Gingrich sees Iran threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany

[gopher]

The threat posed to the national security of the United States by Iran was likened only to the one posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ...


This is precisely what was said about Iraq under Saddam prior to Bush's criminal war.

Now let's see what lies, distortions, pretensions, and manufactured evidences the Bush regime and its Nazi criminal cronies will create in order to "justify" still another war.

 

[Jay]

Man, you're an ill informed git. You sure you're not a Bush?

GFY

 

[pastafarian]

If I can step in to clarify what I meant .

First, about labels like "right", "left", "socialist", "capitalist", "fascist" etc. I guess I'm as guilty as anyone for using them as a kind of shorthand to describe hazy tendencies of people who have ceratin opinions to hold certain others with some predictability. The "liberal"/"conservative" dichotomy in the US is a particularly extreme version of this type of intellectual laziness.

I don't object too much to being labelled that way as long as it's not an excuse to avoid addressing the substance of an argument. That'll bring out my sarcatistic side. :twisted:

The clue to what I mean when I use the term "progressive" can be seen in my little riff on what I see as the lurching, incremental, but I think evident, improvemnet in the scoio-economic conditions of our species. "Progressive" ideas will improve life for more people, regressive ideas will worsen it.

If you want my eyes to glaze over and my attention to shift from what you're saying to the acquisition of another beer, talk to me about the merits/defects about "capitalist" or "socialist" ideology.

Abbie Hoffmann said "In the '60s, we thought that ideology was some sort of brain disease." I agree. Nobody who uses these "label" words means exactly the same things about them, and the current shapers of public discourse are often so idiotic, we have morons in the US comparing John Murtha to Michael Moore because of this stupid tendency to label. :roll:

Is environmentalism "socialist" or just "progressive"? Does being "capitalist" mean believing that corporations have the right to make governments pay for "externalities" that benefit them? Does increasing penalties for spousal abuse fall into the "left" mandate or the "right" mandate?

So call me a "socialist", if you want. Unless you tell me what the word means, I'm not gonna guess and then try to refute it, but if you're trying to say that someone's views are invalid because they're "socialist", or even "capitalist". Try again.

 

[Jay]

Socialism

1.)Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.)The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

 

[pastafarian]

OK, I'm not a socialist by Jay's definition since I reject both of those notions. Whew, that's a relief! :wink:

 

[gopher]

"Progressive" ideas will improve life for more people, regressive ideas will worsen it.


Many people will call you a "socialist" if you believe that it is the unequal distribution of property that causes violent factionalism in society. But, in fact, it was James Madison (4th president of the USA) who first said this in essay # 10 of the Federalist Papers which was used to justify the signing of the Constitution. And he wrote it 50 years before Karl Marx was born.

Therefore, this does not make you a socialist. It makes you a true American.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Jay]

OK, I'm not a socialist by Jay's definition since I reject both of those notions. Whew, that's a relief! :wink:

We sure have some around here that do fit the bill though....

 

[I think not]

I don't object too much to being labelled that way as long as it's not an excuse to avoid addressing the substance of an argument. That'll bring out my sarcatistic side. :twisted:

Now in my response I don't believe I ever made an attempt to discredit what you posted, or avoid the substance of the argument, all I said was I do not necessarily agree with everything you said, but you worded it in a way that got my wheels turning. And I like your way of thinking. I will boomark this post, I'm sure it will come in handy in the future .

 

[Jay]

1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital.

This was on the same page as the other definitions I posted.

 

[TenPenny]

Man, you're an ill informed git. You sure you're not a Bush?

GFY

GFY. I assume that's short for "Good For You".

Glad you agree. You're learning every day, arent' you? Are you actually reading those history books now? That's good. It'll help improve your understanding of current events. It's always nice to help educate people like you, and it's doubly nice to be thanked for it.

 

[Jay]

Ya, I'm learning all about the kind of person you are.

 

[Reverend Blair]

OK, I'm not a socialist by Jay's definition since I reject both of those notions. Whew, that's a relief!

I'm not a socialist by Jay's definitions either. 8O

This is something that always bothers me about the way people bandy about the word. They have no idea what they are referring to because they use definitions that were already inaccurate when they were made up in the 19th century and were laughable by the 1950's.

Most who toss the word socialist around, especially those ill-informed enough to think that it's an epithet, believe that it evokes Joe Stalin or Mao. They have no real understanding of Marx and, if they did, they would be very concerned at how their economic leaders seem to be rushing to create the conditions that he said would lead to his vision.

 

[TenPenny]

Re: RE: Gingrich sees Iran threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany

Ya, I'm learning all about the kind of person you are.

Amazing. You're extremely perceptive then. How many discrete personalities do "I" have? And how many physical bodies do "I" have?

Since you're so perceptive, maybe you can answer that.

 

[Jay]

Let's just agree to disagree Ten.

 

[Jay]

OK, I'm not a socialist by Jay's definition since I reject both of those notions. Whew, that's a relief!

I'm not a socialist by Jay's definitions either. 8O

This is something that always bothers me about the way people bandy about the word. They have no idea what they are referring to because they use definitions that were already inaccurate when they were made up in the 19th century and were laughable by the 1950's.

Most who toss the word socialist around, especially those ill-informed enough to think that it's an epithet, believe that it evokes Joe Stalin or Mao. They have no real understanding of Marx and, if they did, they would be very concerned at how their economic leaders seem to be rushing to create the conditions that he said would lead to his vision.

Of course I pulled those definitions off the net, for people here to see them.

I might use the word socialist liberally, but not as liberally as neo-con is used. Basically anyone who doesn't think in an NDP fashion seems to be a neo-con....oh well, I can live with that.


Who here considers themselves socialists? (With or without the above definitions)

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gingrich sees Iran th

I think you'll find that the continual misuse of the word socialist has made a lot of people reluctant to define themselves as socialists, Jay.

 

[Jay]

I can appreciate that.

I mean who would go around screaming "I'm a neo-con" these days?


Maybe we could start a thread on it some day.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gingrich sees Iran th

You don't have to scream it, it's inherent in the policies and doctrines that you follow.

Did you know that one of the foremost scolars on Leo Strauss is a prof at the Universtity of Regina?

 

[Jay]

The same could be said of socialists too Rev, but that wasn't were I thought this was going to go.


I thought I heard you mention the prof before.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gingrich sees Iran th

As I pointred out before though, you guys don't know what socialism is and have a real tendency to confuse, either through ignorance or on purpose, the various facets of socialism.

By being a democratic socialist, I leave myself open to being rolled into the same lump with Castro, Stalin, Mao, Engles, and Trotsky; yet those people do not even fit in a lump together and none of them would even recognise democratic socialism as practiced in modern Canada as being related to the various doctrines that they followed.

Neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are much more narrowly defined, more easily understood, and more easily accessible. They are relatively recent developments and their economic and political doctrines can be seen to be failing all over the planet today.