Glenn Beck’s Wife Attacked in NYC Park

[NotCrazyDan]

And, you, in turn can, if it makes you feel better, stick to what you just said.

Except I’m right. Tell you what, list out all of the things that fascism has in common with the ‘right’ as we know it in American politic. I’ll list out all of the things that fascism has in common with the ‘left’.

Care to take me up on it? I bet you won’t, because my list will be much longer.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Except I’m right. Tell you what, list out all of the things that fascism has in common with the ‘right’ as we know it in American politic. I’ll list out all of the things that fascism has in common with the ‘left’.

Care to take me up on it? I bet you won’t, because my list will be much longer.

“Except I’m right.” Of course you are, of course you are.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

“Except I’m right.” Of course you are, of course you are.

That’s a non answer. This isn’t a matter of perception, but a matter of substance. Care to take me up on this or not?

 

[Raskolnikov]

Darryl1958:

Loughner!!!
C’mon man. That is really grasping at straws more even than the example of the Klaus that nobody even knows who may or may not have murdered his wife for totally unpolitical reasons.

Even Obama requested that people stop making political points off this issue. But as the saying goes, repeat a lie enough times, and it becomes true for many people.

You misunderstood me, naturally. I made no attempt to ascribe the Loughner shooting to rightists, I was merely referring to the media attention. Of course, it’s a bad comparoson, because you and other conservatives here are being far more melodramatic than they were. They were concerned about the atteempted murder of a Democratic congresswoman. You are trying to postulate a trend of increasing violence on the left from a woman spilling wine on Glen Beck’s wife. Is this what passes for an argument on the right these days?

And this is what passes as considered argument for the left nowadays. …

Okay, well, you keep arguing with the “Left” then, and you can just address me when you want to rejoin reality discuss the matter with an actual human being.

NotCrazyDan:

Fascism IS National Socialism. You can say it’s ‘right-wing’ if it makes you feel better, but the totalitarian control of the means of production is a socialist principle.

Dan, right now as I read your post, I’m thinking of a Ludwig Wittgenstein quote: “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should remain silent.” Here you are, pontificating about history, the history of Europe at that, and you know nothing about.

Fascism is not national socialism. Only the German Nazi Party used the term socialism to describe itself, and everyone with any knowledge history knows that it gave up the socialism by the end of the '20s. Gregor Strasser wa the leader of the “socialisst” component of the party aand a rival of Hitler, and Josef Goebbels was a follower of his until he “saw the light” and began suporting Hitler, who was not only not socialist, but was given much financial support from wealthy industrialists and noblemen who saw him as a viable means to stave off the communists.

Strasser and the other more genuine “national socialists” were mostly killed off in the Night of Long Knives because their politics offended the Nazi’s right wing supporters, mostly businessmen, former soldiers who lsot their posts due to the downsizing of the army, and mid-level bureaucrats, as well as peasants. They were not overwhelmingly popular among the proletarians, which isn’t surprising since they later abolished all unions and replaced them with a sham union called “the Labor Front” under Robert Lay.

And taking over the means of produciton? Seriously? Have you ever read a book on the Nazis? They didn’t seize control of the means of produciton!!! Where did you get that idea?! They cooperated with the private industrialists and gave them special priveliges, state support, and slave labor in turn for taks, jeeps and guns. ALl the companies that produced the German military vehicles and weapons were private companies that existed long before the war: Vokswagen, Krupp, etc. and they all kept the same management. Mussolini rather explicitly stated (or rather Giovanni Gentile, his ghost writer) that fascism, unlike socialism, seeks to combine capitalism with statism (in a military sense) for the mobilization of the masses.

Except I’m right.

I wouldn’t be bothered by your utter lack of knowledge of fascism if you were at least a little more humble about it.

The first people that Nazis sent to the camps (specifically Dachau; I visited once, a very informative museum there) were the communists, and many social democrats as well. Most of the Reichstag members from the right wing parties joined the Nazis after Enabling Act (1933) while the social democrats and communists went to prison or were executed. The Fascists hated leftists, and exterminated or deported leftist intellectuals with remarkable efficiency, Right-wing ones like Carl Schmitt in Germany or Giovanni Gentile in Italy attained high ranking positions in government and academia for spouting propaganda. Read their works. The idea that they subscribed to a left wing ideology is laughable. They were as anti-left wing as it gets.

What do fascists have in common with the right? Militarism is (in America and Europe at least ) aright wing tendency, So is racialism. Nationalism too. So is agrarianism (fascists were agrarians). In the case of Franco, theocracy should be mentioned. Colonialism is considered a right-wing position (Spain, Italy). Also with Spain and Italy you have monarchism. Agressive hatred of communism. That’s just a few I can think of at the moment.

 

[Darryl1958]

You misunderstood me, naturally. I made no attempt to ascribe the Loughner shooting to rightists, I was merely referring to the media attention.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Darryl1958:

Sorry, I resent that accusation. It is you that is bringing up the meodrama of SS and jackboots. I have been comparing this to pie in the faces on up to union violence, and noticing the trend—which you have not refuted or addressed without allusions to SS jackboots or pyschotic killers.

It’s called a hyperbole. Check my post again, I even put an empticon there.

Yes, this is how I argue First the evidence, and then giving my opinion is what passes for argument, but only on the right these days sadly.

Err, yeah, right. No, your method argumentation seems more in line with Nietzsche’s proverb, “there are no facts, only interpretations.” One can interpret any sliver of information into a supposed “trend.” Which is why I’ve stopped reading political commentaries, just generaliation after generalization. I have yet to see prove this point, either that the American left (for you it seems a term just ambiguous enough to allow you to include anyone at your disretion is more violent than it has been in the past or that it is more violent than the right. So far you’ve claimed that some right-wing speakers have bosyduards when they give speeches on college campuses. How profound.

Your arguments so far have fit much more into the leftist mode and partisanship than actually forming a reasoned opinion based on evidence.
Just because the left had lamely tried to impugned the whole of conservatism with a pyschotic killing spree, it does not mean that you need to impugn that my motive is as low as all that.

That would be a common leftist method of argument, which I do not tend to share.

I have merely noted that this assault is not that isolated when it comes to how the left often reacts to people that they disagree with. Rather than showing us where we are wrong through facts and argument, we often get impugned with low character, such as engaging in tit-for-tat here, and paying the left back for the awful smear us with Loughner’s actions by dishing out some of the same.

Now your just defining the “leftist mode of thought” ex post facto to convince yourselft that I fit some sort of stereotype.

At any rate, I see you as engaging in a rather lowly school of argumentation as well: I call it the Marxist school (C.S. Lewis called it Bulverism, and used it to describe both Marxists and Freudians). Your first concern is not the argument itself, but trying to “explain” what motivates your opponent’s disagreement. If I say X, the Marxist says “you only believe that because you’re a bourgeois reactionary” thereby discrediting the opponent, both in his own mind and in the mind of the audience, if there is one, without addressing the point, because of course a bourgeois reactionary could not possibly be correct. They forget, of course, that that is an unproven assumption.

You would remind me of a perfectly typical college history professor I know if you weren’t so far right.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

What do fascists have in common with the right? Militarism is (in America and Europe at least ) aright wing tendency, So is racialism. Nationalism too. So is agrarianism (fascists were agrarians). In the case of Franco, theocracy should be mentioned. Colonialism is considered a right-wing position (Spain, Italy). Also with Spain and Italy you have monarchism. Agressive hatred of communism. That’s just a few I can think of at the moment.

Racialism? So we’re racists? Seems a common leftist tool to start screaming racism when they’re the worst offenders of it, supporting Affirmative Action and providing special assistance to certain racial groups. Colonialism is an American trait on either side?

You mentioned fascist economic theory. How about fascist control of private industry by providing special favors, as you mentioned. How does that stack up to Obama’s intervention in the auto industry, for example? GE, GM, and etc. Does that not strike you as similar to what the fascists did? You tell me you seem to know a lot.

Something I found:

John T. Flynn explained the economic strategy of Il Duce in his timeless book As We Go Marching, summarizing fascism thusly: “we can say that fascism is (1) a capitalist type of economic organization, (2) in which the government accepts responsibility to make the economic system work at full energy, (3) using the device of state-created purchasing power effected by means of government borrowing and spending, and (4) which organizes the economic life of the people into industrial and professional groups to subject the system to control under the supervision of the state.

Sound familiar at all?

 

[Raskolnikov]

Racialism? So we’re racists? Seems a common leftist tool to start screaming racism when they’re the worst offenders of it, supporting Affirmative Action and providing special assistance to certain racial groups

.
More of this typical nonsense. If you can’t address the argument, find a reason get upset and call the opponent “the left.” Did I say I was a fan of affirmative action? Even if that had anything to do with the topic?

And where did I call you a racist? Of course, I didn’t. I said racialism was a typical extreme right position. Socialism, defined as the government appropriation of all means of produciton, is a leftist (i.e., extreme left) position. Does this mean that everyone on the left (to the left of center) is a socialist? No. Of course, you may believe they are, as some do on this forum but then you would be wrong.

Colonialism is an American trait on either side?

In Europe, the conservatives generally tried to salvage colonial possessions. The left was more active in endong colonialism.

You mentioned fascist economic theory. How about fascist control of private industry by providing special favors, as you mentioned. How does that stack up to Obama’s intervention in the auto industry, for example? GE, GM, and etc. Does that not strike you as similar to what the fascists did? You tell me you seem to know a lot.

No. Fascist states didn’t buy out private industry. They subsidized them in so far as they were useful for producing goods necessary for war, or other useful products. American conservatives do this quite often, granting subsidies to arms corporations to produce weapons for the military. Does that make them fascists? By the way, don’t assume that I am huge fan of Obama’s decisions just because I disagree with you (for some reason so many here think disagreeing with them equates to being a leftist Obama fanatic, though the real leftists I know seem to think Obama is just a big let down); I personally think he should’ve let GM go bankrupt.

John T. Flynn explained the economic strategy of Il Duce in his timeless book As We Go Marching, summarizing fascism thusly: “we can say that fascism is (1) a capitalist type of economic organization, (2) in which the government accepts responsibility to make the economic system work at full energy, (3) using the device of state-created purchasing power effected by means of government borrowing and spending, and (4) which organizes the economic life of the people into industrial and professional groups to subject the system to control under the supervision of the state.

Sound familiar at all?

First, borrowing and spending, especially in defici periods, derives from the theory of John Maynard Keynes, who came to this theory before Hitler really put it into practice. One could mention Mussolini, but Keynes’s ideas as far as I know predate even him, and Keynes wasn’t influenced by Mussolini. The man who structured the Third Reich’s economy was actually something of an economic genius, Dr. Hajalmar Schatz, and he was also a dissenter by the start of the war. The system worked rather well until late in the wartime. Economics was actually one subject the fascists actually seemed to be fairly good at, as the economy of Germany experienced quite a rebound under them, which is perhaps the main explanation for their popularity with the people.

I’m getting off track though. What has the Obama administration done to organize the economy into professional groups under the supervision of the state? I don’t see a Labor front under the current admin. They also don’t have millions of slave laborers being rented to corporations to produce specific goods, like for starting a gigantic war or something.

The only real commonality I see is using state money to keep the economy running at full energy. The reason behind this for the Obama admin, as for the early Nazi regime, the Italioan fascists, and for the British and French governments of the 30s and for the Roosevelt admin, was to keep unemployment as low as possible; then later for the fascists to keep war supplies coming. Obama I am quite sure is only concerned with the former, and that is a rather old trick for politicians. Medieval kings used to start wars just so they wouldn’t have to fire their mercenary armies and risk having a bunch of unemplyed and poor soldiers raising hell in the kingdom.

At any rate, whatever similarity there is in their economic policies (which I see as almost none) seems rather irrelevant. We don’t remember the fascists as monsters because of their economic policies, we remember them as such because of the wars they started, the people they massacred, and the liberties they suppressed.

 

[Darryl1958]

It’s called a hyperbole. Check my post again, I even put an empticon there.

Emptycon. Okay, sure whatever.

Err, yeah, right. No, your method argumentation seems more in line with Nietzsche’s proverb, “there are no facts, only interpretations.”

No. The concret examples were all provided from gay activists targeting individuals, to the tactics of unions, to shouting down of right wing speakers, such as Beck is, at leftist dominated universities.

One can interpret any sliver of information into a supposed “trend.” Which is why I’ve stopped reading political commentaries, just generaliation after generalization.

Intelligent discourse requires both generalizations and specifics. It is the nature of intelligence for us to sort and categorize information in order to make sense of it all.
But, without specific pieces of information and concrete examples, generalization remain ungrounded.
There is nothing particularly special about that. Presenting fact after fact without attempting to find correlations and otherwise make sense of them is tantamount to information overload. What we are trying to do is to develop a point of view and a worldview in order to deal with the world as it is.

Some people think that this was some random event. That is not a stupid or uninformed opinion. Random acts of violence happen all the time. Whether one is fat or bald, or ugly or good looking or right or left, hateful people can and do find any excuse to exert their power over others. It is all too common.
I am merely offering the contrary point of view that there is more to this than just that. When the whole argument against the right centres on the idea that we are hateful people—bigoted, racist, greedy, etc. etc., it doesn’t take long until treating people deeemed comtemptful contemptuously becomes justified in some peoples minds. When union bosses scream out at the “Nazis” on the other side, to the extent that the hyperbole is believed, it is more reasonable to grind a Nazi under one’s heel than to attempt to reason with him.
That is the contrarian point of view to the idea that this is just another random act of violence. It is an opinion.
The facts that this opinion are grounded in have been stated over and over several times now.

I have yet to see prove this point, either that the American left (for you it seems a term just ambiguous enough to allow you to include anyone at your discretion is more violent than it has been in the past or that it is more violent than the right.

But I have already indicated that this is not what I have been saying. The violence of the left likely peaked in the 1970’s. To repeat, I do not think that the American left is getting more violent, only that its tactics rely more on shouting down and belittling their opponents than relying on reasoned arguments.
Really, to the extent that the left tends to dismiss reasoned arguments as not even worthy of reading, then how could it be different. All that there is left to do is to mock and belittle the character of one’s political opponents.
Jonah Goldbergs book being judged by the cover and not the content is just a recent example of exactly this.

As for the mainstream left being more violent that the mainstream right, I think that it is.
And in that mainstream left are included the unions, the students at major colleges, the gay activists, among others. I am not referring to the Weathermen or Acorn, although even here their members are imminently more mainstream than militiamen of the right will ever be.

 

[Darryl1958]

So far you’ve claimed that some right-wing speakers have bodyguards when they give speeches on college campuses. How profound.

Your sarcasm is duly noted.
Facts are not usually described as profound. They are either true or false, but to the extent that they must be based in observation rather than insight means that profound is an adjective that ought not be normally applied to them.

Not profound, and not as melodramatic as SS guards either.
Just a trend that comes from the situation where the ideals of one’s political adversaries are deemed not worth reading.

Now your just defining the “leftist mode of thought” ex post facto to convince yourself that I fit some sort of stereotype.

I really try to make it not so much about you as about the ways that the left in general deal with the facts and opinions presented by those who are on the other end of the political spectrum.
I think that many of your tactics are examples of what I am talking about, yes, but I am trying not to make it personal. I know it doesn’t always work out that way, because we are all human after all, and if it is not sometimes personal, it is not really human either.

At any rate, I see you as engaging in a rather lowly school of argumentation as well: I call it the Marxist school (C.S. Lewis called it Bulverism, and used it to describe both Marxists and Freudians). Your first concern is not the argument itself, but trying to “explain” what motivates your opponent’s disagreement. If I say X, the Marxist says “you only believe that because you’re a bourgeois reactionary” thereby discrediting the opponent, both in his own mind and in the mind of the audience, if there is one, without addressing the point, because of course a bourgeois reactionary could not possibly be correct. They forget, of course, that that is an unproven assumption.

I think that this is something that you would need to provide a concrete example of as to exactly where I have been doing this. It is a very erudite and intellectual thing for you to say, but as a criticism, I am really unaware of how it applies to my basic argument here.

You would remind me of a perfectly typical college history professor I know if you weren’t so far right.

Well, first, I am not that far right. I realize that I am more conservative than liberal for sure, but I am older now too. My conservatism did not come naturally but what taught to me by at the College of Hard Knocks. My basic political message is all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These is really quite liberal.
Believing in limited government is not like believing in no government as the libertarians do, or believing that government is evil like the far right wing of the militia do. Being against abortion and understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman is about as far as my Catholic conservatism goes, and the vast preponderance of even liberals would have agreed with that even a generation ago.

The left defines themselves as being against this. Women’s “equality” requires that they do, or at least keep their values to themselves.
And as far as that goes, I have noted time after time here how men doing chores traditionally reserved for women in Northern Europe is a factor in them having a higher birth rate than the traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox south now has.

This not a far right message at all.

I stress the Catholic axiom that marital sex is the way to happiness, but I am never for making gay sex and extra marital sex illegal. Just the opposite in fact. PeopIe have the right to make their own choices to the maximum extent possible, even if they are the wrong ones.
I believe that a nation has an obligation to protect its borders, and I believe that rational immigration is a good thing.

In a hundred different ways, my own personal views are substantially different from those of many many people who are to the right of me.

These ideals really should not be considered to be far right ideals then, but unfortunately that is a trend in our society too that they now are considered just that.

And second, it is really unfortunate that the education system has become so much about leftist dogma that a college history professor with right wing ideas has become a rarity. The value of a history degree based on leftist indoctrination without any (name removed by moderator)ut from contrary points of view is lessened as a result.

This was not what a higher education was about even a generation ago.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Darryl1958:

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

Good. I’ve been practicing it for many years.

Not profound, and not as melodramatic as SS guards either.

For the sake of historical accuracy, I should point out that I did not mention the SS, Schitzstaffel, the organization that carried out the final solution, but rather the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazi paramilitary organization before they took power that had the more mundane task of having fistfights with communists in bars and pubs and at political rallies during the late 20s and early 30s.

Darryl1958:

Jonah Goldbergs book being judged by the cover and not the content is just a recent example of exactly this.

The content of Goldberg’s book is not any better than the cover, imo. Real historians reject it with good reason. Knowing the content simply allow one to see the many flawed details behind the flawed thesis, imo.

Well, first, I am not that far right. I realize that I am more conservative than liberal for sure, but I am older now too. My conservatism did not come naturally but what taught to me by at the College of Hard Knocks. My basic political message is all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These is really quite liberal.
Believing in limited government is not like believing in no government as the libertarians do, or believing that government is evil like the far right wing of the militia do. Being against abortion and understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman is about as far as my Catholic conservatism goes, and the vast preponderance of even liberals would have agreed with that even a generation ago.

The left defines themselves as being against this. Women’s “equality” requires that they do, or at least keep their values to themselves.
And as far as that goes, I have noted time after time here how men doing chores traditionally reserved for women in Northern Europe is a factor in them having a higher birth rate than the traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox south now has.

This not a far right message at all.

I stress the Catholic axiom that marital sex is the way to happiness, but I am never for making gay sex and extra marital sex illegal. Just the opposite in fact. PeopIe have the right to make their own choices to the maximum extent possible, even if they are the wrong ones.
I believe that a nation has an obligation to protect its borders, and I believe that rational immigration is a good thing.

In a hundred different ways, my own personal views are substantially different from those of many many people who are to the right of me.

These ideals really should not be considered to be far right ideals then, but unfortunately that is a trend in our society too that they now are considered just that.

Well then perhaps I misjudged you. At the same time, I feel misjudged myself. I don’t feel that mildly Keynesian economic policies (once also supported by mainstream Republicans just 30 years ago) should be considered far left, nor that being anti-Likud should ever even be implicitly equated with being anti-semitic (not that I accuse you of either of these, just recalling from experience with people in general).

And second, it is really unfortunate that the education system has become so much about leftist dogma that a college history professor with right wing ideas has become a rarity. The value of a history degree based on leftist indoctrination without any (name removed by moderator)ut from contrary points of view is lessened as a result.

This was not what a higher education was about even a generation ago.

There should be more perspectives represented. Variety is the spice of life, as they say. Of course, most students, especially of history, are not as interested in as they should be, The curriculum reflects the quality of the students. The main advantage of being at a university I’ve found is access to a free library and the academic periodicals, and a handful of knowledgeble professors who actually enjoy having engaging discussions.

That’s why I started taking Math courses a year ago. I couldn;t stand the group therapy sessions that pass for history classes at a major university anymore. The only good ones aren’t very popular because they require the readong of 8-9 books per semester, and what college student wants to read books? Being a ‘man of letters’ is just not a marketable skill in a modern economy.

 

[JHow]

…Being a ‘man of letters’ is just not a marketable skill in a modern economy.

You might be surprised. If you can communicate clearly in written English, you will have a considerable advantage over many in the workplace.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Your sarcasm is duly noted.
Facts are not usually described as profound. They are either true or false, but to the extent that they must be based in observation rather than insight means that profound is an adjective that ought not be normally applied to them.

Not profound, and not as melodramatic as SS guards either.
Just a trend that comes from the situation where the ideals of one’s political adversaries are deemed not worth reading.

I really try to make it not so much about you as about the ways that the left in general deal with the facts and opinions presented by those who are on the other end of the political spectrum.
I think that many of your tactics are examples of what I am talking about, yes, but I am trying not to make it personal. I know it doesn’t always work out that way, because we are all human after all, and if it is not sometimes personal, it is not really human either.

I think that this is something that you would need to provide a concrete example of as to exactly where I have been doing this. It is a very erudite and intellectual thing for you to say, but as a criticism, I am really unaware of how it applies to my basic argument here.

Well, first, I am not that far right. I realize that I am more conservative than liberal for sure, but I am older now too. My conservatism did not come naturally but what taught to me by at the College of Hard Knocks. My basic political message is all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These is really quite liberal.
Believing in limited government is not like believing in no government as the libertarians do, or believing that government is evil like the far right wing of the militia do. Being against abortion and understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman is about as far as my Catholic conservatism goes, and the vast preponderance of even liberals would have agreed with that even a generation ago.

The left defines themselves as being against this. Women’s “equality” requires that they do, or at least keep their values to themselves.
And as far as that goes, I have noted time after time here how men doing chores traditionally reserved for women in Northern Europe is a factor in them having a higher birth rate than the traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox south now has.

This not a far right message at all.

I stress the Catholic axiom that marital sex is the way to happiness, but I am never for making gay sex and extra marital sex illegal. Just the opposite in fact. PeopIe have the right to make their own choices to the maximum extent possible, even if they are the wrong ones.
I believe that a nation has an obligation to protect its borders, and I believe that rational immigration is a good thing.

In a hundred different ways, my own personal views are substantially different from those of many many people who are to the right of me.

These ideals really should not be considered to be far right ideals then, but unfortunately that is a trend in our society too that they now are considered just that.

And second, it is really unfortunate that the education system has become so much about leftist dogma that a college history professor with right wing ideas has become a rarity. The value of a history degree based on leftist indoctrination without any (name removed by moderator)ut from contrary points of view is lessened as a result.

This was not what a higher education was about even a generation ago.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Emptycon. Okay, sure whatever.

No. The concret examples were all provided from gay activists targeting individuals, to the tactics of unions, to shouting down of right wing speakers, such as Beck is, at leftist dominated universities.

Intelligent discourse requires both generalizations and specifics. It is the nature of intelligence for us to sort and categorize information in order to make sense of it all.
But, without specific pieces of information and concrete examples, generalization remain ungrounded.
There is nothing particularly special about that. Presenting fact after fact without attempting to find correlations and otherwise make sense of them is tantamount to information overload. What we are trying to do is to develop a point of view and a worldview in order to deal with the world as it is.

Some people think that this was some random event. That is not a stupid or uninformed opinion. Random acts of violence happen all the time. Whether one is fat or bald, or ugly or good looking or right or left, hateful people can and do find any excuse to exert their power over others. It is all too common.
I am merely offering the contrary point of view that there is more to this than just that. When the whole argument against the right centres on the idea that we are hateful people—bigoted, racist, greedy, etc. etc., it doesn’t take long until treating people deeemed comtemptful contemptuously becomes justified in some peoples minds. When union bosses scream out at the “Nazis” on the other side, to the extent that the hyperbole is believed, it is more reasonable to grind a Nazi under one’s heel than to attempt to reason with him.
That is the contrarian point of view to the idea that this is just another random act of violence. It is an opinion.
The facts that this opinion are grounded in have been stated over and over several times now.

But I have already indicated that this is not what I have been saying. The violence of the left likely peaked in the 1970’s. To repeat, I do not think that the American left is getting more violent, only that its tactics rely more on shouting down and belittling their opponents than relying on reasoned arguments.
Really, to the extent that the left tends to dismiss reasoned arguments as not even worthy of reading, then how could it be different. All that there is left to do is to mock and belittle the character of one’s political opponents.
Jonah Goldbergs book being judged by the cover and not the content is just a recent example of exactly this.

As for the mainstream left being more violent that the mainstream right, I think that it is.
And in that mainstream left are included the unions, the students at major colleges, the gay activists, among others. I am not referring to the Weathermen or Acorn, although even here their members are imminently more mainstream than militiamen of the right will ever be.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Racialism? So we’re racists? Seems a common leftist tool to start screaming racism when they’re the worst offenders of it, supporting Affirmative Action and providing special assistance to certain racial groups. Colonialism is an American trait on either side?

You mentioned fascist economic theory. How about fascist control of private industry by providing special favors, as you mentioned. How does that stack up to Obama’s intervention in the auto industry, for example? GE, GM, and etc. Does that not strike you as similar to what the fascists did? You tell me you seem to know a lot.

Something I found:

John T. Flynn explained the economic strategy of Il Duce in his timeless book As We Go Marching, summarizing fascism thusly: “we can say that fascism is (1) a capitalist type of economic organization, (2) in which the government accepts responsibility to make the economic system work at full energy, (3) using the device of state-created purchasing power effected by means of government borrowing and spending, and (4) which organizes the economic life of the people into industrial and professional groups to subject the system to control under the supervision of the state.

Sound familiar at all?

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Raskolnikov;8072966:

Yes, the left wing media most certainly do try to smear the right on every occassion, and in this case Palin with an act of murderous violence.
That was reprehensible.

Sorry, I resent that accusation. It is you that is bringing up the meodrama of SS and jackboots. I have been comparing this to pie in the faces on up to union violence, and noticing the trend—which you have not refuted or addressed without allusions to SS jackboots or pyschotic killers.

We all were concerned about the murder of a Democratic congresswoman and the gunning down of innocents. It was only leftist spin that had Palin as being directly responsible before any of the facts were in.

Yes, this is how I argue First the evidence, and then giving my opinion is what passes for argument, but only on the right these days sadly.

I am noting a* trend *of violence in the left, that includes this kind of behavior. I am not sure that it is an increase, for the leftist violence likely peaked somewhere in the early 1970’s.
Be that as it may, this is the kind of intolerance that we have come to expect from the left.
Rather than rational discussions, unpleasant facts are met with allusions to jackboots and pyschotic killers. Therein lies the melodrama.

Your arguments so far have fit much more into the leftist mode and partisanship than actually forming a reasoned opinion based on evidence.
Just because the left had lamely tried to impugned the whole of conservatism with a pyschotic killing spree, it does not mean that you need to impugn that my motive is as low as all that.

That would be a common leftist method of argument, which I do not tend to share.

I have merely noted that this assault is not that isolated when it comes to how the left often reacts to people that they disagree with. Rather than showing us where we are wrong through facts and argument, we often get impugned with low character, such as engaging in tit-for-tat here, and paying the left back for the awful smear us with Loughner’s actions by dishing out some of the same.

It never even occurred to me that that is what I was doing.

I gave the evidence to show what in my opinion is a trend.

Sorry. Those facts are awfully hard to refute. I know.

So discuss the SS instead, if you must.
OOh, the melodrama in doing that.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

That’s a non answer. This isn’t a matter of perception, but a matter of substance. Care to take me up on this or not?

 

[DLG123]

Of the attack on LBJ. That’s famous; its the “Mink Coat Riot”.

Of Cleaver being spat upon:

youtube.com/watch?v=kYRLeJw1aG8

1:15 in this video. The title is more combative than I’d like, but its the best one out there.

Lujack…
Come on you have got to be kidding with this is the “proof”? The man is clearly yelling at the congressman.

DLG

 

[DLG123]

I remember when a 68 year old grandmother on a book-signing tour was spat on in the face and conservatives backed the move. I’m against personal violence – your right to protest stops at the tip of my nose.

So why was it ok to spit on Jane Fonda?

Leftists back violence? Like bombings and shootings of protesters at abortion clinics? Or is it the ‘pro-life’ folks doing that?

How about… William Ayres? Bernadine Dorn? Bull Connor? Lee Harvy Oswald? Jared Laughtner?

Fidel Castro? Adolf Hitler? Moa Tse Tung? Lenin? Stalin? Che Guevera? Hugo Chavez? Hoa Chi Ming? Between these people in these regimes there is an estimated 160-200 million people killed under these Leftist regimes. This also does not take into the account of voluntary and forced abortions

The list can go on and on and on

Furthermore in my opinion…
Hanoi Jane Fonda is a traitor and should have been tried and placed in jail for providing propaganda and material support to our enemy in the war.

DLG

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

How about… William Ayres? Bernadine Dorn? Bull Connor? Lee Harvy Oswald? Jared Laughtner?

Fidel Castro? Adolf Hitler? Moa Tse Tung? Lenin? Stalin? Che Guevera? Hugo Chavez? Hoa Chi Ming? Between these people in these regimes there is an estimated 160-200 million people killed under these Leftist regimes. This also does not take into the account of voluntary and forced abortions

The list can go on and on and on

Furthermore in my opinion…
Hanoi Jane Fonda is a traitor and should have been tried and placed in jail for providing propaganda and material support to our enemy in the war.

DLG

He won`t answer I posted the same thing pages back.She should have received twenty years.There was constderation of prosecution and the government did not want to provide thhe commies with a martyr.Then she segued into fitness videos and marrying a nutty billionaire.