I’ve decided to make this an ‘every so often’ regular topic. It will give me a place to put the comments that are not clearly SPAM or TRASH, yet are not suited to “polite company” in that I’m not willing to hand the poster a megaphone to just run around spouting stuff; yet are not really something to just “trash” and ignore.
Basically, it lets me let the information in the comment come through, but without the implicit endorsement of not having it “moderated” or giving the poster ‘rights’ to continue in the same style.
First up, one from “the wayback machine”….
The Tragically Flip
The Tragically Flip
Well, first off, the email address (where I’ve put xxx in place of the valid site) is clearly NOT intended to be a real email address… So, if you want to say STFU to me, I ought to hand you a megaphone because?…
“Dear Wolf Blitzer: Nazi is a short form of National SOCIALIST Party.”
I know Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about all this and it must be true because it was in a book, but is that really the extent of your proof that Nazis weren’t right wing?
So we’ve got some gratuitous insult (“it must be true because it was in a book” as though folks are really that dumb… books are written by idiots on all sides…) and some gratuitous “challenge” in asserting that the only “proof” is someone’s book. Well, aside from the fact that it’s a clear non-sequitur and that it’s also a poor bit of logic, it’s just a PITA to be in the position of “defending a negative” as in “Did you stop beating your spouse?”…
But no, that’s not my only proof. It’s just a large indication of what those folks who gave it that name thought they were all about and what they ADVERTIZED themselves as being… Kind of like if I called myself “Angry Black Man” when I’m clearly more of “Cranky White Trash”… Folks would notice. So, in their time, the NAZI clearly believed they were Socialists and advertized themselves as same (and a trivial degree of looking will turn up all sorts of additional information along those lines including party agenda, support of Socialist agenda items, advocacy for Socialist goals, etc.). So no, I’ll not let the “slam” just go through and lay there, go do some
North Korea is actually the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, East Germany was the “German Democratic Republic” were/are either of them democratic societies? Maybe totalitarians misuse political labels to promote their agenda? The Nazis are noted for their propaganda abilities and their penchant for lying, could it be the “socialist” bit in the name wasn’t sincere?
Now he’s / she’s clearly on a roll… ANY liar anywhere means everyone is a liar…. love that “logic”…
But, to the point, The GDR was also a Socialist enterprise (though of the more Communist cloth). The North Koreans are clearly hard core communist Socialists. Need I say more? But I guess I do…
They simply learned that “Socialist” was a tainted label and did what good Socialists always try to do once folks figure out the “Brand” is tainted, they try to use a good brand and hide behind it. Part of why I despise such folks is their willingness to lie and use deception. So “The Crooks LIE!!! therefore so do the cops!” is the essence of this “reasoning”. I prefer to simply say “Yes, Crooks lie. They learned that being a good Socialist / Nazi / Communist was a tainted brand after the Nazi got done with it (and Stalin…)”.
But it’s a mildly interesting attempt to ‘finesse’ from Nazi as Socialist to Socialist as Totalitarian to Totalitarian as Liars and therefore NOT Socialists… but the chain does not hold.
But I do note it was phrased as a question so it could be denied as an assertion later when shown to be complete bilge water…
After all, among Hitler’s first deeds on the passage of the Enabling act was to round up and lock away or kill all the actual German socialists, who most definitely did not see the Nazis as allies in the grand struggle to seize the commanding heights of the economy and so forth.
“These are not the Socialists you are looking for”… And Stalin did in his fellow travelers too… All good Socialists believe in eating their young and the competition. Vis Trotsky…
So we have “actual German socialists” as though if one is a “good German” then all the “bad folks” can not actually have been German… or socialists… Look, it doesn’t matter that Hitler did in the competition. Look at what the party advocated. Their agenda is clearly socialist. Their advertizing was socialist. Their policies were socialist. Yeah, Hitler was a very extreme end of the scale and a very nasty fellow and he blended in a racist element as well. That does not make him a non-socialist.
The only thing that distinguishes the Fascists (i.e. Italy W.W.II era) and fascists (i.e. the rest of the folks who follow the ‘third way’ including Nazi German) from fellow socialists is that they were willing to use the ‘corporatist’ form to achieve their ends. That is, you can keep you company if you play ball with the socialist government, if not, they take it away. The same thing being done now in parts of the EU and most notably in the USA. No goodies for the Union in bankruptcy? Well, “no cookies for the bond holders” we’re Government Motors now… here, Union, have the stock ownership rights… One “plank” of the Socialist agenda is that bankruptcy ought not to happen and instead the “capital” ought to be given over to the workers… viz:
Socialist-type economies were characterized by the centrality of the plan over the market as a form of coordination, by state over private ownership (cf. central planning). More precisely the system of socialist economic planning turned on (i) targets for physical production (the plan); (ii) the absence of price signals for market clearing; and (iii) the absence of bankruptcy (the so-called soft budget constraint).
So that whole “GM and The Banks” bailout thing?….
BTW, the Nazi were rather big on “central planning” and “targets for production” and “non-price signals”. No, I’m not going to provide the proof of it. You can do your own search. It’s there, and it’s clear. The Nazi were just early to the “Market Socialism” party (before it really had a name) and used “corporatism” very effectively.
The US right wing aren’t Nazis
How magnanimous. Willing to admit that the “right wing” are not dirt bag fascists Socialists with a racist agenda …
and liberals like me can easily admit this, but that’s partly because the modern left wing aren’t Stalinists.
Note the false “A isn’t B and C isn’t D therefore B isn’t E”… (Republicans not Nazi, and AmericanSocialistLiberals are not Communists, so Nazis are not Socialists… )
Nothing to do with policies advocated, nor methods employed, nor goals, nor even “what did they do”…
If you really aren’t an “extremist”
“If you really have stopped beating your wife…”
you could admit that Hitler and the Nazis had more than a few beliefs and activities that align much more closely to US right wing thinking.
Like what? Support of unions? Desire for central planning and control? Push of a “green agenda”? Gun “Control” (where the Nazi law is indistinguishable from what the Democrats push now)? Gays in the military? (Yes, the Nazi were ‘early adopters’ of that one… ) Plural marriage? ( See the SS baby mills where all SS were married to the harem, in essence). Yup, I’m sure you can find a lot of overlap there. BTW, early on Hitler despised Christianity. Only later did he learn to exploit it as symbolism. So no, I find nearly NOTHING in common between the US “right wing” (though the term is broken) and the Nazi. (The only overlap I see is that both advocate a strong military, though for entirely different ends, and a creeping tendency for “Corporate Socialism” in the US system that is just Socialism making some headway against the traditional “competition” based model and not really a “right wing” belief at all).
Many right wingers of the day admired the Nazis just as many liberals of the 20s and 30s admired Stalin back before the truth was really known about either regime.
Oh boy…. the “many did” line. “Many Nazi” eat cabbage therefore all cabbage eaters are Nazis…
No, it doesn’t work that way. FWIW, the folks on the “left” (another broken term) admired fascism even more than did those on the “right”. Look into the history. FDR praised it and Wilson was positively in love with it (and with the moral virtues brought by militarism…) FWIW, the only real difference between Stalin and Hitler was that Stalin thought the state ought to confiscate all the means of production (communism) while Hitler thought it was ok to have private ownership as long as they did what they were told (corporatism). Other than that, both despised Jews, Christianity, market competition, private property rights, and individual freedoms. BOTH supported the Socialist agenda of central planning and the perfection of mankind via central power and control.
They were both good at propaganda and fooled a lot of well meaning people in the West who didn’t know about the gas chambers and gulags and only knew what lies they saw in well produced film clips.
Yes, at last, a glimmer of truth. State Sponsored Propaganda was used effectively by both socialist regimes… leading to later socialists needing to hide behind different names…
Also, different topic, Blitzer doesn’t rant about anything. He’s not someone I have any particular affinity for but he’s practically a vulcan for all the emotion he ever puts into anything.
Well, while it’s true that most of the time he’s a real dead fish, he was ranting when I saw him. No, not a hyper emotional rant, but one need not be hyper emotive to be hyper partisan…
OK, with that, we move on to the Next Candidate…
Where their web site is in India, but their IP address places them in Sydney Australia…
Well, not that that’s a flag or anything, but the email address given goes to yet a third place. (No real hard core issue there, my email is hosted on aol and I’ve got a web site at a different provider, while I connect from somewhere else… but they are all in the same country…)
Obviously the fact that there was a record cold *somewhere* this year means that global warming is a hoax. Of course! A couple of cold days in the year mean the rest of the year can be forgotten, as can the rest of the world.
What a brilliant bit of science and logic- you are to be congratulated!
Oh Boy! Be Still My Heart! Yet Another Person who thinks they are the first one to ever use “absurdum ad reductio” and / or that a deliberate mis-understanding can be used to prove the actual statement is wrong (or more likely that it can be used to distract and mislead the weak of logic).
But, to the point: NO, it does not “prove”, but it does “demonstrate” that we are a long ways away from “global warming”. The number of such places is what proves that AGW is a farce. Any individual one is just illustrative.
Oh, pity that someone who actually bothered to keep detailed records shows a clear multiyear trend towards shorter and warmer winters in the Midwest USA. That is, someone capable of considering climate as something more than a temporary low temperature that lasts a few weeks or days.
Now we get the gratuitous insult (and they wonder why I filter out such trash… though this one is an indirect insult via a false comparision and derision) If you can’t make a point without insult and personal attack please, go somewhere else. This site is NOT about personalities nor about debating skills, it’s about truth and facts. Stick to those, no problem. Even if it shows me a floundering idiot as I’ve screwed up something horribly. Just say “Um, this fact points to the opposite” and I’ll look at it and if I’ve really screwed the pooch, say “Golly, I screwed the pooch”…
I’ve taken the liberty of deleting the link as the non-sequitur that leads into it makes it pointless propaganda.
Clearly, the snow is melting earlier and earlier every year, as a trend.
and missing the point that a 30 year “trend” in a 60 year cycle is called an “error of judgement”…
But then, your cold snap really disproves these years of observations doesn’t it? Maybe you can write an email to Patrick Neuman and tell him not to bother any more. That one day/week/month of record cold in who-knows-where USA means it ISNT WARMING. FER SURE!
Now we get the “lever off of the bogus distractor into hyperbole… ”
The point was pretty clear. We’ve reversed direction and we’re having greater cold excursions, not in keeping with the ‘end of cold as we know it’ narrative. Catch a clue, and don’t try juvenile dodges.
I see a great future ahead of you as a commentator on Fox News!
Oddly, in this attempt at a ‘tar with association’ I actually felt my heart beat a little faster.
I would dearly love to be a commentator on science issues on Fox News. Something like a Stossel of Science. Not from their “left wing” camp ( Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Alan Colmes, etc.) nor from their “right wing” camp ( Hannity, etc.) but from the libertarian angle.
But that is just fantasy on my part. While I’m pretty good on camera, I don’t think there is enough market for my brand of “just the facts and the truth and none of the bickering” Fox likes the ‘everybody shout at once’ conflict a bit more than I do… so it’s probably a non-starter… But I can dream can’t I?
At any rate, it speaks volumes about the poster, and not so much about me. I watch Fox. A lot. I also fairly religiously watch “Link TV” and Aljazeera. (Link TV being about as far ‘left wing socialist’ as you can get). I also watch CNN (when Wolf isn’t on… Anderson Cooper is quite good) and the BBC from time to time too. It’s good to be ‘well read’ and ‘widely exposed’… Though I’ve given up on trying MSNBC. It’s all just rants against the “Evil Right Wingers and Fox!@!!…” though they added some disparagement of the Tea Party and attempts at character assassination to the mix. That was about when I just never bothered again.
But a Fox commentator? He thinks I could be THAT good? Golly!
Finally, “Dear Jack”…
This one is a bit more marginal for me. Most of the comment was reasonable and reasonably phrased. Only at the end did it cross that line into personal insult. Even that was a bit mild. But that “I’m telling you what to do” aspect put it over.
As near as a causal look goes, the email and IP address are “kosher”. The content is pretty much OK. So why here and not just let through? “Attitude”. Likes to toss rocks at folks. Not quite what you want at a yard party…
For a point by point on the actual text, I’ve got some details in a comment here:
This will be more discussion OF the comment than it is discussion of the topics IN the comment (though some of it is of necessity overlap).
Yeah, umm, I’ve been following Ivory Coast for 15 years pretty closely and you missed some very important facts. First, Gbagbo took power after a disputed election in which he was the hand chosen opponent of Robert Guei, a Military Coup Leader who used the previous president’s claim that Northerners were not “ivoirian” enough to be candidates for president to keep Ouattera from running. Guie chose Gbagbo because he is an internationally known schmuck.
OK, not too bad so far. Those facts were in the links (and the election stuff was quoted to some extent) so not paying close attention, but OK, some folks don’t. Personalizing it to “you missed” as opposed to “I didn’t see” is a small flag, but it’s common to do, so would normally slide. The “not ‘Ivorian’ enough” dig misses the point I was making that the prior occupants of the land might want some say about who moves in and takes over… but could just be someone being a bit dense instead of ‘having a chip’ so would also likely be allowed a pass. “Schmuck”… OK, maybe the guy just doesn’t know what that word actually translates to… BUT we’re up to a bit of “caution yellow” as we’ve got gratuitous insulting behaviour starting…
Yiddish shmok, lit. “penis,” from Old Pol. smok, “grass snake, dragon.”
So we read a bit more closely from here on out…
Then Gbagbo refused to hold a real election. Ouattera won the election in November with close to 2/3 of the vote. Gbagbo claimed that there was fraud in Ouattera’s stronghold, even though the same numbers had been posted in the first round of the election in which Gbagbo got about 40% of the vote.
So, what do you do when there is a hint of electoral fraud? Well, you get your Supreme Court to throw out ALL of the votes from the areas where you claimed there was fraud. (The entire court was made up of Gbagbo appointees.)
OK, a deliberate or accidental misunderstanding of the point that the North is full of non-citizen folks who wandered over the border and maybe ought not to be allowed to determine what happens to the country to which they have “invaded” or “migrated without citizenship”.
You remember the same thing happened here right? When Florida committed fraud in the 200 election we threw out their votes right? Yeah.
OK, red flag is UP. Our Supreme Court rules, and he’s still got a chip on his shoulder about it. Justices appointed from both parties. FULL legal regalia followed. OK, this is just Political Spin Doctoring 1-oh-1 going on. Now we’re on the “probably ought to be dumped or edited list”…
Note to Looney Lefties: Give up on the “stolen election” thing or you will never make any progress.
(Regular folks on the left already “get it’ like my Democrat friend in Florida and my Democrat Uncle in Texas, it’s only the Dimocrats among them that are on the looney side of left).
The next step was to find more fraud because not only had Ouattera’s supporters come out for Ouattera, but so had Gbedie’s (the president who Guie overthrew). So, Gbagbo had to keep upping the ante by claiming more and more fraud and canceling the vote in more and more of the country so that he counted the votes of the most favorable 50% of the country so he could claim a 51% victory. The whole process played out publicly, and, as an attorney, I would gladly pay anyone who can find a real democracy where this happened $1,000.00. Just one common law ruling that allegations of fraud mean the entire electorate’s votes are annulled.
OK, the guy is now flaunting credentials. “as an attorney”. Well, doesn’t make you an expert on international election law nor on human rights of a people to their own country nor on who ought to get to vote under the laws of Ivory Coast nor even make you any smarter than the rest of us. But it does mean you are trained in debate, how to mislead and misdirect, and how to lie convincingly (don’t deny it, it’s part of the tool kit. I’ve worked for lawyers and it’s one of the things I admired most about them. I thought I could trap folks with lies, then I saw The Masters at work…). And we get a gratuitous “bet” that can never be effectively policed nor collected.
But thanks for the warning flag. (Raise Shields Even Higher ;-)
So, the UN, having been charged to verify the democratic standards of the election came down on Ouattera’s side,
Oh boy! Appeal to Authority! And using the UN as an authority too! Wow!!! a “Two Fer” of non-starters… thus leading to the logical conclusion that whatever they said must be true:
BECAUSE HE WON.
Yeah, sure he did…
Now, this is something that real politic morons never seem to get,
BING! We have another gratuitous insult…”moron”…
if you try to force a christian dictatorship on a Country,
BING! Guilt by association ‘Christian Dictatorship’… though that one is a new one on me…
you are neither a Christian nor a democrat
Subtile shift from Dictator to democrat
(small D, if you don’t know the difference use a dictionary).
Bing! BING! A “two fer” with both a gratuitous insult “don’t know the difference” AND personally directed “you”.
We’re now on the “no redeeming moral value” list, but hoping maybe it can be saved with strategic snips to take out the insults…
More importantly, you will in the long run hurt your goals, assuming they are to propagate Christianity, or your version thereof where its okay to deny the result of democratic elections because a Muslim won.
Personally directed “your goals”…
An attempt at a “self interest plea” followed immediately by an indirection attack of the form “assuming you are a bigot with an agenda”… with the “possible” of an attempt to trap into a “rebut and show other bigotry” ploy. But to the point: No, my ‘goal’ is not to ‘propagate Christianity’. Sirrah, you have leapt off a cliff of conclusion.
I’m best described as an atheist with Pegan leaning (the wind has wind spirit, the tree is just a tree spirit), but well educated in Christianity and with a fondness of Buddhism… Frankly, while Christianity is rather well behaved at the moment, I’d be hard pressed to say which has done more total harm to the planet, Christianity or Islam. But that both are far more damaging than Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and a dozen other isms; that is written in the history of conquest and destruction of both of them. (“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”) But I hold out hope that folks can “get over it” and that most folks are just nice folks who think “religion” is a nice idea most of the time and don’t get much beyond that, be they Christians, Muslims, or Jews.
Then we get the “or your version thereof” as though it was a flavor of ice cream and I want everyone to eat Rocky Road or be strung up and flayed… and the run for the punch line… It’s all because a Muslim won so I must be an anti-democratic religious bigot.
I’m against DEMOCRACIES as they fail, usually in about 50 years, and in favor of REPUBLICS as they are stable. I’m especially fond of democratic republics as they are both stable and support decent equality of rights, especially of minority rights. (If you don’t know the difference between a ‘democracy’ and a ‘democratic’ republic, I know a guy who can recommend a dictionary to you…)
The “minority rights” issue of democracies was best made clear to me by a Black Man. I have no idea who he was. I was listening to Late Night Radio driving across some God Forsaken bit of nowhere and it was all I could get on the radio. Not wanting to fall asleep and die, I listened. A caller said, roughly, “Democracy? Democracy! Don’t you talk to me about no democracy! Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch!”
I can think of no clearer way to explain the problem of direct democracies when it comes to minority rights.
And that is why I prefer a Republic of democratically elected representatives. Because the 10% Christians in Egypt need just as much protection as the 6 ish percent of Muslims and Jews in America (and even the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses). Because it is no more right for me to tell them “There is no God, worship trees, dirt, and the sun” as it is for them to say: Pronounce YHWH “Allah” or “Jehovah” or don’t ever say it at all…
But if you want to worship democracies, go right ahead… just don’t force me to do it.
In any case, in democratic West Africa, (Benin, Mali, Ghana, Liberia and Nigeria all have stable democracies; Niger is a democracy but not stable;
Oh, I see you are going to worship at the altar of Democracy Über Alles..
But, as I pointed out in my reply here:
There is no such thing as a ‘stable democracy’, though there are stable democratic republics. (Would you like that dictionary now?…)
Alexis de Tocqueville quoted more than a century ago that this great experiment in self governing which we call the United States would survive only until the American People discovered they could vote themselves largess from the public purse. In other words, when they learned how to feed at the public tax trough by electing that breed of politician who would empty someone else’s pockets, via taxation, and give the stolen money to them. We have elected far to many such and allowed them to seduce us into believing we are entitled to a share of someone else’s money. We aren’t. Not now, not ever.
So back to the comment…
only Togo – a strong US ally- and Burkina Faso are not clearly democracies),
An attempt to paint any non-democracy as evil, then guilt by association to the US as “ally”
I suppose just like the UK (a MONARCHY) and Canada (a FEDERATION):
The Government of Canada, formally Her Majesty’s Government, is the system whereby the federation of Canada is administered by a common authority; in Canadian English, the term can mean either the collective set of institutions or specifically the Queen-in-Council. In both senses, the construct was established at Confederation, through the Constitution Act, 1867, as a constitutional monarchy, wherein the Canadian Crown acts as the core, or “the most basic building block,” of the kingdom’s Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. The Crown is thus the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Canadian government. Further elements of governance are outlined in the rest of the constitution of Canada, which includes written statutes, court rulings, and unwritten conventions developed over centuries.
Yeah, those damned non-clearly-democracies with their crowns and parliamentary representatives…
the US, UN, or Europe supporting Gbagbo over those Muslims would only reinforce the stereotype that Europeans and Americans are too stupid
BING! Another gratuitous insult. “too stupid” Yeah, a minor one that ordinarily would not count for a fig, but in the context of being “on a roll”, well, add it to the list..
to figure out that Africa, like much of the middle east, is ready and eager to give it a go. So, next time you decide to argue that Burkina Faso is about to collapse and we should support a neofascist dictator because he is a christian, just remember, real politic takes more than a sophomoric knowledge of the region and world.
And here he gets the All Wound Up In Summary RANT: “we should support a neofascist dictator” (but at least it’s got a ‘royal we’ in there so it’s not directly personalized, just by inference) “because he is a christian” which I never said, only that the preexisting population was being overrun by folks from nearby of Muslim decent. I’d make the same argument if the “originals” were Animists or Jews or Atheists or anything ELSE and I’d make the same argument if the “originals” were muslims being over run by a bunch of “white trash Baptists”. It’s an argument about the right of self determination in your own home when invited guests choose not to leave.
But then we get to the final personal insult. “So, next time you” making it personally directed “support a neofascist dictator” (which long time readers know I despise the particular brand of Socialism that is fascism; but beyond that, the article does not ‘support’ either political side, it points out a country in revolt from population dynamics and suggests maybe the folks being invaded ought to have a say in their country. But attempt to “tar by assertion of support” noted, even if rejected.) “because he is a christian” (as an agnostic / atheist I’d find this funny if it wasn’t so sick an attack from a biased point of view) “takes more than a sophomoric knowledge”. So after all the things that he’s misunderstood, taken out and bent out of all recognition, decided to turn into gratuitous insults, directed at me in particular and generally screwed up, he wants to tell ME what to think and give me a grade rank on it?
Feel free to disagree with me. Feel free to say “I think this point is wrong, and here is why or where there is evidence to the contrary”. Feel free to say “You missed this bit of data I think”. Tell me what YOU think and tell me what DATA and what thought processes are to the contrary. Fine. Personally directed insulting remarks? Innuendo and “guilt by association” and all the other BS games? Nope. TELL me what I must have thought or what I must now think or do? Nope. (Quote what I said, fine, warp and distort it? Nope…) Point at other points of view and other ideas? Fine. Tell me I have to embrace them? Nope… Get the point? It’s not about me. It’s about you saying what YOU think and me saying what I think and not about us carping at each other. It’s about ideas, data, facts, and truth. But if you can’t handle the truth… well…