uselessgit You do realize that concentration camps were invented by the British, during the Boer War, right?

sue b. honey: Shhhh, you're not allowed to point that out, even when being sarcastic.

Didn't you see nerfball admonish me for it already? ;)

Why do I get the feeling I've talked to you before...not a Paul McCartney fan by any chance are you?

uselessgit

You be responsible for the deaths of 80 million AND nuclear proliferation AND then tell me something about being a paper tiger. Even so, they were were a tiger with teeth. I would not laugh off the threat that the USSR presented when it was at it's peak.

I'm not laughing it off, I'm just saying that their leaders were incompetent (not sure if that's the right word to use in this context) compared to Hitler and the Soviet system as a whole was very unstable and inefficient. As such, I don't think the Soviet Union had the capacity to take over the world. Honestly, I'm impressed (again, this may not be the right word in this context) that they lasted as long as they did before collapsing due to their own incompetence and flawed logic. A large percentage of the 80 million deaths (it could, in fact, be as high as 125m but we'll never know because most of those records were destroyed) were deaths due to famine, work camps and other things that resulted from their poorly planned and poorly executed economic and social policies.

In retrospect, I'm not sure we should have taken them as seriously as we did. In a way, that gave them a legitimacy that aided their cause. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 as at the time, the information we had suggested that they were a serious threat.

inkdrinker

Unfortunately, corruption is a part of human nature and not exclusive to any given political party. It increases in direct proportion to the power of the party in control. This is a big problem, but it happens everywhere and since the dawn of civilization.

The question arises, what to do when a given government has too much power, and has thus crossed the rubicon.

We will see.
I'm off now...have a good night, guys.

At least we know who is paying for links on Fark.com these days.

2005-06-08 07:13:44 PM cryptozoophiliac

Not really a McCartney fan and I don't believe we've spoken until now. Nice meeting you though.

/end threadjack

seeing drew in that neo-con garbage shirt makes me
a)want to puke
b)hate fark

i hope there are no french readers.
i neutered my cat, now he's french? what a moran.
honestly.

Also, for anyone who cares, I don't hate the President or his administration. Hatred is corrosive, and damaging to the spirit. Unfortunately, it is also natural and must be struggled against. Besides, I'm having too much fun in life to hate...it seems to me that it is the steely-eyed "realists" (of whatever religious stripe), full of pride at their twilight struggle against all evil everywhere, who might be in danger of hating. Think about it, if you're inclined to think.

uselessgit
America had no real idea of the depth of the evils of communism up to and durring WW2. Some of our leaders did, but this was still a time when the idea of concentration camps and the "Final Solution" was about as real to Americans as Flash Gordon and Superman were. We had no ide, and more the point, we had holywood types go over to the USSR in the 30's and come back and tell us about what kind of workers paradise it was. Mind you, the truth was hidden from them too.

No, I think that communism gets a pass from our liberals today because they borrow so much from it to justify socialism. If you found liberals to be racists and ant-jew, you would probably find them OK with borrowing from Uncle Adolph. Communism, is attractive to those soft headed types that like to use theory and crap, where as nazism appealed to those who like direct force and action. BOTH take advantage of idiotic elite thinking that use "science" as a justification for their actions.

I think our leaders in the 30s had a pretty good idea of what nazism and communism were generally about (race and class, respectively), even if their atrocities were not yet known. I realize that entering into the war on the side of the USSR was militarily pragmatic, but I also think that aligning with the class-based dictatorship sat better with the government and with americans than aligning with the race-based dictatorship would have.

I still think that the race/class distinction is one reason why nazism is looked at in retrospect as more evil than communism (MtLebanonBalogna had a good point, too); though I agree that there are some who give communism a free pass because they desire to implement and/or maintain socialism.

sue b.

Likewise. You talk pretty today.

Occam

Serious question: Is there anything less appealing than a bottle-blonde skank who votes for Puritans?

Speaking of inflammatory buzzwords...

Anyway, while we're throwing out wildly innappropriate comparisons, I would suggest you read up on the Massachusets Bay Colony... I'm sure you associate puritanism with ignorant ruination, but for whatever reason, those guys were among the most prosperous in colonial America.

Did some rotten things too though, particularly to the quakers, who were also dirty christian bastards (and opposed things like war and slavery).

/Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to say that, it's imperative that I only present one view on every issue so that way I can be more easily boxed up and labeled and my opinions dismissed because I'm a 'neocon republitard fundie redstater!' or whatever.

BlindMan: Oh you're right, those words are euphamisms. Everyone uses those, though.

Pro-Choice = Pro Abortion

I don't know anyone who's pro-abortion... Plenty who are pro-abortion rights, but that's hardly the same thing.

Homophobia = Disapproving of homosexuality for ANY reason

And I suppose refering to someone as anti-semetic for "Disapproving of Judaism for ANY reason" is similarly unfair...

Blood for Oil, Tolerance... blah blah blah.

Now you've lost me. I was waiting to hear how those terms are misleading, but you sort of trailed off there.

Those are going to be used by both sides of any debate forever.

True... but I notice in these examples, at least one side is making an effort to mean what they say...

what's the frequency Kenneth: McCarthy and JE Hoover were both paranoid and closeted gays.

So, you're bashing gays now?

Wait! WAIT! That's a joke!

what's the frequency Kenneth:One problem is that leftists love disagreeing with eachother and, therefore, cannot unite such as the right has done.

Um, yeah. Them fundie Christians just LOVE the false church (that would be the Roman Catholics). Such as moi.

And who will pray for us moderates? Just John McCain?

Better dead than RED!

Communism like fascism, freedom and democracy is a noun, and nothing more. Actions speak louder than words.

cryptozoophiliac

Also, for anyone who cares, I don't hate the President or his administration. Hatred is corrosive, and damaging to the spirit. Unfortunately, it is also natural and must be struggled against. Besides, I'm having too much fun in life to hate...it seems to me that it is the steely-eyed "realists" (of whatever religious stripe), full of pride at their twilight struggle against all evil everywhere, who might be in danger of hating. Think about it, if you're inclined to think.

Reporter: 'Are you happy?'
Charles De Gaulle: 'Do I look like an idiot?'

/the rebuttal of the chronically depressed
//good for you though, seriously.

inkdrinker:


This is the only thing relevant to this thread:

Fact: McCarthy was right. His tactics weren't the best, but regardless, the threat was real and had to be addressed.

Tillmaster:

Tillmaster

uselessgit You do realize that concentration camps were invented by the British, during the Boer War, right?


Concentration camps are just camps where people are "concentrated," e.g. gathered. The words have been imbued with additional meaning thanks to the Nazis. Depending on the circumstances, people were just gathered and released, gathered and not released, gathered and shipped on to "death camps" and so on. The USSR had plenty of concentration camps, and also "work camps" and so on.

I'm not saying "concentration camps" are okay, just that it's very important to distinguish between those words and the the connotations they've picked up. Not all concentration camps involve prodding people into gas chambers.

Thank goodness capitalistic darwinism has beaten back godless communism in the blessed USA.

"Men walkin' 'long the railroad tracks
Goin' someplace there's no goin' back
Highway patrol choppers comin' up over the ridge
Hot soup on a campfire under the bridge
Shelter line stretchin' round the corner
Welcome to the new world order
Families sleepin' in their cars in the southwest
No home no job no peace no rest

The highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad"

Blind Man, you liar. Great De Gaulle quote, however

BlindMan: Anyway, while we're throwing out wildly innappropriate comparisons, I would suggest you read up on the Massachusets Bay Colony... I'm sure you associate puritanism with ignorant ruination, but for whatever reason, those guys were among the most prosperous in colonial America.

I'm sure you had a point when you started typing. Maybe you should jiggle your modem.

McCarthy was right about the big picture, but managed to throw a nice smoke screen which ruined a bunch of peoples' careers without actually touching the real issue. I don't recall Harry Dexter White being on that famous list. Maybe some of you more informed farkers can clue me in....

BlindMan:

Reporter: 'Are you happy?'
Charles De Gaulle: 'Do I look like an idiot?'

/the rebuttal of the chronically depressed
//good for you though, seriously.


This pretty much explains why France is the odd man out in the modern world.

Considering DeGaulle's country lost 2 wars, got major bail-outs and massive aid and assistance both times, got a pity-based place in the UN and still managed to give a raspberry to NATO and Europe whenever possible, I think they ought to be pretty happy. In an ideal world, the Allies after WWII should have taken over the country and divided it like Germany or Austria, using the established lines of Nazi collaboration, since France has primarily been a problem more than a solution for about 150 years. They didn't come to the aid of Czechoslovakia, per treaty, when it was taken by the Nazis in 1938, they bailed from NATO in the 1950s, and they haven't done a damn thing for anyone since then.

Yes, he was right. Even more interesting is that he did his best to not name names until he was threatened with censure and ordered to do so. He said that he did not want to hurt those who might have been innocent. Oh, well... facts be damned, right?

POOP!!! I split an infinitive! Am I now a bad person?

/engages in vigorous self-flagellation

When will these conservatives drop the "Hollywood liberal" speech?

First, none of them seem have a problem when Reagan, Heston, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Costner, Gibson, etc., talk politics.

Second, the branding of "Hollywood liberal" goes against conservative ideology. Aren't conservatives supposed to reward the most productive in society? If I said I was both a filmmaker and a political activist (both of which I aspire to be), I'd expect a conservative to applaud my productivity.

Third, their argument against Hollywood political activism is fatally flawed. Actors should not be stepping out of their roles as entertainers? Does this mean that anyone whose job is not political has no right to be politically active? That politics are reserved solely for elected officials? Hey fellow liberals, here's an idea. The next time someone blathers on about how Sean Penn has no right to be politically active, tell him or her that s/he has no right to be politically active either because s/he isn't an elected official. And if s/he is an elected official, ask: who do you think voted you into office? Just other politicians?

Asshats.

haplo53, I disagree with some of your reasoning, but I have too much work to do. Thanks for taking the time to think through your arguments...although some of them are wrong. That is said with a smile.

OK. Good night and God bless.

Occam

Ok, I was being even handed and admitting that conservatives use a lot of euphamisms... but you must nevertheless find it within yourself to dispute the notion that liberals (as part of the human race) also use euphamisms... SIGH.

BlindMan: Oh you're right, those words are euphamisms. Everyone uses those, though.

Pro-Choice = Pro Abortion

I don't know anyone who's pro-abortion... Plenty who are pro-abortion rights, but that's hardly the same thing.

That's every bit as legitimate or (illegitimate) a label as 'pro-life'. The real issue is abortion, some guys are against it, some guys are for it.

If I say I'm 'pro death penalty' does that imply that I want as many people to be executed as possible. Of course not. Likewise being 'pro abortion' does not require that you want every baby you see to be aborted, but rather that you support the idea of there being a bunch of abortions permitted in society.

Homophobia = Disapproving of homosexuality for ANY reason

And I suppose refering to someone as anti-semetic for "Disapproving of Judaism for ANY reason" is similarly unfair...

Ugh, and once more ugh. Ok, anti semitic implies that you hate jews (which may be people of a certain race, or people of a certain religion, or both). Now being a christian myself, I 'disapprove' of judaism in that I don't think it's wholly correct. This does not imply that I hate people that (chose to) follow such religion, nor that I hate people of that race (without choice). That would be a little odd because I would then be anti semitic against myself. Even hypothetically if I did HATE people both on the basis of their choices and who they are biologically (which are distinguishable), I'm not necessarily AFRAID of them ('a semitaphobe?').

Homophobe connotes hatred in addition to the dissaproval which is denotes, it erases the whole QUESTION of choice (however that might be answered) and on top of being loaded in those ways, implies there is some kind of fear there. Those manage to lump together people who say 'I don't think homosexual marriage should be recognized by churches' in with people who beat that transvestite Hilary Swank oscar girl to death. In other words, it a loaded buzzword with a very specific political purpose.

Blood for Oil, Tolerance... blah blah blah.

Now you've lost me. I was waiting to hear how those terms are misleading, but you sort of trailed off there.

I thought we could be reasonable enough to think of these things on our own without having them spelled out. Obviously not, because then we couldn't get out 100% partisan merit badges.

Blood for Oil - the shorthand for any war in the middle east. Summarily dismisses ALL other possible justifications or cojustifications as to anything that might happen.

Tolerance - means whatever we want it to mean. The holy grail of euphamisms I'd say. While it would probably literally imply simply not physically attacking people of a particular persuasion in practice it has come to mean giving moral approval to a given behavior and an assumption of equity in moral content. It's probably the liberal equivalent of 'family values' actually.

Do these words have legitimate uses, probably. But in the vernacular they are loaded and deceptive. As I said to begin with every side does this, it's probably necessary propaganda. But don't pretend like that's just some mean OTHER republican guys over there somewhere.

Those are going to be used by both sides of any debate forever.

True... but I notice in these examples, at least one side is making an effort to mean what they say...

No, not at all. You just agree with one side and so have been unable to view them objectively. Both sets of words were obviously intended accomplish indirect political purposes. There's pages more we could go through, but what's the point really?

Blindfold yourselves and don't have children; Mcartheyism rises again.

No, this is different, you just have to Narc out your friends neighbors and kids; by law.

Occam

BlindMan: Anyway, while we're throwing out wildly innappropriate comparisons, I would suggest you read up on the Massachusets Bay Colony... I'm sure you associate puritanism with ignorant ruination, but for whatever reason, those guys were among the most prosperous in colonial America.

I'm sure you had a point when you started typing. Maybe you should jiggle your modem.

Point:

Puritan = Loser Idiot Terrible Person

No esta verdad. Comprende?

Halfmast Trousers

BlindMan:

Reporter: 'Are you happy?'
Charles De Gaulle: 'Do I look like an idiot?'

/the rebuttal of the chronically depressed
//good for you though, seriously.


This pretty much explains why France is the odd man out in the modern world.

Considering DeGaulle's country lost 2 wars, got major bail-outs and massive aid and assistance both times, got a pity-based place in the UN and still managed to give a raspberry to NATO and Europe whenever possible, I think they ought to be pretty happy. In an ideal world, the Allies after WWII should have taken over the country and divided it like Germany or Austria, using the established lines of Nazi collaboration, since France has primarily been a problem more than a solution for about 150 years. They didn't come to the aid of Czechoslovakia, per treaty, when it was taken by the Nazis in 1938, they bailed from NATO in the 1950s, and they haven't done a damn thing for anyone since then.

While you bring up some interesting info... I think you have missed the point.

It's more an existential than a political question (like most than actually matter in the final analysis).

Anyway, it is the time when we drink.

Have fun folks, sorry if that got needlessly heated at any point.

The Hollywood Left Revealed

After seeing that head line I knew I didn't need to bother RTFA. Someone could come up with home movies of McCarthy and Nixon enjoying man sex together and the far right would still be trying to rehabilitate these 2 totalitarian clowns.

Just submitted this as a contest. Heh heh.

McCarthy was talking about security risks already ideentified, but not moved away from sensitive positions. His methodology was necessary because lots of departments were playing CYA rather than admit their naivity. That "Have you no shame" comment was shameful misdirection. Parlor Pinks saw nothing wrong with what they were doing - but there was, they provided cover for the real spies. The Grapes of Wrath was designed to make capitalism look bad. We went hungry back then sometimes [I came West in a '28 Oakland with a mattress on the roof] but no one starved, whatever Steinbeck said. People did starve in the USSR. I don't like communists because they tried to kill me.

He is still right.
Hollywood is trying to overthrow America by
promoting sex, dancing and boogie-woogie music.

Halfmast

/Doesn't make McCarthy right.

Should read: /Dosen't make McCarthy good.

He was an asshat. But he was right. He isn't a hero. No one is trying to SAY he's a hero. We are just trying to say that he was on to something.

If I say I'm 'pro death penalty' does that imply that I want as many people to be executed as possible. Of course not. Likewise being 'pro abortion' does not require that you want every baby you see to be aborted, but rather that you support the idea of there being a bunch of abortions permitted in society.

Your comparison doesn't stand, and that's because we use "pro death penalty," meaning the availability of that option. The phrase that gets slung around, however, is "pro abortion," which makes people instantly think you approve of the act of abortion, not just keeping the option on the table. If people used "pro abortion rights" more, that would be a close parallel to "pro death penalty," but people don't say "pro killing prisoners" for a reason. ;) Abortion is an act, while abortion rights are a measure of legal freedom. Similarly the death penalty frames just how far legal punishment may go... it does not kill prisoners in and of itself.

Amnesty International recently called the USA the the most vulgur and vile destroyer of human rights in the world today.

It seems that AI is FUBAR. Just like EUnuchstania, the UN and the DNC.

:-(

Ann Coulter wishes she had a time machine so she could fellate McCarthy.

Thank god we won that phony war against communism, now we can concentrate on the phony war against terror.

Remember when those evil Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Hello China! Hi Saudis!

had to work... catching up here...

haplo...

I can buy that. With the Works Project Admin back in the 30's, America as running strong for communism anyway. It problably made morse sense, but don't forget too that the Nazi's didn't like blacks and jews either AND we had a strong bent towards that sick mindset back then too.

43...

Taking over the world and seriously screwing up biological life are two different things. When I was in Highschool in 86, the theory we were told was that the USSR would colapse under it's war-economy set up. War-economies never work. When I was in the Airforce in 88, we were advised much the same thing. No one thought that the USSR would last another 50 years (that was the margin they gave it then), but no one doubted their ability to put some serious hurt on us, and case trouble with their proxy states. Having Soviet troops on every street corner was never really a consideration. Having a city burt to radioactive dust was.

I am proud to say I have peed on that man's grave.

Gotta love the thought police.

Submitter needs a flogging.

CaptainBeefheart:

CaptainBeefheart

Thank god we won that phony war against communism, now we can concentrate on the phony war against terror.

Remember when those evil Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Hello China! Hi Saudis!

That "phony" [sic} war against communism got a hell of a lot of people killed, starting in Korea and extending through Vietnam, assuming we aren't counting the milliions killed in the USSR and Mao's China.

When those "evil Soviets" invaded Afghanistan, they didn't go about it like the US has done recently. They adopted the standard "pillage and rape" tactics of the Red Army, and with classic Soviet ineptitude, they killed thousands, land-mined the country, enraged the natives and wasted lives on all sides in a failed and futile attempt to take over the country. Guiding philosophy? "We're the boss now." Compare the what the US has done in Afghanistan. Not that I enjoy paying for it, but it's basically a "pull your head out of the 11th Century and get with it" philosophy. It's not working perfectly, but all things considered, way better than the ham-fisted Soviet approach.

Soviet documents have proven that.

" all independent thought was forbidden in the name of revolutionary discipline."

Sounds like the Republican party.


.