Politics and CoJ... I'm impressed (Page 2)

jimbo - 2008-02-22 1:57 PM

ChrisM - 2008-02-22 4:29 PM

Phew! Back to normal

OK, carry on with meangingless partisan political sniping with anonymous people on the internet

yeah, it's not like you didn't know what you were doing .

Actually, in all honesty, I kept coming to CoJ to ehar how "Michelle hated America", or how "McCain's a cheating SoB," and was frankly glad that people didn't buy into what the media was feeding them.

key word, "was" 

[but you are right about Bloomberg ]

jimbo - 2008-02-22 3:57 PM

ChrisM - 2008-02-22 4:29 PM

Phew! Back to normal

OK, carry on with meangingless partisan political sniping with anonymous people on the internet

yeah, it's not like you didn't know what you were doing Selachophobia, it's called "context." renzi's indictment today fit the context. william jefferson's indictment june of last year didn't. oh, and spokes, this is the 6th time you've expressed your jonesing for a bloomberg candidacy. there is nothing that gets the electorate less excited than the possibility of a bloomberg run for prez. if you think he'd have a legitimate shot, i'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking. you say you want someone who is qualified, so what exactly is bloomberg's qualification? being a billionaire? mayor of NYC? cuz, you know, that worked out so well for rudy.

fair enough, the other word you may want to look up is "sarcasm"  

How come? 

Huh?

(sorry, I'm slow on the uptake today... living life this week through the haze of whatever this crud is... need to get back to bed... )

I don't think you're favoring one over the other, but I do think you are dismissing questions about McCain's choices. Many of us are still trying to determine who we should vote for; any news that gives us a glimpse of the man behind the curtain should be considered. Mind, I didn't say accepted uncritically - I'm just saying we should pay attention. It is one piece of the puzzle of trying to understand who the real John McCain is, beyond what his PR and razzle dazzle would suggest. 

Since you offered your disclaimer, I'll offer mine. I am No Party Affiliation. I don't know who I'm going to vote for. I never voted for Clinton in the 90s.

And it's nice that you don't withhold your social endorsement of me just because you don't agree with me.

Oh, is there a thread? Haven't seen a discussion on the NYT's article.

Y'all are still eating the paste, just a different flavor

Point is, no matter the issue, certain posters will always post one way, certain posters the other.  I have always found that very odd, is it just coincidence or do people really think lockstep along certain party lines.

NYT article used illustratively,. not exhaustively.

Ah well, musings for a rainy friday

Hmmmm... haven't seen mention discussion of it, other than a few posts saying it's not worth discussing, in so many words.

maybe some of us just happen to be right all the time. don't hold that against us. mmm...sweet paste...arghahgrghaaah.

LOL, yummy!

His argument, basically, is that fascism (small f) is a way of organizing society so that everything is done within the state and nothing outside it. In Goldberg's mind, it's sort of communism with private property.

In his view, the racism and anti-semitism of the Nazis was glommed onto a fascist model that was prevalent in Europe and also North America at the time. In other words, racism is not what makes one a fascist, rather it's the desire to control society through an intertwining of government and business and social institutions.

Hardly seems like a stupid argument to me.

His look at the Wilson and FDR administrations are particularly interesting.

I think that in Goldberg's view, fascism can be advanced for "good" reasons as well as "evil" ones. I think he'd say that most of the left's reasons are at heart "good" ones. None the less, he would call them fascist because of the left's desire to control society as much as possible.

I'm a recovering leftist, so a lot of what he writes about rings true to me.

It's hard to listen to Obama, or Clinton's "politics of meaning", and not come away with the belief that they want more control of society "for the good of the people".

BTW Renee, I thought you were particularly brilliant this week...  

actually to the contrary i do agree with you, i just think all the candidates dirty linen should be thrown into the mix.....  i agree with spokes (i think he stated earlier) something like there are slim pickens this year but that seems like every presidential year.....  its all about money.......

i also agree that you were particularly witty with your post this week...  i do endorse you socially...      i'm going on the record with that!

Agreed. How else are we to decide? Us non-partisan folks, that is.

You know, I remember HATING the quality of candidates in '84, '88, '92, 2000 and 2004 but for once I'm pretty excited about my choices this year. Still haven't decided but at least I don't think I'll find myself standing in the booth, sighing deeply.

thats good, i think i have just reached a point with B. Clinton and G. Bush the last 16 years that have completely disappointed me socially, economically, domestically and internationally.....   i am hoping that Obama (and there are several cons against him) is fresh enough to go in and clean house and give me hope again in the American way........  still love the country (i am an army veteran) but hate the politicians......

Thanks for those.

The Horton/Harper's piece made some good points.  He made reference to some writers I'm not familiar with, so it's probably worth looking into Horton's criticism a bit more.

From reading David Neiwert's piece, it doesn't seem like he read the book, which is fine I guess 'cause people review books they haven't read all the time.

The Jon Stewart piece is good as well.  He also obviously didn't read the book, and Goldberg goes into detail in the book on all of the sort of knee jerk comments Stewart had.

One good point that came out of that exchange is how the term "liberal" has morphed.  It use to mean "classical liberal" but now has more to do with "progressivism."  I've read that the "classical liberal" of today is a "conservative".  I don't know that much about the history of the conservative movement, but it seems to make some sense.

Goldberg's sketch of the tie between the eugenics movement and the liberal/progressive movement is particularly interesting to me. This love of eugenics is something that the early progressive movement shared with some of the European fascist movements.

We know, for example, that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenecist.  The Negro Project , Sanger's eugenic plan for African Americans is particularly chilling. 

And we know that eugenics is being practiced in the US today, and that the right to it's practice is vigorously defended by the left. 

So I think that Goldberg may be hitting a sore spot here.  Perhaps the left doth protest too much. 

The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

Really?  So men aren't susceptible to this "erroneous" way of thinking?  that's odd.  And my degree is from Middlebury

Don, I'm incredibly disappointed. This quote is hateful inflammatory nonsense, nothing more. It's a ridiculous generalization that I would think is beneath you even to quote.

Maybe (and I'm not Mike) bc "why do republicans suck" is silly and not unlike the "why do you hate america" type banter. It is meant completely tongue in cheek, and is the kind of ribbing we do all the time, on both sides....