REWRITE! Goll-darn it. Where's that copy boy?! I called for a REWRITE! The big news item coming out of Venezuela on December 3 was not President Hugo Chávez’ reelection, nor his wide margin of victory, but that is was only 62% in the wake of the AD boycotting the December elections. They have rejected Chávez’s legitimacy and systematically opposed all his actions, primarily because every time Chávez has emerged victorious, he has consolidated political control (including a constitutional rewrite - where is that copy boy!?) and taken new, bold measures to marginalize his opposition. It is rumored that even the Iranian …
All 961 comments by...
Jay Cline
-
-
Jack? Who be you and what rabbit hole did you jump out of? Anyway, trick question: if Chavez' opposition opts out of the election, where did that 38% come from? Yeah, let's terminate that line of discussion. Too close to the jugular.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
that was easy.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jackie, Please, don't go away mad. You are right. Democracy in Venezuela is a sterling example of how might makes right. You still haven't addressed where that 38% came from. If the opposing team stays home, why only 62%?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jack, Let me dumb this up. Venezuela, under Chavez, stopped being a legitimate democracy when he rigged the process (and the constitution) in his favor. Just as voting percentages are irrelevant in Iran, they are irrelevant in Venezuela. The criticism I have leveled is on Ellner's refusal to "report" on the issue in an objective manner. He lauds the "revolutionary" electoral successes of Chavez without asking where those "successes" have been, at the polling station... or at the police station.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As Jack says best, try reading a paper. Anything in the past 10 years.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Ah starboy, how about some actual references? It is a bit disingenuous to call for references when you do not provide them yourself. The way I hear it, it was actually the Carter Center trying to refute the statistics that actually gaffed with their own statistics. Here is the URL (from that same Daily Fishwrap) dated Sept 9, 2004, that lambasts Conned in Caracas New evidence that Jimmy Carter got fooled in Venezuela. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
I guess you truly missed it.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
The Carter Center has been repeatedly troubled by the lack of transparency of Chavez' elections; the EU (another well-intentioned org that certifies dubious elections) backed out of monitoring elections because of the onerous restrictions that Chavez imposed on them; scholars have repeatedly criticized statistical anomalies in election results, anomalies that The Carter Center first refute, then go "oops, we forgot to carry the one" but allege that the anomalies did not cross the line into statistical relevance (those contrary scholars have not restated their analysis); after failing to capture power in the early 90s with a military coup, Chavez went for …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
In responding to the various accusations of fraud, the following comments were made. The first is from Jennifer McCoy, (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3157671) who directed the Carter Center's mission in Venezuela. The second (http://venezuela-referendum.com/) is from researchers who were consulted by the Carter Center to examine some of the specific claims. Unsurprisingly, both conclude the elections to have been fair. Surprisingly, both go out of their way to qualify their claims. I stand by my existential "foggy glasses" metaphor - if you can't see it, can it possibly be there? McCoy: In conclusion, the vote itself was secret and free, but the CNE's (Venezuela's …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
C'mon, dudes. You are only going to get in trouble trying to make Chavez into a saint.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
An excerpt from that WSL report about Jimmy getting conned: Mr. Hausmann told us that he and Mr. Rigoban also "found very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and a probability of less than 1% that the anomalies observed could be pure chance. To put it another way, they think the chance is 99% that there was electoral fraud. The authors also suggest that the fraud was centralized. Voting machines were supposed to print tallies before communicating by Internet with the CNE center. But the CNE changed that rule, arranging to have totals sent to the center first and …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Starboy, I think you need reading lessons. 1) I found no article with the quote you site. The article I found was quite the opposite. Try reading before passing judgement. THAT would be special. 2) Try a little more reading, from reputable sources. Blogs, as you have so often pointed out in the past, do not meet that criteria. Opinions, dear friend, not facts. I must apologize. Did I do you permanent brain damage in our last King of the Hill battle?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
awc - the issue is they observed only where and when Chavez allowed them to observe. starboy, no no dear friend, the Daily Fishwrap quote. Or did you just make that up? As far as the real fishwrap you have provided, some of the more important links to his argument just 404s. Again, try reading before inserting foot. But I must, once again, apologize. You have stated over and over you have no inkling of a desire to debate and your sole reason for dragging our debates into the mud was as a mere tactic to shut the troll up. I …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, I appreciate your prior persistent and profuse objections regarding your expertise with computer systems, and I accept that lack of knowledge for the sake of our argument. Alas, I do not have that same failing. Let me dumb this up for you, once again. Point 1. At issue between the opposing reports (Hausmann/Rigobon vs. CEPR) is whether the audits, particularly the second one, used a statistically random sample. H/R says no, CEPR says yes. Certainly you and I can agree that is necessary before one can apply statistical analysis (including your 1 in 28 trillion statistic). True? A computer was …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Point 2. The 1 in 28 trillion loony tune was made with a faulty assumption. When H/R demonstrated the statistically significant deviation between signatures for the referendum and the ultimate YES votes in the election, they found a demonstrable 10% variance between precincts whose voting stations were part of the "randomly" selected second audit and those precincts that were not. H/R's own version of a "1 in 28 trillion" improbability was a more believable 1% chance. In other words, this deviation from statistical norms would only happen 1 in 100 times. Unless you rigged the elections. CEPR took H/R's "for the …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Oh, and when you finally get around to sourcing that "fishwrapper" quote from the WSJ, let me know. Asking me to validate your unsubstantiated arguments is, well, loony.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jack, Think about it. You are using the same (il)logic that the CERP report is. "Chavez won the majority of the vote because the majority of the vote is for Chavez." The issue is that the count is a fraud. Much ado about nothing? Then why all the hype about Bush and the 2000 and 2004 elections which "proved" Bush was the winner because he won more votes?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Indeed. The kind of circular logic spun by Jack will do that.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, You are right. You are completely clueless when it comes to computers. 1) They didn't need to write the program. They just needed to know which "seed" would give them the desired results. 2) The program was indeed certified as being a random number generator. Had they been able to run the program with a seed not of Chavez' choosing, it would have created a sufficiently random sequence. 3) How many people saw, on live TV, David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear? The sleight of hand was in CHOOSING the seed number.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Ok, people. Let me try once again and simplify this even further. CERP comes up with a loony "1 in 28 trillion" statistic based on their claim that H/R assumes the audited sample is actually representative of the actual vote. From that, they get their loony tune, showing that H/R's results has as much chance of happening as a quantum particle translating 200 light years in zero time. The problem is that while H/R does indeed make that assumption, they start with that assumption to reach a false conclusion, proving that the assumption itself is false. The assumption being, of course, …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
lb, You (and CERP) are absolutely correct; using dubious exit polling data is dubious at best. Unfortunately, you (and CERP, twice now) are arriving at false conclusions on the basis of false assumptions. H/R did not use the exit polls as the second data point in discovering the unexplained variance. The 10% variance between audited and unaudited precincts was the variance of the ratio of the signatures to the actual vote. First, please read the first Results paragraph I provided above (page 33 of H/R's report), specifically, the signatures collected in the audited precincts on August 18th generate 10 percent more …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
What we are talking about is a 10% discrepancy. Not something one can easily dismiss. As far as being disguised, H/R has quite effectively blown the cover off that deception.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
fyi, when you run the numbers, assuming H/R's variance is valid and apply that to the unaudited precincts, you get a dead heat.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
With regards to the "obvious" observations, 1) It IS apparent. Reread H/R's report. Understanding the significance of the 10.5% variance between audited and unaudited precincts requires only a modicum of statistical ability. 2&3) It did and it has. That's the point. See number 1.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Several hundred years ago, the following was "obvious": - the world is flat - the world is the center of the universe - god created the universe - disturbed people were possessed by demons - bloodletting the sick released bad blood from the system Show me the science, the rigorous logic, that validates your "obvious" observations.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Dude, Read the report. Yes, they were provided a lot of data, which they looked at. The fact that they get the same result whether they compared it with exit polls or actual votes actually validates the exit polls. But, With regard to modus ponens, so the Earth is flat? C'mon. Saying that it should be easy to disprove, doesn't prove your case. Or that it is even relevant. Isn't that obvious? People are only half as dumb as you think they are, and you are only half as smart as you should be.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, In case you missed it, from your own quote, We find that the deviation pattern between precincts, based on the relationship between the signatures from the November 2003 Reafirmazo, and the YES votes on August 15, is positive and significantly correlated with the deviation pattern in the relationship between exit polls and votes. In other words, those precincts in which, according to the number of signatures, there are an unusually low number of YES votes, is also where, according to the exit polls, the same thing occurs. Let's break that down, shall we? 1) We find that the deviation pattern …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As far as the 10.5% deviation, this was a result of the actual audit and the actual vote.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Jack, Try reading what is actually said before jumping on the broken bandwagon.....
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As far as relying strictly on data from Sumate, if so, and if, by implication the data is faulty, how did you say it, then it shouldn’t be too hard to show them to be false. I wonder why no one has been able to do that?
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
I see we are headed down that predictable road where, when you are unable to refute the facts, you start to apply your own misdirection and play King of the Hill. The Hill is yours, starboy, as it always will be. When you are ready to argue facts, when you are ready to acknowledge facts, I'll be here. (yes, yes, I know. But if you have refuted any of the facts as I presented them, please illuminate this poor troll - I don't see it)
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
You know, I may be a little too harsh on ol' Chavez. Bored of starboy's disinformation campaign, I started looking for other examples of Chavez' attempts to thwart the democratic process in Venezuela. Imagine my surprise when I found him, as the Executive Head, to be taking responsible actions in defending Venezuela's democratic institutions. The Referendum, of which we are discussing, was initiated by a campaign by those scurrilous louts, the Sumate, to gather signatures calling for a Recall of Chavez as El Presidente. Those scoundrels gathered over 3.2 million signatures calling for a recall. Chavez, in defense of his country, …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Indeed, these guys are shysters! Let's take a look at other notable hook and crook polling campaigns they have run, Clinton (Billy) 1996, Cllnton (Hilly) 2001. Starboy, when you are right, you are right!
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
(I believe it is your serve, in this mudslinging match)
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
With regards to the "obvious" observations, 1) It IS apparent. Reread H/R's report. Understanding the significance of the 10.5% variance between audited and unaudited precincts requires only a modicum of statistical ability. 2&3) It did and it has. That's the point. See number 1. United States Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 5, 2007 at 7:56 AM Like I keep saying: First, read. Then, engage brain.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Yes, I do want an honest, rational debate. You can start with any of the three. Your choice.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
‘Many’ is usually construed to be more than the number of fingers on one hand. I believe the class action suit of those who allegedly claim to have lost jobs because of the printing of the petition signers names numbers exactly three (3) claimants. Exactly! Your statistical slip is showing again. I wasn't aware of a class action suit. I was referring to the total population of those fired, not some unrepresentative microsample. Exactly, indeed!
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
As you have noted, if it is so easy to disprove, why isn't anyone doing it? CERP tried mightily, but were so eager beaver about it they made at least two very basic faulty assumptions. It's been two and a half years.... Is the source data corrupted? Should be easy enough to prove...aside from your infamous illogical innuendoes....
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
1) again, read the report. 10.5% which would only happen 1 out 100 times. 2) This is the total number of government employees that have actually claimed discrimination. - already answered that. You continue to qualify the population group.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Before we continue, you need to tighten up your "arguments". I am getting bored of cleaning up your obvious lapses in logic, rhetoric and fact. I'll try to give you the benefit of a doubt and not imply these "lapses" are deliberate rhetorical tactics. But we both know better. Now, we've "known" each other for a little while, so, anticipating your typical passive-aggressive response to such criticism, let me show you what I mean through example. Your "refuted" arguments have been repeatedly based on obvious false assumptions. Your latest "refutation" of my defense of the integrity and relevance of Sumate's exit …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
The statistical analysis by H/R is sound. The methodology is clearly described, and easily repeatable by anyone doing second year undergrad work in statistics. The data used is official, public data; it is not owned nor controlled by Sumate. Sumate's exit poll data is not what has led to the conclusion that there is less than a 1% statistical chance that the referendum was fair. It was actual referendum data, actual voting results, actual audit results. The rhetorical non-tactic of assassinating Sumate's character to "prove" the data is false, is typically disingenuous. While I would not offer testimony as a character …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
RP, No offense taken. As far as my motivations for engaging in political debate, you offer some interesting suppositions, yet I would only counter that I am here to seek truth and put in my own two cents.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, Sorry, I just don't see it. Can you tell me what page of the H/R report you are looking at that relates Si (which is a variable based on the signature data, not the exit polls - where Si are the number of signatures, page 30) to the exit poll data? Ok, let's see, first it was the WSJ calling H/R's analysis a fraud, which you have still not been able to document. Then it was the CERP coming up with a 1 in 28 trillion statistical absurdity in H/R's analysis that is only valid if they assumed the audit …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, In an attempt to be fair, let us assume that you simply do not understand statistics, even basic statistics. The key is understanding what a statistical correlation is - comparing two independent variables (ie signatures and exit polls) with a third variable (actual vote) and see if there is a correlation between the distribution of each independent variable with the third variable (yes, I know. I already explained this. But it doesn''t seem to have set in). The second term you need to come to terms with is what a regression analysis is. Basically, it is the analysis to determine …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
And, as I also said when first explaining this, not only does the analysis show, through the comparision of signature data with actual vote data, that fraud is 99% possible, but that when the exit data is then also compared with the actual vote, it shows with blindingly clarity that is obvious to all, that the "dubious" exit data, in fact, is not so dubious. Someone cheated. The data indicates it was not Sumate.
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Arpie, In looking over the Venezuelan media website you have offered, I am struck by how pro-Chavez it is. Now, don't misunderstand me. There is nothing wrong with that, and does not necessarily condemn it to irrelevance. A true Churchillian democrat believes all should have a voice. And pro-Chavez Venezuelans are certainly entitled to their own. However, one of the most pervasive arguments made against anti-Chavez rhetoric, is that the Venezuelan media is completely controlled by the opposition. It would appear, that dominance may not be as pervasive as is alleged, but I do not have your in-country intimacy. As you …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
starboy, Unfortunately, you are misquoting again. The Carter Center merely claimed that the deviation was not as "robust" as they would like and attributes the statistical discrepancy to some other theoretical causes, causes they do not elucidate, which in itself is a tacit acknowledgement that there is a discrepancy. Maybe if we opened up the data from the other 99% of precincts, we might actually get to the bone of it all. This is no different than CERP asserting that the mistakes they allege in H/R's analysis to most likely stem from a misspecification in their (H/R's) econometric model without actually …
Posted to Chávez Consolidates Power
-
Intensely thought-provoking. It does give one a pause, for reflection, does it not? Thank you.
Posted to All Praises to the Pause
-
Perlman is, of course, twisting the truth. Anyone who doesn't know that Lieberman is for getting our troops out of Iraq by winning the war, just doesn't know politics as much as he claims to. Regardless if he is trying to hawk his own book.
Posted to The Odd Couple: Nixon and Lieberman
-
blonde, So, there is no democracy in America? There is no justice? It is all a farce? As I said earlier, if you believe that you are right and the only way you can lose an election is through deceit and fraud, maybe the real problem is your own intolerance towards other viewpoints. The hell with elections! We need to overthrow the government, by whatever means!
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Will our system of constitutional democracy survive? And for many, this election is a crucial, desperate test. First principle of a democracy: When you lose an election, you lose an election. That is all the sovereign legitimacy the winner needs. Raising unsubstantiated conspiratorial cries of fixed elections just because you are a sore loser is the sign of an emerging fascist state. It is incredible that liberals would be at the vanguard of this emergence. Will the Republicans pay for the public’s opposition to the war in Iraq? Well, the public will have that opportunity very soon. Oh, I forgot. If …
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Dude, How is calling for a little respect towards the will of the people, as expressed by elections, considered partisan?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
I hear the Dems have 7000 lawyers standing by in all 50 states to challenge any election they lose. If they know about a specific case of voting fraud, wouldn't it be a great idea to challenge it BEFORE the election? Or is it axiomatic that if the Democrats lose an election, it can only be because the election was a fraud? Think about it.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
blonde, You're right of course. I do remember RFK Jr, as the prosecuting attorney, successfully make that argument in a court of law. I just don't remember in which county. A little help here?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Starboy aka Jane. absolutely! anyone with a passing familiarity with Logic 101 would insist that your first paragraph, by necessity, follows my statements. Unfortunately, you have always succumbed to your stereotypes, as evidenced in your second paragraph, which is a pile of hooey.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
bm, still wondering what county bobby's little boy prosecuted this stolen election scandal.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Criminal conspiracies are tried in court, dude. Which county?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
blonde, I am stumbling over some of your logic - Let’s just see what happens on Tuesday. How is this relevant to allegations of corrupt balloting? Are you saying if the Democrats win, then that is proof of corruption? Or are you saying the Democrats will always win a fair fight and the only way a Republican can win is through corruption? Have you read my first post on democracy and this pre-emergent fascist attitude amongst Democrats in the past couple elections?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
I am very afraid of mobocracies, where the accused is presumed guilty. Again, which county prosecutor overturned the "stolen" 2000 election?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
hmmm, the "site-friendly" trolls have a new theme. Instead of rational debate, they disparage any commentary they don't like with admonishments to seek professional help. And, we have a rather interesting discussion with regards to fascism. Perhaps we are seeing an ugly phenomena reemerge right here in River City? From the left, even?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
Wait a minute. Social control from the fascist right has always been strong-armed, brown shirts and such. Social control from the extreme left has been predominantly that of psychological and psychiatric manipulation. I thought I was onto something here. oh well, same ol' same ol'.
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
ROTF,LOL! Look who's whining, bubba!
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
david, not at all. I found myself quite amused. surely I do not have to explain e-acronyms to you, no? Buddy, you are beginning to sound too much like starboy. (I know, I know - compliments all around...) But I would really hate to pull out the "D" word on you, eh?
Posted to Fear and Voting in the USA
-
IN 1983, REPRESENTATIVE GERRY Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male page. He was censured by the House of Representatives. During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand. He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus. In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time. He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years. …
Posted to The Role of the Religious Right in the Foley Affair
-
And that rabbit/horse, is what is really hypocritical here.
Posted to The Role of the Religious Right in the Foley Affair
-
I am not sure how "abolishing private schools" would benefit anyone. It would, however, certainly close the "education equality gap", but only by lowering the ceiling, instead of raising the floor.
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
No, money is the litmus test, by definition.
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
By definition, money is the intent. But, by your own implicit admission, you must be a racist. Ascribing racism to capitalism merely because whiteness is the most common trait among capitalist is more than a little like claiming being black as the cause of poverty merely because blackness is the most common trait among the poor
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
theloneous, You may make any argument you please, except you may not make my arguments, notwithstanding that you do it very poorly. The argument stands. Your assertion that it is inherent to be racist if one is a capitalist merely because of skin color is no different than my facetious argument that poor people are poor "because" they are merely black. Your "more logical line of reasoning" is only "more" so if you are attempting to reach a specific conclusion by defining the premise. That is not logical.
Posted to Is Diversity Enough?
-
Oh, the evils of Coca Cola! Cortez himself was said to be an agent for that monster. I agree with TI.
Posted to Cola Wars in Mexico
-
Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count? What more do the skeptics want? Proof. The following excerpts from Bleifuss' article are not examples of "proof" 64 percent of Americans voted on direct recorded electronic voting machines or optical-scan systems, both of which are vulnerable to hacking or programming fraud it would only take a few people to steal an election could allow unauthorized personnel to disrupt operations or modify data and programs that are critical to … the integrity of the voting process Proof of this came on September 13 ... which found that …
Posted to The Importance of Not Getting Over It
-
(we should get President Dewey's opinion on this) Certainly, allegations should be investigated. Bleifuss, however, in his typical conspiratorial tone, has determined that the allegations are fact, yet provides no evidentiary substance beyond could'ves and would'ves. When I was at the state fair last month, I could have easily pocketed a couple items off a vendors table when he wasn't looking. Does that mean I am guilty? The criticisms are against Bleifuss, not the need.
Posted to The Importance of Not Getting Over It
-
Not if there is actual proof of illicit activity, as opposed to theoretical. So, by your own logic - pony up some proof, or keep your mouth shut.
Posted to The Importance of Not Getting Over It
-
What Foster says in parody, I say with utmost sincerity. This is a Manichean war, of good vs evil. It does span countries and continents. It is a fight of democracy, of might for right, against the tyrannies of fascist totalitarian beliefs, of might makes right. It is starting with Islamic fundamentalists, but there are other tyrannies out there, becoming emboldened by recent events. Secular Arabic autocrats, African strongmen, Chinese nationalists. European appeasers. Yeah, this is indeed the first stage of WWIII. Just as Spain and Ethiopia were the opening shots of fascism in WWII. Spain and Ethiopia were not a …
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
As a people's movement, does true democracy happen spontaneously?
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
Jane/John Doe It would seem that scorp has decided your question deserves as much attention as he has already given it, and I would agree. Your question rings as hollow as other questions I have heard from past denizens of this site who would pervert the intent of Socratic questioning. It is the Truth Socrates was after, through the exposition of unconsidered opinions. It was not the intent to foster partisan "truths" at the expense of others. The overt insinuation of your question, that there is no answer, lays your true intent bare. Yet, something on the news this morning made …
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
John Doe, er, Jane. Sorry. Instead of watercolors, maybe you should go back to playing shadow puppet. Just don't turn around. The light behind you at the mouth of the cave is rather bright, and I don't think your eyes are strong enough for it.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
Maria, You are the one looking for a perfect world. Speaking for myself, I merely try to live in the one handed to me. Maybe you should do more of that, speaking for yourself, that is.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
LOL! Rabbit, you are one funny dude.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
J. Doe, Thank you for proving my point. You are not interested in the truth, only partisanship. I gave you a perfectly legitimate answer and you engage in petty insults. And, no, I have no problem with real women. But, gender bending and multiple personalities is a long established tradition on this sight. Ain't that right, lb? Oh, I forgot. He/she stopped posting about the same time as Rabbit/Redhorse.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
To put a finer point on it, I have no problem with gender equality. If you act like an idiot, chivalry will not save you.
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
So, JD, you asked a question, you got an answer. No comment? C'mon. Where is that fighting spirit? Q. What would be a sign of a successful democracy in Iraq? A. A proliferation of spontaneous scandals. Response?? Are you, or are you not, interested in a lively debate with a low-browed troll of a man?
Posted to Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
-
Incredible! The very same people who argue against an "idealistic" foreign policy vis a vis Iran, Syria, Iraq (under Saddam) and North Korea, argue against a "realistic" foreign policy against Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, India. The only thread that seems to be continually consistent, in these times of hyperbolic stupidity, is these people seem to be taking a stand that supports a dogmatic opposition to anything resembling an American interest
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
To characterize Pakistan's governance as "Another dictator who’s regime is fertile ground for extremist thinking, which in the end will come back to haunt us" misses the point. The extremist thinking, and the fertile ground for it, was around, and vibrant, long before Musharref took over. That Musharref has been fighting that political element of religious extremism in Pakistani politics is why he should be receiving our support. Musharref did not create Pakistani religious extremism. That happened 60 years ago.
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
Peter H, You really should read the associated article before making such comments, In stark contrast to its Middle East policy, the Bush administration’s strategy with Pakistan has prioritized pragmatism over ideology, preferred diplomatic persuasion to military aggression and, most strikingly, displayed a willingness to tolerate Islamic extremism that does not directly challenge its interests. Pakistan hints at both a different, realpolitik side to the Bush foreign policy and a disconnect between the administration’s moral and ideological rhetoric and its underlying goals. So, which is it? Is the Bush Adminstrations foreign policy strategy wrong because it has priotized pragmatism (in Pakistan) …
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
ok, fair enough.
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
PoBoy, Yes.Yes.Been there, done that.They are making at least that much: My monthly pay in Basic and Tech School 20 years ago was $600. Room and Board and Transportation and Healthcare provided. $600 a month and nothing to spend it on. Before the end of my first year, my monthly pay was $900. Room and Board and Transportation and Healthcare provided. $900 a month with nothing to spend it on, 'cept beer and women and vacation expenses. At my one year mark, I moved off-base. The supplemental BAQ/BAS that was for paying the additional costs of living and eating off-base actually …
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
(Let us not even start with the per diem bonanza every time we went TDY - temporary duty - generally $70-100 to pay for hotel and food expenses, even though the hotel was already paid for and there is always the chow hall).
Posted to Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
-
hmmm, let's see. The 9/11 terrorists were Islamic, fighting in the name of Islam. Ditto for the Madrid and London bombers. Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. hmmm, Islamofascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under an Islamic dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. That the Bush Adminstration would use such a term to …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well, maybe according to Howie's interpretation of Jay's definition. Yet even a Board of Governors of a non-profit organization is a "system of government", so the point is moot. Also, I was unaware that anywhere in a definition of fascism (or in any other -ism) there exists an implicit understanding that the term is temporally dependent. What Constant of the Universe has changed that makes fascism impossible in today's world?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I would suggest to Orwell that he attempt to explain, in his own words, why the aforementioned definition is not valid. I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Is fascism, ? A system of government, marked by ?centralization of authority under a dictator, ?stringent socioeconomic controls, ?suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, ?and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. To which do you disagree with? to which is not an accurate reflection of both the Axis Powers of WWII and the current regimes of terror under the auspices of Islam?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Your assumption would, of course, be correct. With regard to the differences between examples of fascism, that is not the point. It is not, what kind of fascism is Islamofascism, but whether it is a form of fascism. If there is any conflating ALL Islamists as fascists, it is Orwell's doing. There is nothing intrinsic in the use of Islamofascists that categorizes the current regimes of terror under the auspices of Islam as a superset of all Islamists; rather the term refers only to those Islamists that are currently employing regimes of terror as fascists. Orwell's argument is akin to claiming …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
staedlerjr, You'd have to be more specific. Which quibbling, Salim Muwakkil's or Orwell's?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
drphonic, It is good to see you have done your homework. I shall be sure to let the people at www.dictionary.com that you believe them to be "delusional Neo-con Republicans." I would ask you the same unanswered question I have asked Orwell, what specifically to you object to with the definition? Beyond the "obvious", of course. oh, here is the URL for this "deluded" definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism Maybe the real issue is that some people are in denial? If the sky is blue but you hate the color blue, then anyone claiming the sky to be blue must be delusional. I must …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
drphonic, Ah, I see the point you so laboriously belabor: you indeed accept the definition and take it one step further and apply it to American politics. Well, I would certainly agree that any fundamentalist point of view has elements of fascism embedded within. So, would it be fair to say that it is not a terrible strain of your obvious credulity to understand that you accept the phrase Islamofascism as an accurate portrayal of what is going on within Islamic fundamentalism? Welcome the right side of American politics.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Orwell, Fair questions. I will attempt to respond. what system of government? Name me one system in which an “Islamofascist” is currently in power? One could argue that there are authoritarian populist in power in many mideastern countries, but this does not make them fascist. I have no issues with using an appropriate dictionary to seek accord on definitions. system: a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government. government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
your definition of fascism makes no reference to Islam at all. What indeed is the use of appending “Islamo-” to the word. Why not just call them fascist. Of course it doesn’t. That is the rationale for prefixing “Islamo-” to the word; as an adjective of what fascism we are talking about. The topic of discussion is not a Nationalistic fascism, such as Nazism, it is about those Islamists who have adopted a fascist “organizational scheme” in their governance to enforce their world belief. In the definition of Islamofascism, I do make explicit reference to Islam - centralization of authority under …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
May I suggest that the term “authoritarian populist” or “theocratic” might be bettern terms to use, depending upon the case? Perhaps, but without some definitive "definition" to differentiate them from fascism, to what end?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
ghost, er, rabbit, er horse (damn, I get so confused by all the incarnations), damn, now I forgot what I was going to say.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Unfortunately, those wacky leftists (you can't call 'em liberals) already dumbed down the identification of all of society's problems long ago on early toilet training and other meaningless childhood "traumas".
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
In an interview with The American Interest, former Senator John Danforth (an ordained Episcopal priest) suggested an ecumenical conference as a first step to this "clash of religions". Get the leaders of all three major branches of the Abrahamic tradition to agree that the deliberate targeting and killing of innocents is simply and flat out wrong,, sort of a fatwa against recent fatwas condoning it. By itself, it won't solve anything, but it would take the wind out of the moral legitimacy such groups as al-Qaeda have been literally using as shields.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Rabbit! You figured out how to IP spoof ITT's little flag!
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Redhorse, It is amazing how you sound like Rabbit of old, and Rabbit is now, finally, able to construct complete sentences. Ah, the miracles of modern medicine. We are not fooled.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Rabbit/Redhorse, Amazing how Redhorse not only has the same hare-brained syntax, but shares the same nomenclature when dissing his superiors. Rabbit, So, your "vacation" just happened to coincide with ITT's attempt, with the little IP-sourced flags, to minimize the abuse of split personalities from the same IP address? Miracle of miracles. Or, do we have the foundation for another hare-brained conspiracy theory??
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Actually, given the previous history of gender-bending on this site, I have wondered if a doe was more of an illumination source. Been pretty dark round here, about as long as Rabbit's vacation.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
staedlerjr If you cannot understand irony, then continue to play with yourself.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
So, Rabbit/Redhorse - care to share your voluminous bookmarks on the subject?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
R&R, You need to work harder on keeping your personas separate. Rabbit is the one from Australia. Redhorse is the one from the US OF A-ssholes.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
R&R, Not at all. You misunderstand. I think using multiple personas is an excellent vehicle in debate. I merely offer my humble assistance in helping you to get it right. And you can lay off the provocative racist slurs. They are sloppily executed and quite ineffective. I am neither Anglo nor Saxon. But we are all bigots, in one sense or another.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
And I, kind rabbit, contend you are a horse. Ipso Facto. You are. You really must pen an article on hare-brained logic, so the rest of us mortals can follow you.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabdriver, Fascism ... applies only to modern nation-states and modern mass society. Why? These fascist states use modern institutions, technology, and forms of organization to consolidate and centralize their political power. They tend to have highly developed, industrialized economies which are capable of autarchy and not easily subject to foreign domination Circular logic. Fascism only applies to modern states because they are modern? Industrialization and the use of technology does not define fascism. That they are effectively wielded by fascists does not make the tools themselves indicative and necessary for fascism. They are deeply nationalist and use myths of historic national …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Starboy, er LB, er Joh.., er Jane Doe, cabdriverinchicago, I admire your perserverane in the face of the most amazing idiocy, however it is clear there is absolutely no point. If you really must insist on following Rabbit/Redhorse's lunacy into hiding your schizophenia, try at least to change the cadence and intonation of your comments. I really expect one of these days your counterpostings will start with your 'ol standby, "Not at all."
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
JD, Already gave you my answer, dude. Waiting for intelligent life to respond.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Go somewhere where they think the Rapture books are both history and prophecy! Got no desire to live in Iran.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Redhorse, you knucklehead. You even spell like Rabbit. amerika??
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Rabbit, Your feigned irrational logic and deliberate jester-like stupidity doesn't fool me. The only reason your provocative talents are wasted here is that you actually believe no one else is clever enough to get it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
David, Your absence has been sorely missed. If you could clarify the dichotomies fostered by the usual suspects, I would welcome it. It is certainly possible after such close and prolonged contact with diseased carriers that the conspiratorial bug has afflicted me as well. After all, I have mere circumstantial, er, circumstances to base my hypothesis on. 1) ITT institutes a "flag-waving" icon to give virtual denizens a geography lesson. 2) Many of these demons subsequently went 'poof'. 3) These same denizens, who have self-identified their own past schizophrenia, had made virtual claims of specific national origin. 4) When the pudding …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, 1) Nation-states are not a modern invention. They descended from a long line of political organizations, not to mention the city -states of Greece 2500 years ago. 2) To accuse you of racism follows naturally from your own statements. 3) To accuse me of fascist tactics contradicts your logic that fascism exists only in the context of centralized nation-states, unless I am a nation-state of my own making. 4) To accuse the neo-con movement, or any political movement in America, of fascism whilst protesting that fascism violently forbids dissent, is at best disingenuous. It also contradicts your own "scholarly" logic. …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Since it appears to be polemic upon the opposition that the only historical examples of fascism they accept are those of the singular fascist movements of a hundred years ago, let us take a moment to analyze those societies by the "criteria" laid out here. Franco and il Duce - since autocratic regimes are not "necessarily" fascist, neither Spain nor Italy of the first half of the last century can be called fascist, despite repeated historical references to them as fascist. There was no ideology, at least no more than that of Saddam's reign. And it has been pointed out here …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL! You have a delicately exquisite way of turning the fork! Apologies. I really meant to say that your presence has been sorely missed.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Dude, You really need to reread your history books. This is the reason that nationalism is a NEW phenomenon and doesn't go back very far. Explain that to the Athenians and the Spartans. In defining a nation, the following is important: common culture, common origins, common language, a sense of exclusivity, a sense of identity. Stalin defined a nation thusly, A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. Cicero contrasts the external, inferior nationes ("races of people") with the Roman …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Deprecating Athenian and Spartan loyalties to their polities as mere superfluous "regional identities" ignores the notion that national boundaries, even in modern times, change. The self-identification of Athenians and Spartans was clearly nationalistic. There was a strong sense of identity within themselves, and exclusivity between the groups. That national borders were much closer than, when the horse and chariot were the fastest mode of land transportation, is not relevant. And quite frankly, it exposes a mean streak of cultural arrogance in your argument. That Herodotus was not allowed to become a citizen, a member of the polities, of Athens, despite …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
David, Thank you kindly for your consideration.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Your gleeful leap into presumptive assumptions makes it obvious you are incapable of critical analysis, so let me dumb this up. I said, The roots of nationalism go very deep within our psyche, arguably even to biological factors in genetics.. I did not say nationalism is genetic. Ask yourself a simple question; what is the root of nationalism, in the context of individual pyschology? Careful. This is not a trick question. Why do people gravitate towards other people, particularly with those who they have some common connection with? I warn you. This is not a trick question. Think about it. …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
jd, stjr, david, ROTF, LMAO! And you call me trollish .... What a riot. Though I disagree with cabbie quite strongly, and will continue to do so, at least he is making an effort to actually engage in an honest debate. Something Starboy, er JD (whose feigned outrage is noted, and long expected), never thought worthy.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, I would only dispute the notion that the roots of nationalism is embedded in the development of capitalism, as I would dispute that fascism's roots require modern Western technology. The Roman empire fostered similar notions of "new identities" and common citizenship across ethnic lines, as did the Islamic empire. As well as the example from China, where the notion of "Chinese nationalism" rests above the various ethnicities across the Middle Kingdom to the point of having a single "national" language, on top of the myriad of other languages, that unifies China even to this day And to respond to the …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Fascism is certainly enpowered to a far greater extent by modern technology and communications, but so is every other political philosophy. I don't accept the notion that it is a necessary precondition for social control. But I can certainly agree to disagree.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Jay, it may interest you to note that the entire political science profession clear across the ideological spectrum supports my assessment of fascism which is hardly an original one Actually, there is no clear consensus on what fascism is, and I have never considered an appeal to authority as the sole logic in an argument to have much merit. I have asked, repeatedly, why is modern technology so absolutely necessary for fascism to exist, but all I get are descriptive analysis and dogmatic declarative tautologies that essentially say, it is because it is. Nothing has been said about what truly …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
If fascism is primarily about state control, then arguments about the requirement of modern technology are superfluous. There have been plenty examples in ancient history (of which I have noted a few) where absolute state control has been achieved. And the further necessity of a highly efficient (and modern) bureaucracy can easily be refuted. 19th century Europeans did not invent bureaucracy; the Ottoman Republic and ancient Chinese States come to mind. The further tautologies of the "irreligious" nature of fascism continue to remain that. Tautologies. There is nothing being said that demonstrates the antithesis of religion and fascism, and, again, I …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, If you want to devolve back into scurrilous educational slurs, let me assist you with course selection. Set Theory. To say that Set A requires Subsets B, C and D most certainly does not mean A is B and only B. Yet, without B, you have no A. That, my dear fellow, is what "necessary conditions" equate to. I still await a non-tautologistic explanation on why A (fascism) requires B (modern technology) and C (strict secularism). I am more than willing to keep this above the belt, if you are.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
For the record, I, and not cabbie, am the one asserting that fascism is primarily about state control. I am trying to understand how technology and secularism are necessary preconditions, yet (I am really getting tired of saying this) all I get are tautologies. cabbie, you do know what a tautology is, no?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Wait a minute. I think I get it. The fascism of mid 20th century Germany, Italy and Japan used technology (ie radio and television broadcasts, aircraft carriers, submarines, integrated military operations) to impose a fascist political system. Therefore, fascism requires modern technology. Absolutely! My neighbor's dogs are white short hair terriers and they are the only dogs my little girl has ever seen. Ergo, the big black mastiff that was walked past our house the other day could not possibly be a dog. It was big. It was black. It was long haired. It could not have been a dog. Just …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, First, let me apologize. I didn't get much past the "troll" comment before responding. And subsequently have no intention of. I do, however, agree with you 100% that it logically follows that Never has there been a technologically backward fascist regime in history, especially when you define modern technology as one of the prerequisites for fascism. That, (un)kind sir, is a tautology. When you are prepared to defend that tautology with a rationale explanation why, let me know. (in your further pursuit of higher education, especially in the field of history, make sure you pay particular attention to arguments of …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Couple loose points: 1) Observations (like associating technology with fascism) are scholastically worthless if you cannot explain the relationship. 2) Throwing mud is not an argument.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL, my notable Starboy! Hiding in plain sight, huh? You should try a little more illumination and a little less trollish behavior yourself. Now, that would be novel!
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
jc, you are not only a troll, you are also not what your earlier posts try to convey. You know, I can 'pick' professionsals from a thouand paces, and you are one, albeit, not a very good one, since you forget to keep in 'persona'. . Starboy. Thought you'd try a little offensive defense, huh? I am most profoundly glad you can pick professionals from a thousand paces, but what is your point? What persona? You really need to work on keeping your own personas separate. I thought JD was to be the one more interested in debate, whilst you retained …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, I am glad that you agree that the link between technology and fascism is not as strong as I had thought you were once advocating. Certainly, there are numerous examples of fascist regimes that have successfully used technology for their own ends. I hope you can appreciate my argument doesn't necessitate a prerequisite technological component to fascism. Again, I am heartened to hear you affirm that state control is, in fact, the objective of fascism, though that is confusing in light of your recent protestations that you were not making that argument. But I am still perplexed on why you …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
lb, starboy, jd, Please, no persona protestations this time! I know a left-right combo when I see one, though it is a pity it was wasted.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
The ideology of state control is the central dogma of fascism. Certainly, fascism focuses on nationalism, and race is a useful idiot in their ideology of singular identity. Yet I do not understand the details of how that focus is inherently secular. It is certainly anticlerical, if only because a separate authoritarian structure, a separate identity, is antithetical to fascism. Yet religion is the perfect vehicle for state control, even more so than technology, and Hitler was not wont to shy away from its use or embrace it. Which raises a point I have raised before, if fascism is so secular, …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
c'mon starboy. stop trying to make things more confusing that they really are, though you are wont to do that. two words. IP spoofing. no bouncing required. quite simple, actually, for those who lack moral scruples. a little IP programming on your own box. alter the return address. no more complicated than putting the "wrong" return address on an actual envelope. but. you already know that.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, - fascism is as much an ideology as any other political theory. - nazism and religion. absolutely. couldn't have said it better myself. oops. I did. the nazi movement was anticlerical, as you have aptly illustrated. they also "ordained" their own Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller (again, as I have already mentioned - and have yet to be refuted or challenged). the nazis in germany were not areligious, they were nationalizing all identities into one, in accordance with fascist ideology. - "The State is everything; Everything exists within the State; Nothing exists outside the State" - Mussolini (again, already said this …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
never in my wildest dreams would I have thought to see the day that starboy actually used the American flag for his own personal fig leaf.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, No, you can't have it both way. Either fascism is distinctly secular, or it is not. Show me where they were decidedly irrelevant towards religion as opposed to merely anticlerical. Which ties into your second argument, that fascism is not a proper ideology. You may not like it, and I certainly don't, but that is not a proper argument. Fascist ideology is (again, I repeat myself, again) all about a SINGULAR identity (please, read Mussolini's definition more closely - it is relevant, after all, he and his band of Italians quite literally defined and gave "fascism" its etymology). There is …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Starboy, You are funny, in both disguises. "JD", Since you are making the predicates, you can answer your own questions, you silly goose. "LB". Now, THAT's funny. Cabbie, For true blue examples of trollish behavior, please read starboy's previous posts, of both genders.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, er, jd, I am truly disappointed. Even if this farce were a product of my own delusion, as David "believes", "Jane Doe" comes off as intelligent enough to answer that question just in context. Disingenuity in question and comment is a characteristic of starboy. The more I prick thee, the more your personas bleat like the one true starboy. cabbie, I agree totally.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL! yea, verily, that is why we love you so, starboy, in all your incarnations...
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
For the non-trolls who read and/or contribute, there is an interesting entry at Wikipedia on clerical fascism. Now, being wikipedia, you need to take it with a grain of salt, but it is part of their cross-article Series on Politics and does provides useful, if abridged, references.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
david, starboy, What is with these feigned and disingenuous queries? Do you not read your own posts as you write them? Massive memory infarction, eh?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Who is Jay-Jay?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
david, c'mon! you are the one who identified my "paranoid delusions". have you forgotten?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
if I be paranoid, it is only because it is true, eh?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, you are funny. and quite predictable. and quite illogical. who is lb? your comments (as inane as they are) could easily be turned right back at you, yet I won't go there because there is no value in it. but, if you have been paying attention, and if biographical information is so important to you, you would not need to ask these questions. I have not been shy of such information, when relevant. so, to what end, really? or is this just one more example of your typical disingenuity? do you really care who I am? do you really need …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
But, David, who is this starboy you are refering to? (careful, David. Your own disingenuity is showing...)
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Not at all, my dear friend. Not at all.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, again, you are a funny man. Whilst I attempt a rational discussion, all you have contributed here is your typical non-sequitors. You ask who I am, yet when I ask why, you twist it into purile word games and point the finger at me. If you're not interested, don't ask. But, if you are looking for a foil, you need to step up to the plate and actually say something, beyond childish taunts. c'mon. disingenuity to the max here, dude.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
meta, it is certainly true that the war rhetoric from the administration is to "unify" a more coherent strategy. It seems to me that your only objection is that you do not believe there are any points of congruence to the threats that face us after 9/11. The real question is whether the rhetoric matches the threat. Who are these "loosely aligned network of shadowy cells" that you mention? Is not the "alignment" that you yourself speak of based on the beliefs and actions of radical Islamic groups? Is your objection to the first part of Islamofascist, or the second? …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
oh come now starboy. If you must exercise that which you (apparently) find so despicable, that of childish verse of "glue sticking on you", take the quotes back a bit further. The dispute betwixt us is of my "paranoid delusions" where I have inferred, through grammatical, syntactical, lexiconic and thematic similarities that certain recently emerged "personas" (after ITT’s inclusion of source) are uncannily similar to long established ITT denizens, er trolls. After getting your legs, you took the offensive and have tried to turn the knife back, a pathetic attempt that has failed utterly. Now, in desperation, you resort to your …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
meta, Perhaps the most elegant "effect" of the usage of Islamofascists is that it actually and accurately does reflect reality. The previous posters have only succeeded in demonstrating a capacity of proving that A equals A.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, maybe if you spent less time in the trenches with your own trollish behavior and actually address the issues I raise, rather than summarily dismiss them in some pseudo-elitist rant, we could have gotten off page one of the debate. To wit, where have I exhibitied circular logic, and how is proclaiming that fascism is strictly secular simply because you define fascism as a secular ideology NOT a demonstration of circular logic?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, Are you writing a polemic dissertation illustrating your childish trollish talents, or responding to a simple question in the debate? Apologies if you buried substance in your ponderous treatise and I missed it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
With regards to metaxy making a good argument, saying that others have made his point, actually says nothing, particularly when "others" have only succeeded in demonstrating circular logic. Ergo, not a good argument. To say the issue is the use and/or misuse of the term Islamofascist without coming to an agreement on whether the term is mere political sophistry or an actual reflection on reality (which is the real point of the debate), is, dare I say, disingenuos. If the use is mere sophistry, then the point is made in the assumption itself. Again, more circular logic.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
With regard to the assertion that Islamic radicalism is neither Islamic nor radical, the first rational response to that kind of sophistry is, huh?? But, for the sake of the argument, if it is neither, and is "merely" a reactionary attempt to create an imagined past, is it your contention that there is no enemy, or that they are not Islamic despite their own beliefs? Who are you to arbitrate on the legitimacy of another man's beliefs and interpretations of his own religion?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Oh, and welcome back to the debate.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Those early modern fascists, those early twentieth century Italians, described themselves as radicals AND reactionary revolutionaries. Radical in the sense of seeking violent change against the rising dominance of Marxist-inspired politics, and reactionary in the sense of going back to an idealized (imagined, to use starboy's words) past of singular social identity. Those we face in anger today are Islamic, starboy's sophistry notwithstanding, and are very much radical and reactionary in the same sense as those early modern Italian fascists. Personified by al Qaeda and the Iranian mullahs, they speak of violent change against a "corrupt" and "westernized" Islamic society in …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, What, again, was your technical definition of fascism? I do not ask this gratuitously, but after 3 pages of blogging, it would perhaps be well to repeat it. I think if there is one single point on which we agree is that we apparently do not share the same definition. But before I respond, I would appreciate a touchstone of where your definition is coming from. Obviously from your last post, I have misinterpreted it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Anticipating your response, I would make this distinction between us with regard to nationalism and fascism: To fascists, the State is the thing. It is, as Mussolini described, an "anti-individualistic conception of life [that] stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity". Fascism invests in the State the personification of the will of the people, "opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, Your obvious BS aside, if a man proclaims his faith, why would I not accept his statement of belief at face value? With regard to judging by actions, which "benevolent " actions of those we fight would you care to discuss? With regard to Mussolini, if you want to understand the "BS", what better way than to examine the words of those who actually defined what modern fascism is; in thought, word AND deed? Your rhetorical sophistry knows no limits, doesn't it? And yet, you have unerringly ducked the question. Again. Disingenuity. You may turn the knife as often as …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, What are you views on the Christian Crusaders? Certainly, they did not uphold Christian values in their own jihad. Were they acting in the name of their god? Or do you have ecclesiastic authority over them as well?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Perhaps I have been too harsh, ol' starboy. You do seem to have issues with keeping up your stamina. Every time you actually get engaged in a real debate, you have a bad habit of falling back on character assassinations, slander, mischaracterizations and trivializations of the arguments of others, without really contributing any original observations or points of debate. Do you have attention deficit disorders? No, really. I have had in the past some ADD issues and problems with dyslexia, but never to the point where they so impair my intellectual facilities as to render them impotent. I guess that goes …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
But, in case you have forgotten the question, When is an Islamic terrorist, not Islamic?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well, clearly there is no common ground between our historical interpretations. I profoundly reject the notion that fascism is a mere aberration, a blip in history without context, that emerged from a vacuum and similarly vanished. To continue any further debate along that particular line would be like engaging a Creationist in a debate over evolution. I guess I am more of a hedgehog than a fox. But s'al'right.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
dude, I am cool with our differences and meant no disrespect. If I did, I would question the logical consistency between these two statements: Thus, fascism is a modern, twentieth century phenomenon which no longer exists today and had no roots in the distant past. and I never said fascism was abberant, had no historic context, or emerged and existed in a vacuum.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, If living a morally virtuous life consistent with one's religion is a criteria to religious identification, then there are not 100 people since the dawn of man who has a religious identity. The point of order was not, are Islamic terrorists virtuous Islamists, as you well know, but are they Islamists? The point of order was not are Islamist jihadists acting in strict accordance (according to your interpretation) with the Koran, or were Christian crusaders acting in strict accordance (according to your interpretation) with the Bible, but what is their religious identity? Islamist terrorists are accepted as Islamic by nearly …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
jay asks, When is an Islamic terrorist, not Islamic? starboy says, You just don’t want to hear my answer starboy has been watching too many old Tom Cruise movies.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, Like I said, I have no problems with agreeing we don't agree. Unlike starboy, in a real debate I have no interest in "he said, she said" arguments. I think there are inconsistencies in your argument about fascism's place in history; you think I am an uneducated troll. Let's move on. Let's get back to nationalism. I offered for consideration what I believe is a better refinement on nationalism's relationship to fascism, that the critical point of congruence is not the building of nations, but the singular social identity that ultra-nationalism gives to fascism. Isolating this from the umbrella of …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
luminous beauty, I agree that jihads and crusades are hypocrisies of the highest order for the devoted of those religions to follow. Yet, they do and hypocrisy is at the heart of many human activities. But it is legalistic nonsense to argue that, as they fight in the name of their god, as they perceive it, to say that they are not acting in the name of their god merely because they are hypocrites. Logic rules the head, not the heart. Yet matters of the heart are not trivial. And that is not an over-simplification.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I do, however, appreciate the humor in this statement: Your rhetorical sophistry knows no limits, doesn’t it? No it doesn’t. That is why I have no problem penetrating to the heart of the bullshit you espouse. Sophistry to get to the truth. Well, perhaps. But only if one still lives in ancient Greece.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
cabbie, I am the one with paranoid delusions here. If I have said something that agreed with a point you have already made, that generally implies progress and gives us something to build on. Where have we agreed?
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well. I guess that says just about everything. Cabbie, I thank you for the reading list, though please don't wait for a response. I already have a dozen or so tomes on various topics already on my list and nothing I have seen here would encourage me to prioritize these new additions off the bottom of that queue. I do appreciate your honest attempts at debate, though again, it is a pity we couldn't get off first base, what with so much importance placed on bibliographic references and "entrance exams" over a truly articulated analysis of them. I am not sure …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Cabbie, In case you suffer from the same sort of memory malfunctions as our lovable starboy, here is, as I see it, the current point of contention: To fascists, the State is the thing. It is, as Mussolini described, an "anti-individualistic conception of life [that] stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity". Fascism invests in the State the personification of the will of the people, "opposed to that form of …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Cabbie, What I have suggested is that nationalism is not unidimensional. What I have suggested is that nationalism is not necessarily ultranationalism and that ultranationalism is not necessarily fascism. What I have suggested is that perhaps it is not nationalism per se that is relevant to fascism, but one critical aspect of it, that of a political and social tendency to congregate with other similar people, especially in times of fear and uncertainty, whether that similarity is based on geography, ethnicity, religion, or whatever. And that tendency is very much a part of human nature. I agree history's appeal is the …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, Again, you assume ecclesiastic authority over those who identify themselves (and are identified by those who are) Islamic. the mere facade of religious piety, that is, acting in the name of one’s traditional religious identity is meaningless and hypocritical, without the sincere intent and effort to live up to the spirit of those deep moral and ethical teachings that all the religious traditions of the world universally aspire to produce and preserve. Calling it a mere facade, claiming there is not sincere intent and effort is a judgement call on your part, one that could not be made without presuming …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Well. starboy, we are yet again at a "No I'm not! Yes you are!" conundrum. So be it.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Cabbie, TNR has posted the following review: http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061120&s=frank112006 Despite our intransigent differences of opinion, I would welcome your comments. I have not yet read any of the literature referenced in the review, but I just may start bumping them up my reading queue.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I am not a subscriber either, but I get their free newsletter. It might be only that you need to register with an email? It is about Romanian fascism in the 20s and 30s. Given that I have interpreted (wrongly?) your thoughts of fascism being urban, secular and industrialized, given that Romanian fascism was rural, decidedly religous and not industrialized, I'd be curious how you viewed Romanian fascism.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
LOL! starboy, if you wish to play rhetorical King-of-the-Hill, well, the honor is yours!
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
David, Before I go anywhere with "Canuckistan", I must ask: Is "Canuck" a self-deprecating pejorative to our good friends to the north, or is it a term of endearment? And, for the record, some of my best friends are Canadian.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I have been reading a bit on the economic policies that various Fascist countries pursued, and it seems the one defining economic characteristic within those countries is that the economy was, for the most part, seen as a means to an end (I believe I have even seen one quote attributed to Hitler that said the basis of their economic theory was they had no theory - not sure what the context was that it was said in, or if it was even said). Mussolini sometimes seems almost free-market as he "fostered" economic competition as a means to weed out the …
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
starboy, childish retorts aside, I cannot resist employing your "glue" metaphor right now: Why is it so hard for you to recognise such a simple and glaring error in your thinking? It is only human to make mistakes, but I daresay you abuse the priviledge. Forgive me. I had a momentary relapse into my second childhood.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
Respectfully?? LOL! starboy, you are indeed a riot. But, unlike you, I do not come here for the perverse pleasure of seeing others twist in the wind, as you have confessed to on numerous occassions. I truly understand it is difficult for you to disengage without total capitulation; but I have already given the "field of battle" over to you. You command the hilly heights. I truly and sincerely hope this gives you what you yearn for.
Posted to The Neocons Lexicon
-
I'm not sure what Moberg's point is, except he has none to make. First he laments the failure of free trade to protect farmers from developing nations; then he criticizes developed countries who "were supposed to reduce tariffs and subsidies to permit developing nations to sell their agricultural products without unfair competition or obstacles"; then he argues for tariffs and subsidies that are supposed to encourage "“food sovereignty,” or the right of each nation to fashion its own food strategy to strike a balance between urban and rural incomes." I guess the only point I agree with Moberg is with his …
Posted to The Death of Doha
-
Doug; Pistola: If you are truly interested in substance, why are you ignoring this one very poignant comment from tina: Now you see that nobody wants to listen to Air America and you can’t stand it. Seems to me, she is saying more than either of you combined. But, I'm not saying anything you want to hear, so I guess I have nothing to say...
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
No, I think the point that tina is trying to make, through admittedly bombastic rhetoric, is that throughout the debate on the left side of the aisle, there has been a similarly bombastic and derisive attitude toward media wins on the right side of the aisle. Throughout the debate (and continued through some of the links provided in this article) there is a concerted effort to demonized the media to the right as some sort of cabalistic evil empire that has no significant public support. As far as the allegations of trepidations amongst tina and myself over "continual competition", that is …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Of course, how silly of me. 1) America should take complete responsibility for the ecological disasters in China as it rushes headlong into the global economy; 2) free markets are a disaster, we should replace them with such sterling examples of command markets like, er, well, ah, you know; 3) 9/11 was really an American plot to take over the world; 4) American foreign aid of nearly $10 billion a year is not enough; 5) we need to stop the activities those rich fat cats like Gates and Buffet as they throw away even more billions on world poverty. Yeah. We …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Again, Doug. You are at least as guilty of the vacuous verbal crime you accuse tina of in your first post. Perhaps you should reread you first post; and apply it to yourself. I personally see less content in your postings than tina's, whether I agree with her or not.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Thanks for making my point...
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
and tina's as well...
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
what is it that you are so afraid of?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Ah, M&M. As usual, you are providing mostly heat to the debate but little light. The issue here is does one individual (aka doug) have the right to silence a critic merely because he doesn't like what he hears? But, to return to the fire, which flag do you kiss every night?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
doug, Which lies are you referring to?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
oh, doug's been eliminated?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
M&M, So, you are agreeing with the original story that actually says homosexuality is a mental disorder? C'mon. Show us you really are not some prepubescent teenager playing paddy cake with words you do not understand. Who's your Daddy, bubba?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Ryan, I agree. The kind of sniping typified by the comments here (mine included) makes a mockery of intelligent debates. People are going to disagree; when a select few try to control and dominate the debate, everyone suffers.
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
M&M, provocative remarks is a typically Republican tactic. Dickhead. Ah, yes of course. Just can't get away from the blast furnace, eh?
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Maria, Be careful about calling the kettle black. You talk about preconceived notions, yet you take quite a few liberties in assuming my beliefs. Democracy is indeed about more than voting every four years. Yet you disparge the elections in 2002 and 2004. Both were perfect opportunies to throw the bums out, yet it didn't happen. Why? Because the liberals do not represent the American people and the American people chose the other party. I guess it must be true that many people don't want to hear the other side of this story, Indeed! Democracy is also about accepting reality. It …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Another of Maria's preconceived notions: It’s easy to brag about “bringing them on” while you continue with your life as if nothing was happening and send others to do the dirty job in your name. How about us whose life is very much involved with the war and are doing, and have already done, our part? Someone needs to check her assumptions and stop thinking "my way or the highway". That philosophy doesn't go far in a democracy. And I believe tina was referring to the larger tendency of liberals to eschew the liberal label. Given the proclivity of America to …
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution
-
Happy 4th of July everyone!
Posted to Welcome to the Media Revolution