switched allegiance only a few degrees, from international socialism to national socialism, and shifted his hate rhetoric from class hatred to race hatred -- e.g., kill the Jews because of their race -- he has been purged by a prominent university on the flimsiest of pretexts.
The moral: if a university really wishes to remove a radical professor, it can be done with little or no objection from his colleagues.
Pluss's behavior and views are morally repugnant, but equally so are those of Ward Churchill. Leftist colleagues and bosses at the University of Colorado who share Churchill's views, however, have no desire to remove haters of his red stripe. The extremism of Churchill's colleagues differs from his only in degree, not class warfare kind, so to remove him would create a precedent threatening their own ideological dominance and positions on campus.
The hypocrisy and double-standard of the left is, as always, disgustingly evident. Racism and socialism of every kind share the same collectivist mentality and hatred for individual human beings. No civilized human can advocate either of these vile forms of hatred.
35 Comments:
When is a socialist not a socialist? When the socialists in charge say so. Sounds like "Through the Looking Glass" logic, which must make some sort of perverse sense in the leftist world.
Yes, true socialists never deviate from the hive mind. Just ask Trotsky. Oh wait, you can't.
Not to encore my one-note song, but when is the DTN leftist database going to include Adolph Hitler? Many of his modern day cheerleaders are already included.
Or, if I may be emboldened to make a request, could the MC bloggers or the reasonable commenters here lay out a case for or against calling Hitler a leftist?
Have a look at this and tell me what you think. I find the argument that Hitler was in fact a leftist compelling.
One has to wonder: where is Noam Chomsky when we need him? This would appear to be a case that was tailor-made for him.
Hitler and the Nazis were not leftist. This is the kind of shoddy argument used by right wing fanatics to discredit the left. Leftists believe in the universal brotherhood of man/women and peace(at least in theory) while Nazis make no bones about their racism and love of war. Sure they were anti-capitalists, but they never put that into practice. The Catholic Church is anti-capitalist too, does that make them leftists? It is a morally reprehensible slur that only complete fat right wing pig like Limbaugh and his ditto-heads could take seriously. oh, I get it, the same pinheads who scream bloody murder every time some leftist calls Bush a Nazi or some Arab calls Israel a Nazi regime now can turn around and point their finger and start calling people Nazis. Sorry, but since the Socialist/Communist movement was started by and heavily supported by jews, that means that the ditto-heads are now calling Jews Nazis, just like their Palestinian pals!
Semantics may be a worthy issue of contention but, like "mr. beamish," I agree that a good case can be made for "The Volksgemeinschaft" being just another strain of collectivist / anti-individualism. Private property (highly regulated) aside, Hitler was no fan of the free market, and certainly no fan of diverse and dynamic liberalism.
Stalin hated Trotsky and Mao hated Khrushchev -- heck, Robespierre even turned on Danton. For all its talk of "cooperation" the left has always been a clique of ideologues unable to cooperate amongst themselves. This doesn't change their basic nature as enemies of free and open society in the slightest.
Whether or not one defines Hitler and the Nazis as "left" doesn't change the fact that he indeed was a kindred spirit to every strain of socialist authoritarian “philosophy.”
C.G.
And here I always thought the Nazis hated Communists more than Jews, and sought to link them together in the minds of the public.
I'll have to go dig some more on the subject. I know I saw a good refutation of the "nazi=leftist" idea somewhere - I just need to find it again.
"To be continued - definately"
J
I'll simply go back to my prior argument that a spectrum of right vs. left is inadequate to define this matter, and distracts from the real issue. The important spectrum has freedom lovers on one end and anti-freedom despots on the other. Clearly Hitler had almost everything in common with Stalin when viewed this way.
Perhaps if we do the freedom scale on the y axis, we could allow a slight left/right deviation on the x axis to allow for the minor differences in how Nazis and Communists go about murdering and oppressing people, but it would truly be a slight deviation.
That's a good point. Both Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia were totalitatian societies.
After however many million dead, does it really matter if they're right or left?
J
What matters in this debate, on this website, is that DTN is trying to lump together extremists of the right with extremists of the left and categorize them all as extremists of the left, based largely on loosely shared anti-capitalist sentiments and the shared use of the word "socialist."
Yes, the Nazis were "national socialists," but George Orwell, to the end of his life, referred to himself as a "socialist," and there was no greater intellectual enemy of fascism than Orwell.
Sometimes this site writes as if scholars of the left and right haven't spent the last fifty years analyzing and discriminating between different forms of totalitarianisms and different constellations of ideological radicalism. Yes, the right wing totalitarianisms had tinges of left-wing ideology, as the left wing totalitarianisms had tinges of right-wing ideology, and often loonies from the left and the right find common areas of agreement, particularly in societies, like ours, in which neither group exerts much influence. But it doesn't mean they're all the same.
The sophistry here reminds me of nothing so much as conversations I've had with card-carrying socialists, who use the "Hitler called himself a National Socialist" line to discredit my arguments that the idea of state socialism had been discredited by the abuses of the various. socialist regimes. The conversations go something like this:
Me: But how can you keep defending these ideas when they've had such disastrous effects when put into practice in the real world.
Them: That wasn't real socialism.
Me: They thought it was real socialism.
Them: Hitler called himself a socialist too. But clearly he didn't have much to do with socialism.
Me: Well, that's true, but, um, the Soviets and Chinese were different.
Them: How?
At this point, I usually give up (in part because I'm not a great debater, in part because it would be futile to continue).
The further irony of these conversations is that they usually end with the socialist explaining to me that all of the failed communisms that I've been talking about were in fact, in their deepest essence, capitalist. It's almost a complete mirror image of the argument being made by DTN.
Can't we just agree that neo-Nazis are the lunatic fringe of the right and neo-Stalinists are the lunatic fringe of the left, and then go on to talk about whether the left or the right has been better at confronting its lunatic fringe, and what that means?
-Dan
Daniel, the difficulty in pursuing the suggestion in your last paragraph, from my point of view as a conservative, is that Hitler had nothing whatever to do with conservatism.
True conservatives are freedom loving people and do not live in the same plane of reality with totalitarians.
That being the case, conservatives can hardly be expected to "confront" fascists as if they were ne'er-do-well cousins.
At the risk of being repetitive, or perhaps the certainty of same, I have to reiterate the idea that Stalin and Hitler were not at opposite ends of any political scale, but were virtually joined at the hip.
Perhaps Hitler was to the right of Stalin in the sense that his regime killed less people.
Redbeard, maybe we can come to some agreement. You write, "I'll simply go back to my prior argument that a spectrum of right vs. left is inadequate to define this matter, and distracts from the real issue."
Okay, let's agree on that for the moment. Can you then agree with me that it's wrong to try to saddle the left with the legacy of Hitler. If, after all, it doesn't have much to do with ideology, then the left isn't on the hook for Hitler. In fact, if explicit ideology is basically irrelevant, then we're not really on the hook for Stalin either.
If that's not true, then explain to me why not. Why should the explicit left-wing ideology of a murderous totalitarian like Stalin continue to tar the left while the explicit right-wing ideology of a murderous totalitarian like Hitler shouldn't tar the right?
Look, I didn't start this. I don't go around calling freedom-loving conservatives Nazis. What I'm asking is that a.) you don't go around associating us with Hitler, and if you do, then please bring a better argument than that Hitler and the left both laid claim to the word "socialism" in one form or another. Hitler also called himself a Christian, but it didn't make him one.
I guess the impetus for my question - "What is right-wing about Hitler" - follows from the usual responses. I don't think we need to redefine the political spectrum as much as we need to apply the one we have. In the political positions and driving ideas one would use to separate the left and right from one another, some of Hitler's ideas were "middle of the road" or have no coordinate on the political map at all. Most were demonstrably off-the-wall goofy leftist. None were strictly right-wing.
Hence, I find calling Nazis right-wing to be a historically and politically inaccurate slur.
Daniel, while I understand your point, I do have a residual problem here. The political philosophy of those commonly referred to today as "leftists" is usually based upon onerous and draconian central government control of the economy and the society.
This principle was central to the rule of both Hitler and Stalin. It's not an accident that the word "socialism" is a part of their dictatorships, placing both men side by side on the despotic end of the political scale.
Because of that fact, I have a bit of trouble giving the so-called "left" a pass. Too many of that bent are functioning as "useful idiots" (to use Lenin's terminology) and are passively or even actively promoting and protecting the nightmare of collectivism and statism.
In decades past, we had useful idiots shilling for both Stalin and Hitler, ranging from the oblivious innocence of Charles Lindberg to the deliberate deceitfulness of Walter Duranty.
Today, the shills for the Nazis have been reduced to a small and rather pitiful group that no one takes seriously, but the shills for communism have run on unabated. It is therefore the "left" of today that presents the most urgent threat to freedom via the sheer size and entrenchment of their organizations.
[deep breath]
So, how's the weather where you live?
Mr. Beamish, I like your thought about the body count. We often forget that Hitler was a rank amateur at mass murder compared to Stalin. History generally says that Hitler murdered 11,000,000, while Stalin murdered upwards of 20,000,000.
Redbeard:
That's the magic of leftism - never having to say you're responsible. Hence the meme that Stalin was a mean and naughty old man for calling himself a communist.
Or something like that.
The weather was nice today, up in the high fifties, and sunny, after a long, cold and snowy winter. Thanks for asking.
I live in Northampton, Mass., just about the bluest part of the bluest state, and I don't recognize this picture you're painting of "the 'left' of today that presents the most urgent threat to freedom via the sheer size and entrenchment of their organizations."
Maybe the left isn't as attuned to the dangers of radical Islam as you'd like, and it's true that there's a segment of the left that's never really owned up to the apologizing it did for communist dictatorships, but this idea that the American left is a profound threat to freedom is offensive.
We're just regular people. Really. Even the academics, like my girlfriend and my best friend, and the leftwing journalists, like my brother and me, and the labor activists, like my father. We care about our families, our jobs, our communities. We argue with each other about politics, or sports, or money. We like Seinfeld and the Boston Red Sox (well, okay, the Yankees). My family didn't eat pate and bruschetta for dinner when I was growing up; we ate chicken, roast beef, mac & cheese, and when we went out it was usually to Friendly's or Wendy's.
Yes, it's true that we'd like to see a less aggressive foreign policy, and universal health care, and more protection of the environment, and more protection of the right to organize, and things like that.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me on all that, but I don't understand how a foreign policy not so different from the one that got us through the Cold War, and a domestic policy that Richard Nixon would have recognized as well within the mainstream, have been turned into a radical neo-crypto-communist threat.
I know that there are some radical leftists on the faculties of universities, and I know that a lot of leftists can be annoyingly self-righteous, rigidly ideological, and reflexively anti-American. Believe me, I know, probably a lot better than you do. But here's the thing. These kinds of people comprise at most about 5% of the American population, half of them are teachers or social workers, and many of them are, despite their political blind spots, really decent people.
Beamish writes, "That's the magic of leftism - never having to say you're responsible." What exactly does he want all of us to admit responsibility for? The CPUSA died around 1950. The Stalinists were ejected from the Democratic party and from the AFL-CIO well before that. The Sixties were a mixed bag. A lot of utopian nonsense that has done a lot of damage, but also, let's not forget, the full enfranchisement of blacks and women, and the beginning of the gay rights movement.
I'm not sure if that was entirely coherent, but I have to go to bed.
-Dan
Beamish writes, "That's the magic of leftism - never having to say you're responsible." What exactly does he want all of us to admit responsibility for? The CPUSA died around 1950. The Stalinists were ejected from the Democratic party and from the AFL-CIO well before that. The Sixties were a mixed bag. A lot of utopian nonsense that has done a lot of damage, but also, let's not forget, the full enfranchisement of blacks and women, and the beginning of the gay rights movement.
I'm not sure we can credit the left with the full enfranchisement of blacks and women (a concept I find disasterously unfulfilled by "affirmative action," depending on the meaning of "enfranchisement" as used here.) And I'm not exactly sure how the left forwards the gay rights movement with the disparaging and scandalously implied gay-bashing "outing" of Sen Max Baucus' opponent Mike Taylor, a married heterosexual, in campaign advertisements in 2002, as well as John Kerry's digs at Mary Cheney, and the current Jeff Gannon-is-gay-and-so-is-Karl-Rove cacophony at the tolerant ::snicker:: Democratic Underground site. Votes against gay marriage amendments turned out higher percentages in blue states, and of the red states, the highest anti-gay marriage margin (71%) was attained in Missouriu during the August 2004 Democratic primaries.
It may be that the "gay rights movement" is further out of the mainstream than even America's left can pioneer. But I don't see it ever progressing beyond a novelty, Bravo Network be damned.
But to get back to the point of what the left should hold itself responsible for, disinformation would be a nice start. Forever is the left distancing itself from past failings by pawning the responsibility for them upon someone else - Stalin wasn't communist, Hitler was right-wing, etc. - while at the same time repackaging the same tired collectivist ideas with new slogans to trample the individual rights of the masses with.
A case in point - Bill Clinton was in Davos a few weeks ago praising the Iranian government for the success of the "moderates" in bringing reform - the kind of reforms Clinton would like to see in the United States. Clinton lamented he was in the minority politically in his identification with the ruling party in Iran.
I should hope so. If we get too many more Presidents that identify with hoisting a young girl with a crane by her neck until her body weight decapitates her as a way to deal with rape accusations, we're done for.
In short, the left should hold itself responsible for being wrong about a great many things.
Daniel, I think we've discovered the basic source of our disagreement. You accidentally let it slip that you're a fan of that secondary baseball league. Come on over to the big show, the pros, the National League. You know, where pitchers are allowed to participate in the other half of the game. Then we can find some common ground.
I'm out of here, guys. Too much work (the curse of the fishing class) this week. See you soon.
Beamish, I don't distance myself from Stalin by saying that he wasn't a communist. I distance myself from Stalin by saying he was a murderous, tyrannical communist dictator. I'm not a communist, so I have no difficulty saying that. As for Hitler, he was repellent regardless of whether he was a communist or a fascist, and I don't see how, as a American liberal, I'm in any way responsible for him. It was an American liberal, FDR, who helped lead the effort to destroy the Third Reich.
Again, what am I responsible for? This idea that because I support, say, socialized medicine, I'm somehow on the hook for the crimes of Soviet communism is totally insane. Where does it end? Does my support of public education, or social security, or making road-building the responsibility of the state, make me culpable for Mao? I'm a believer in capitalism, and I'm a believer in a moderately activist state that helps to control and ameliorate some of the excesses and inequalities of capitalism. There's nothing communistic about this; in fact, it was the consensus policy of America from the 1930s through the 1970s.
I think it's absolutely fair to critique the far left for its complicity, in the past, with some murderous regimes. And it's fair to critique liberals for being soft on radical Islam, if you think that they are. What I find untenable is the tying of those two things together. The Democratic party, even the liberal wing of it, has been consistently anti-communist, and doesn't have to answer for Stalin, and certainly not for Hitler.
It seems to me that you want to tie those two things together because it's easier than arguing the issues on their merits. Why bother defending the war in Iraq when you can just dismiss its critics as neo-communists? Why defend the bankruptcy bill just passed by the Republican congress when you can dismiss its critics as "statists" or whatever the word du jour is? Why defend the unnecessary tax cuts that have done so much to put us into deficit?
I know that people on the left do the same sort of thing, dismissing their critics rather than arguing their positions, but two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact is that I often argue with liberal or leftist friends of mine when I think they're taking the easy way out. So I feel okay demanding the same of you now. The Democratic party is not the party of Noam Chomsky. It's the party of Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean and Hilary Clinton -- moderate liberals who support a somewhat expanded welfare state and a somewhat less aggressive foreign policy. None of them has ever made excuses for communist regimes, none of them wants to nationalize industry, none of them wants to restrict free expression, and none of them wants to liquidate their enemies.
That doesn't mean you should vote for them, but it means, I think, that you can't just dismiss them as neo-communist shills.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
>>None of them [Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton] has ever made excuses for communist regimes, none of them wants to nationalize industry, none of them wants to restrict free expression, and none of them wants to liquidate their enemies.<<
Are we to take from this that John Kerry was kidding in all his Senate speeches praising Daniel Ortega? Was Hillary Clinton's "national health care plan" not an attempt to nationalize over one-seventh of the US gross domestic product? Howard Dean merely wants to co-exist with the "evil" Republican Party? Al Gore doesn't think I'm a "digital brownshirt?"
As I said, being leftist means never having to say you're responsible. Even for demogoguery.
[typos corrected]
I could argue with you, Beamish, by pointing out all the strident things that Republican leaders have said about their critics, but it would never end. We could go back and forth forever. I would dredge up every last quotation -- probably 1,000 on this website alone -- in which conservatives equated criticism of the president, or the war in Iraq, with treason.
I could point out that various members of the present Bush administration -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. -- played footsie with Saddam Hussein in the eighties when part of the elder Bush administration, or that the present Bush administration was dealing with the Taliban prior to 9/11, or that the former Senate Majority leader played footsie with white supremacists (yes, I know he's not majority leader, but he's still a US senator).
Then you would come back with Bill Clinton at an anti-war march in England where they burned an American flag, or Jimmy Carter sitting with Michael Moore at the convention, etc., etc.
It would never end, though. It's an argumentative method designed to avoid actually having a genuine argument. Anyone who's spent a considerable amount of time in public office, or in the public eye, will have moments in which they made the wrong decision, or phrased something badly, or shook hands with the wrong person.
The way to have a real argument is to look at all the available evidence, or as much as one person can reasonably absord, and come to a reasoned opinion of someone's politics.
John Kerry, for instance, is obviously uneasy about the use of massive military force, but he just as obviously is not anti-American, and not opposed to the use of force to defend America. He doesn't seem to have a very compelling grand vision of the role of American power in the world, but nor is he in denial about threats to our society. In fact, he wrote an entire book, published in 1997 I believe, that dealt substantially, and in ways prophetically, with the danger of international terrorism.
He's not, nor has he ever been, a socialist. He's a liberal. Howard Dean, though he was opposed to the war in Iraq, was a moderate, and highly effective, governor of the state of Vermont. Hilary Clinton is the wife, and Al Gore was the vice president, of the man who did more than any other to re-position the Democratic party toward the center (and also a man, by the way, who showed little hesitation to employ the military).
Hilary Clinton's health care plan did not, in fact, propose a government takeover of health care, though I would have supported it if she had. Plenty of other countries in the world do just fine with socialized medicine; there is, without question, some rationing of the more expensive kinds of care, but I think that's a worthwhile trade-off for a system that doesn't leave 12% or so of the population without any coverage at all, and that manages to cover everyone at considerably lower cost than our system.
Again, I'm not saying that all of this means that you have to agree with their positions, but it means that you should stop referring to them as "leftists," when they're clearly not, and stop accusing them of being in bed with Stalin.
You write, "As I said, being leftist means never having to say you're responsible. Even for demogoguery."
More accurate would be that being a politicians means never saying you're responsible. Even for demagoguery? Especially for demagoguery. Since when do politicians go around apologizing for past mistakes and overheated rhetoric? If that's the test for supporting a candidate, then we're going to run out of viable candidates in about eight minutes.
I'm not afraid of arguing on behalf of liberal positions? Why are you so afraid of arguing against them?
Arguing against the philosophy of liberalism and in favor of conservatism is a bit like arguing that earthquakes are bad while a bright sunrise is good.
Ok, that previous post was too much of a hit-and-run deal, so here's more from a curmudgeonly conservative.
Liberalism makes assumptions based upon indefensible presuppositions. For example, liberals believe that government can manage our money better that we can. That flies in the face of reality. If someone can show me a fiscally responsible government program, I would be most interested in learning about it.
Liberals believe that minorities cannot succeed without government help. This is proven wrong every day in the real world, and is demeaning to the very people liberals want to help.
Liberals believe that law-abiding citizens cannot be trusted with firearms. This is simply not backed up by facts, and contradicts the thinking of the Founding Fathers.
Liberals believe that the UN and international concensus should guide our foreign policy. That is very dangerous. The U.S. should run foreign policy based solely upon what is best for the U.S. If the rest of the world wants to join in and reap the benefits, fine. If not, the rest of the world can go pound sand.
The list is endless, but there's a start.
I think I can clarify where I'm coming from by saying that leftists made "liberal" a bad word.
Do I think Hillary Clinton has a shrine to Stalin in her closet?
No. She's too egotistical for that.
I'm going to ignore Beamish for a while, because I've decided that he or she is actually a leftist in disguise, sent on a secret mission to the Moonbat Central message boards to discredit the idea that right wing citizens can string words and sentences together into a coherent argument.
RedBeard, though - I feel as if we can talk to each other.
So, you write, "Liberalism makes assumptions based upon indefensible presuppositions. For example, liberals believe that government can manage our money better that we can."
I'm not sure that I would phrase it in precisely that way, but it's true, for instance, that liberals believe that there are certain things that only the government can do. Maintain a military, for instance, and a police force. Pave and maintain the roads and highways. Protect the environment. Provide public education. etc., etc.
There are societal goods, societal necessities, that will not be provided for adequately by the free market. I'm not sure what's even controversial about this, much less indefensible.
Again (again, and again, and again), I'm not saying that you have to agree with me on which particular goods the government should provide. These are the questions liberals and conservatives have been arguing about since the nation's founding.
But why do you feel compelled to continue to set up left-wing straw men that you can knock down rather than engaging with the actual arguments of an actual liberal (me!) who's talking to you?
Some liberals probably do believe, for instance, that "minorities cannot succeed without government help." I don't believe that, and I'm enormously ambivalent about affirmative action. At best, it's a highly imperfect solution to a horribly difficult problem. It might, I think, be preferable to no solution at all, but maybe not. What I do believe is that the government has some obligation to ameliorate some of the ill effects of hundreds of years of goverment-enforced slavery, segregation and discrimination. If you want to argue that affirmative action is worse than doing nothing, then I'll listen, but I don't appreciate being told that my concern, and my ambivalent support for some forms of affirmative action, is nothing more than racism. It's not.
>>I'm going to ignore Beamish for a while, because I've decided that he or she is actually a leftist in disguise, sent on a secret mission to the Moonbat Central message boards to discredit the idea that right wing citizens can string words and sentences together into a coherent argument.<<
Claims the man who says John Kerry never made excuses for communist regimes...
I'm going to ignore Beamish for a while, because I've decided that he or she is actually a leftist in disguise, sent on a secret mission to the Moonbat Central message boards to discredit the idea that right wing citizens can string words and sentences together into a coherent argument.
must be pretty deep cover! Check out his blog.
*goes back to munching popcorn*
J
Daniel, I know that Mr. Beamish is for real. He was sitting right next to me at the last meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Social Security, Medicare, Hillarycare, etc. are examples of the government attempting to do things which it has no ability to do correctly and no business trying in the first place.
Government wealth transfer is a negative game. We send a buck to the federal government, it gets churned around in the madhouse of D.C. bureaucracy, half of it evaporates in waste and then 50 cents gets returned to someone, but we're not sure who, or why, or if that person is a deserving recipient.
Leave the money with those who created it, and let them invest or spend it as they see fit as grown-up intelligent human beings. If I had a buck lying around, I could invest it in the worst possible instrument and still get a couple of percentage points of gain, rather than the loss the federal government promises me on my tax payments.
The basic concept that average citizens are incapable of handling their own money and should be coddled by the nanny state is insulting and repugnant.
The whole system has grown like a cancer, and no longer remotely resembles any sort of benign safety net as originally intended. It's more akin to a gigantic, inescapable, geometrically-expanding spider web, the sort that nightmares and horror movies are made of. Remember David Hedison in the original The Fly movie, stuck in the web screaming, "Help me! Heeeeelp me!!!?"
Guys, I do believe we've just about exhausted this thread, and it's about to go into the Moonbat Archive somewhere. I would like to buy you all a beer sometime, even the liberals who no doubt drink only light beer. ;-)
RedBeard,
Next time you're in western Mass., drop me a line and I'll happily let you buy me a light beer. I also drink bourbon, but only when none of my liberal friends is watching.
-Dan
Daniel, the mistake you are making is confusing motivation with ideology. The ideological common bond between Hitler and Stalin is totalitarianism. Does their motivation really matter when the end result is mass murder?
Do not judge my motives, but rather end results.
This may be one of the stupidest fucking things I have read all year.
I would have to agree....
Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.
Fascism entry in the Italian Encylopedia 1932 written by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile.
http://tinyurl.com/2pxnz
Post a Comment
<< Home