Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
So says Joseph Farah, the terminally ridiculous Worldnutdaily publisher. But he's only slightly more of a marxist, according to Farah, than Hillary Clinton. Seriously.
She worked so hard in New Left and Old Left causes in her youth only to be abandoned by the hard-line Communist Party establishment in favor of the fresh new face of Barack Hussein Obama, who seems to toe the party line without even trying - perhaps without even realizing he's doing it.There are few things more undeniable in life than that the Communist Party USA has a party line. It has been this way since the days of Josef Stalin. With Hillary Rodham Clinton having paid her dues years ago, working with all the right people and all the right causes (or should that be all the left people and all the left causes), she might have assumed the support of this small, but highly organized and disciplined group.
If so, her assumptions have been proven wrong.
The CPUSA is going all the way with Barack Hussein Obama.
Oh my god, the Communist Party USA, a sad collective of deluded old fools who should be taken with all the seriousness of the Judean People's Front. Farah continues:
Sometimes you have to read between the lines. But let this Google search of the CPUSA website make your research a little easier.It shows the People's Weekly World (it was the People's Daily World in the good old days before the fall of the Soviet Union) pulling out all the stops for Obama. The little red rag can't even disguise its giddiness about the junior senator from Illinois. A similar search on Hillary turns up respectful, but unenthusiastic coverage of her campaign.
So what's the takeaway? What does this mean to real Americans - the hundreds of millions of us who don't read the People's Weekly World?
It means Obama is more radical, more revolutionary, more socialist, more Communist in his worldview than even Hillary.
I know. I know. It would seem nearly an impossible challenge.
I love this idiotic line from the right that the Clintons are "communists" or "Marxists." For crying out loud, do you know who has donated more money to their campaigns over the last 3 decades than any other group? Wall Street banks and financial institutions. I've got news for Farah: Goldman Sachs isn't exactly the Popular Front.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have long been in the pocket of big business. It was Bill Clinton that pushed through the deregulation of the financial sector, allowing companies like Arthur Anderson to work as consultants on how to skirt the tax laws and then audit the same companies they were consulting with. The result: Enron and numerous other financial disasters. Not exactly leftist rebels, these two.
And in fact, I suggest you follow the link to that Google search in his article. 99% of the results are nothing more than reporting on primary results in pretty much exactly the same terms the mainstream media has. There's an occasional article praising his opposition to the war in Iraq (something the public overwhelmingly agrees with at the moment) and to the PATRIOT Act (something any sane person should be opposed to), but that's about it. They aren't exactly campaigning for Obama.
At some point, you'd think the right wing would put away this "communist" slur. Does it really work on anyone with an IQ over room temperature? For all practical purposes, there is no socialist left in the US, at least not one that matters. Both major parties favor redistribution of wealth to one degree or another in order to soften the rough edges of capitalism, just as every major nation in the world does.
But the vast majority of wealth redistribution in this country goes not from the wealthy to the poor but from middle class taxpayers to wealthy corporations, and that is true of both parties. The amount of corporate welfare dwarfs the amount of social welfare in the Federal budget and the two parties, on this matter, differ only slightly in the ratio of one to the other.
Remember, it was Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress that pushed through the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society in the medicare prescription bill, most of which was really pure corporate welfare designed to funnel tax dollars to the pharmaceutical companies while stripping the government even of the ability to negotiate a better price as a result of the buying power the bill provided them. In America, "socialism" is encouraged by big business and is just one more means of transferring our tax dollars to their bank accounts.
Comments
Barak Obama is a Nazi Communist fascist Marxist Stalinist socialist Muslim ally of Chavez, Putin and Castro. He's a messianic empty suit fifth column baby-killing Islamic terrorist intent on destroying Western Civilization and forcing all Americans to live under Shaira Law.
Did I miss anything?
Posted by: tacitus | February 18, 2008 10:38 AM
tacitus: you forgot to mention that his middle name is Hussein and that Obama sounds like Osama.
Posted by: Ray C. | February 18, 2008 10:45 AM
Doh! You're correct, his full name is B. Hussein OsamaObama bin Laden. Silly me.
Posted by: tacitus | February 18, 2008 10:54 AM
Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, linked to this on his blog with nothing but praise for it.
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2008/01/neiwert-leftist-intellectual.html
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | February 18, 2008 11:07 AM
I also read on WorldNut that Obama likes to start each morning by spitting on a puppy, singing the national anthem backwards, and reading an inspirational passage from a copy of the Satanic Bible autographed by Babs Streisand.
But seriously, Ed - calling Farah "terminally ridiculous" is being far too generous.
The man is more "terminally deranged."
Posted by: CHV | February 18, 2008 11:12 AM
From AntiIntellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | February 18, 2008 11:12 AM
oops, I mean to include this next paragraph
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | February 18, 2008 11:16 AM
Another example of Joey Farah's unique brand of investigative journalism:
HEADLINE: "I TOOK DRUGS, HAD HOMOSEXUAL SEX WITH OBAMA"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626
Posted by: CHV | February 18, 2008 11:24 AM
"Does it really work on anyone with an IQ over room temperature?"
These are WND readers you're talking about, remember.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | February 18, 2008 11:30 AM
So, uh... is it considered unusual for a party to have a party line?
Posted by: Morgan | February 18, 2008 11:41 AM
tacitus:
Maybe that he's a mudblood darkie. The only problem is that the lunatic right fringe can't accept even using a Harry Potter reference.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 18, 2008 12:21 PM
doh! I posted before I even scrolled down the page to see the John Ray post. Geez, oops.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | February 18, 2008 1:45 PM
tacitus
Yeah, you forgot to mention that when he shits he wipes his ass with the Amurrican flag.I mean, they've gone this far, why not go all the way?
Posted by: James Hanley | February 18, 2008 2:13 PM
From the WND story.
Sure, everyone knows white people snort the powder while the brothers are addicted to crack.
After all, doesn't everyone carry around multiple forms of the same drug, just in case they run into someone of another race that they want to have gay sex with?
Ask any cop, it's the details that reveal whether the story is true or false.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 18, 2008 2:18 PM
Richard Hofstadter wrote (via Hume's Ghost):
What's really interesting is that the fundamentalist worldview (of all sorts of fundamentalism, not just Christian fundamentalism in the US) can be understood through this interpretation.
While most people are willing to accept that life comes with some uncertainty, and are willing to work to mitigate it and make the most of the potential the uncertainty unleashes, there is a segment of humanity that is incapable of dealing with uncertainty and for whom the concrete, absolute explanation of the universe offered by fundamentalist creeds is very reassuring. (phew that was a mouthful!)
For these people, the need to see the world in absolutes is fed easily by imagining that every thing, every event, and every person around you is part of some master plan, be it by God or Satan or whomever.
Thing is, the need for that kind of certainty is indicative of an exquisitely lazy mind. Neurological research shows that the human mind, when presented with uncertainty, will seek out information in large quantities in an attempt to quell the uncertainty. The discovery of information relating to the object of one's uncertainty has an almost drug-like effect on the mind, resulting in the release of pleasurable neurotransmitters like endorphins. This process of information consumption is what drives much of our sense of discovery and our culture.
Posted by: Patrick | February 18, 2008 2:41 PM
Ed,
I asked you a while back about what you thought about Ron Paul. You stated that he was a paleo-conservative and you had issues with this movement. Personally, I liked a lot of what he talked about. Except that is, some of his thoughts on the "free market". But then I read an article about the Right and Left and how it affected Libertarian thought by a dude named Murray Rothsbard.
I need to read it over again but he seemed to have a possibly decent argument that our drift toward more state intervention in economics is more fascist than socialist. He takes the whole discussion back to Old Europe and classical Conservative and Liberal ideologies. I think the argument can be summed up in that he believes the big business wants big government and that what seems like capitalism is really fascism that transcends both parties and leaves the corporations in charge.
If this is true, then the rich guy is not the enemy it is the faceless corporation that is the enemy. Thus, in my opinion making both parties who obvioulsy favor big business and do it from different angles the enemy. I am not saying I buy all that the guy said in this article or his ideology. But it makes one think. Freedon lovers on the right spend all their time fighting "socialism" while freedom lovers on the left spend all their time fighting the "moralists" or the "rich". When possibly under our nose it a growing fasist state that is Miltary and Corporation controlled.
I think this is what Ron Paul is saying. My worry is that if he is a racist then this intellectual argument gets clouded by the neo-confederate movement. States rights has been used more than once to argue for racist policies I agree. But it would be a huge mistake to throw it all out because of one group.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 18, 2008 3:04 PM
Tacitus: you forgot that Obama is a homosexual Muslim satanist who eats puppies on the weekends and burns the Dixie and American flags.
Posted by: Chuck | February 18, 2008 3:09 PM
I tend to think that Obama doesn't have a prayer of being elected because, a) his name sounds like Osama; b) he's half "nigra" which in the South is worse than being 100% "nigra" because it means a white woman slept with a black man; c) he's a sleeper cell Muslim; d) he's a member of an anti-white black nationalist church; e) he used crack and had gay sex; f) he's a fascist; g:he's a communist etc. etc. etc.
When President Kennedy sent troops to Alabama to force the integration of the University of Alabama, George Wallace said "you have to win the South, to win the Presidency." It's a given that Obama will win exactly zero states in the south, and the crack smoking, sleeper cell Muslim charges will stick in enough minds in other states to render him unelectable. This is only my opinion, but I see it coming.
Posted by: soboco | February 18, 2008 3:23 PM
What do you expect from World Nazi Daily? Anything to the left of Goebbels is a communist to them.
Posted by: bernarda | February 18, 2008 3:28 PM
soboco:
Given that Obama's popular vote turnout in the primaries has blown the turnout for the Republican contenders completely out of the water, it's not unreasonable to think he can actually win some of those Southern states. In SC, for instance, he alone got more votes than all of the Republican candidates combined.
This presents a very real possibility that Obama can carry some of the Southern states.
As for your first paragraph:
a) so what,
b) so what, few besides the KKK care about that anymore,
c) bullshit,
d) bullshit,
e) bullshit,
f) bullshit
I'm hoping that your whole post was hyperbole...
Posted by: Patrick | February 18, 2008 4:29 PM
King of Ireland:
Capitalism in itself, I think is wonderful. It's Corporatism that I oppose, and these days much of what I see going wrong with money and power arises directly from Corporatism. So I think what you're pointing out is a very good starting point.
Posted by: Patrick | February 18, 2008 4:32 PM
"Capitalism in itself, I think is wonderful. It's Corporatism that I oppose, and these days much of what I see going wrong with money and power arises directly from Corporatism. So I think what you're pointing out is a very good starting point."
If Corporatism is the problem, and I think it is, what is the solution? Whoever can create an ideology that honestly deals with that issue and inspire young people will have a tremenddous influence in the Information Age. The very thing that big business invented to rule the world I think will be its undoing: The internet and all the new types of information that go with it. I somehow believe that all the new ideas will be borrowed from all the ideologies of the Industrial Age.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 18, 2008 4:43 PM
The key to limiting corporate monsters is to throw out the legal fiction that corporations are people, with all the rights people have. Until and unless we admit that Wal*Mart is not a person, we will have corporate fingers in every pie.
Posted by: LanceR | February 18, 2008 5:01 PM
Patrick-
I thought that it would be obvious that I wasn't serious when I used expressions like "nigra" and when I said Obama was a crack smoking, gay, Muslim, fascist communist. That said, I 100% guarantee that he won't win South Carolina. I guarantee it.
Posted by: soboco | February 18, 2008 5:08 PM
soboco -
Gotcha
Yeah but why, though. The voter turnout for their primary elections would seem to suggest otherwise. In fact, the voter turnout for this primary cycle is so different from past election cycles that alot of the rules don't seem to apply.I realize that sounds like pre-.com-bust "all the rules are different" speak, but this time we have actual evidence to that effect.
Posted by: Patrick | February 18, 2008 5:17 PM
Patrick-
Because South Carolina is 68.5% white and 29% black according to the census bureau. While Democrats may have turned out in greater numbers in the primary, when faced with a sleeper cell Muslim "nigra" crack smoking homosexual named Hussein, the white folks are going to turn out and vote against him.
I don't think he is those things, but perception is reality, and he is going to be painted that way, and it's going to stick. And I'm willing to put my money on it. He won't win South Carolina.
Posted by: soboco | February 18, 2008 5:35 PM
So I'm reading Food in History and the last section of the book is entitled What We Really Eat. In it people claim to be eating more fruits and vegetables, yet market shows decreased sale. 85% of the residents of Tucson claim not to drink beer, yet the 75% of the garbage cans reveal beer cans.
People lie. They will not reveal the dark secrets in their soul. 90% will claim to brush and floss 3 times a day, yet reality will be maybe 10%. 90% will claim that gender nor race will not enter into their decision. That same 90% will probably claim they want "change." And as Larry Wilmore pointed out on The Daily Show, "a 73 year old white Republican is the change they're ready for."
Posted by: Onkel Bob | February 18, 2008 7:32 PM
Patrick: In general, I agree with you: A black guy with a terrorist name is not the ideal Democratic nominee. I personally was hoping for John Edwards to emerge as the non-Hilary candidate. However, that doesn't appear to be the case.
That being said, I think it is encouraging that Obama is winning all of the red state primaries. With Hillary, we were guaranteed all the blue states, but perhaps nothing more. With Obama as the nominee, the Republicans will be forced to expend resources in states with a high African American population. Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee will be in play with Obama rather than Hilary. This is a good thing on the national level.
On the other hand, lower level Democrats in the south are going to have a problem.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 18, 2008 8:36 PM
I, too, would be surprised if Obama won many, if any, southern states. But it's important to note that the South is changing. Whether the attitudes of "heritage" southerners (those that can trace their ancestry back multiple generations) I can't say. But if you look at the population shifts in the U.S., northerners are moving south in large numbers.
They can't all be Republicans, and they won't all change their political beliefs just because they moved below the Mason-Dixon line. And given that, in a year when Republicans are so disenchanted with their own party, low GOP turnout coupled with high Dem turnout could mean Obama (or Clinton) wins several southern states.
I can't predict the future, of course, but I noticed the analysis above didn't go deeper than "them southerners is racist." Analyzed properly, there's certainly a non-zero chance of Obama winning southern states, and I think the chance isn't too low at all. And I don't think the normal non-voting racist bubba is going to rush to register for the vote just because a black man is running.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 18, 2008 9:27 PM
Following up on my last comment: I have spring break next week. If I have time I'll look at some National Election Study data, and see if I show ideological change in the South. For those interested, I'll post that on my blog, whatever I find. I have data from '84 to '04, so if there's been growth in liberals during that time, it should show up.
(Can't focus on change in number of Democrats, though. The South used to be solidly Democratic, even before Lincoln, the first Republican president, and obviously even more Democratic after he waged a war of aggression against them--just kidding! Until the 1990s, at the earliest, liberal and Dem just didn't necessarily correlate in the south.)
Posted by: James Hanley | February 18, 2008 9:31 PM
The CPUSA is a "highly organized and disciplined group?" Sure, and my blog's gonna change the world. Anyone who knew ANYTHING about the CPUSA would laugh his/her as off at the WND's outdated hysteria -- and Gus Hall would have laughed the loudest. (He certainly didn't seem at all offended when Michael Moore got him on his "World Communism Final Tour" show.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 19, 2008 12:16 AM
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer -- as Hitler did ("One nation, one government, one leader"
Jonah Goldberg
What sort of dumbass can't even translate his smears properly?
It's "One people, one nation, one leader".
It also happens to be the inspiration for the name of the (now thankfully more or less defunct) One Nation right-wing populist movement here in Australia.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 19, 2008 8:05 AM
Being a White middle class male living in the archetypal Southern city of Charleston SC, I think that everyone is going to be surprised at how well Obama does in at least SC. I don't think he'll win but I think that the typical ignorant statement of how "ignant and stupid them poor southern folk are" will be shown to be just that, an ignorant statement. Painting a whole large geographical group of people with the same brush shows exactly what type of intellect we are working with. Obama crushed Hillary in the Democratic SC primary, and a large portion of those voters were white, male and even wealthy.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2008 8:38 AM
King,
As Ed very nicely put it, corporations need to have their welfare assistance cut. Corporations are typically the size in which they are no longer price-takers. Their mission in pleasing the stock investor is to modify the market itself to their benefit, not to operate more efficiently. And I also think this is a natural course for corporations. The drug prescription without negotiation is an example of corporations working the market rather working in the market. The retirees that the program is intended to benefit, and surely does, are the cover for the corporations. Corporations are a fact of life. We just need to know how to deal with them.
Posted by: daenku32 | February 19, 2008 8:41 AM
"The key to limiting corporate monsters is to throw out the legal fiction that corporations are people, with all the rights people have. Until and unless we admit that Wal*Mart is not a person, we will have corporate fingers in every pie."
This would be a start. But to get the average American to see this is hard. I guess I come down on the side of a guy like Obama in his identification of the problem. His wife gave a great speech months back talking about how her Dad had a good job, health care, and made enough for his wife to stay home to raise the kids. They even had enough to put her through College. Her generation got good jobs too but now their are too many people with degrees and not enough good jobs for them. Not to mention the people that do not make it to college whose Father was a industrial worker.
It was compelling and hit the nail on the head as far as what I have seen traveling. My issue is what is the solution? Is more government the solution? Usually not in my opinion. It seems the key is to get the Service Jobs better pay. That is where I think the unions come in. But so many of them have been covering their own ass in the industrial sector that the service sector has been ignored to some degree.
This is a hard issue. It comes down to the same issue Marx addressed: How do we progress humanity without leaving people behind? I agree with something someone commented on here said about Christians making everything good vs. evil and not looking at the merits of something. I do not agree with the Atheist stance of Marxism but I can see good in some of the issues he addressed. We cannot say he is an athiest so he is wrong on all. Economic justice is more a moral issue in my mind than abortion or gay marriage. A good family value would be re-creating an economy where Mom can stay home if she wants to.
Ed I am interested to hear what you think about this?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 19, 2008 12:29 PM
I'm open to correction on this, as it's been a long time since I took German, but if I remember right;
volk = people, which would mean nation, as nation technically defines a group of people, rather than a country.
reich = state, which can be interpeted as "government," although I think in this case "country" would be more accurate.
So the dumbass's translation may actually be more accurate than, at at least as accurate as, the standard translation.
Anyone more proficient in German want to comment?
Posted by: James Hanley | February 19, 2008 3:31 PM
King,
I saw your post on Ron Paul and I thought it was intriguing. It sounds like you have forayed into the realm of Austrian economics - something I have done recently as well. Rothbard is a great author and I have learned much from him. If you haven't already, read the following. Both are very eye-opening and you can get them from mises.org:
- What Has Government Done to Our Money?
- Mystery of Banking
I agree that both parties are dominated by big corporate interests - the Republicans more blatantly than the Democrats, who still try to portray themselves as the working man's party. The problem is that corporations purchase votes with massive amounts of campaign contributions, resulting in our politics being dominated by corporate interests. If the people were truly in control of our nation, I don't think we would see as many of the following things which are big problems in our nation right now:
1) The massive inflationary bailout of Wall Street from the mortgage mess (which Wall Street and the Fed created in the first place)
2) Virtually unrestricted illegal immigration
3) Trade policies that greatly favor corporations and hurt everyday workers (i.e. free trade agreements like NAFTA)
4) Our empire-building foray into Iraq
5) The continued dissolution of our national borders (after all, borders hamper the movement of goods and labor)
6) The continued transfer of valuable national assets such as infrastructure, corporations, and technologies to foreign powers (for instance, China has acquired much technology from the United States in exchange for allowing corporations access to their markets)
7) Offshoring of labor
8) Continuing consolidation of power in Washington at the expense of the rights of states
All of these benefit corporations. Maybe some of you others have an opinion on this, but I think the solution would be to have publicly funded election campaigns. By taking the corporate money out of politics, we can limit the purchasing of votes by big corporations and return the power to the people. This would also mean that politicians would be spending their time at their various tasks instead of being out hitting donors up for campaign bribes (donations).
I know many of you would take exception to Paul's conservative views, but I think he is about the best qualified candidate in the race. He is the only one who can be truly trusted to adhere to free-market principles and limited government - both of which were integral to our nations founding and essential to our freedom. Whatever your opinion of socialism, it has a pretty miserable track record for creating the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest amount of citizens. All other major candidates appear to embrace some form of it or another, particularly the Democrats. Hillary, Edwards and Obama have all made it clear they intend to implement some form of socialized healthcare, for instance. Many Republicans also support various socialized programs. Maybe this appeals to some of you, but it comes at the expense of freedom. You cannot have big government and expect to preserve freedom. It just doesn't work that way. I believe that people are much better off when gov't leaves them alone to do their thing.
Posted by: mroberts | February 19, 2008 4:20 PM
King,
One more quick point on something you said:
"It seems the key is to get the Service Jobs better pay."
For the sake of this, let me define better pay as either more monetary compensation or more benefits. Unions have strived for both for years and the government has helped non-union workers by implementing and raising a minimum wage. The problem you run into with this is that unions and minimum wage laws have essentially created price controls on labor. Usually when you put price controls on something you end up with a scarcity of it. This is happening in Venezuela where they have price controls on food; food is now scarce. Believe it or not, the best thing would be to eliminate minimum wage altogether. This might freak some out, but all labor has a price. If the price is set too high on some labor, companies will choose not to hire at all. This is why minimum wage laws lead to higher unemployment. As for unions, they were good in their day, but I think they have outlived their usefulness. Unions are strangling GM right now, and their demands may cost them their jobs if GM goes BK for instance. The other thing that would help is if the government stopped inflation in it's tracks. Higher costs usually lead to higher prices, which increases demands for a higher minimum wage, which just leads to higher prices, etc.
... anyway, some thoughts.
Posted by: mroberts | February 19, 2008 4:28 PM
"As for unions, they were good in their day, but I think they have outlived their usefulness. Unions are strangling GM right now, and their demands may cost them their jobs if GM goes BK for instance."
I think much like everything else, the unions must change and adapt with the times. To say they outlived their usefulness I think is possibly wrong. I think it is more that they need to evolve into what they will need to be in the new global economy. What that is I do not know.
I am not an advocate of socialism. But I do think that we need to help the poor and do what we can to help as many people progress as possible. In my Christian beliefs I used to think I had to be poor to reach the poor. I was in New Mexico one day and the absurdity of this hit me. I have been consumed with the questioned of how to raise the tide for all. I am not sure anyone has all the answers. But I think you are right when you talk about the principle of our Founders.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 19, 2008 5:41 PM
KoI and mroberts: I agree that Mr. Rothbard is a fine writer, but i have to disagree with most of his premises, both in economics and policy prescriptions.
My problem is that the Austrian School of economists don't really have a good answer to globalization. If increasing globalization is inevitable, then we need an economic framework to encompass this. When he isn't writing preachy op-eds for the NYT, Paul Krugman has done a lot of wonderful work on market efficiencies and the concept of relative vs absolute advantages.
In short, whatever we may think of it, the corporation model will become dominant in world affairs on the macro level. At the micro level, it is still possible to arbitrage local advantages to counter the overall efficiency of the corporation.
The good news is that corporations are smaller than nation-states. Some power now held by government will of necessity devolve to lower levels.
But any way you look at it, you will be serving an evil overlord in a few years. And, yes, he'll have fries with that.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 19, 2008 6:39 PM
kehrsam,
I think the Austrians do have a good answer to globalism: let it happen. However, let it happen with a fair and level playing field. I think the problems arise in globalism when governments interfere and try to manipulate things to their advantage - like China keeping their currency artificially low. Often governments manipulate things then blame the consequences on the free market so they can manipulate things more. It would be better if the free market was allowed to function without interference.
Posted by: mroberts | February 19, 2008 6:49 PM
The plot thickens. Obama's parents were Communists, too, according to the National Review.
Seems that misgenation is a Communist plot.
Posted by: ithaqua | February 19, 2008 9:11 PM
Yep!
Either that or a Jewish plot. But to these people, that's pretty much the same thing, isn't it?
Posted by: Skemono | February 20, 2008 12:58 AM
Not even. (Native speaker of German here.) It's "one people, one empire, one leader". Reich is the cover term for "kingdom" (Königreich -- ruled by a king), "empire" in the narrow sense (Kaiserreich -- ruled by an emperor), and any imperialistic constructs.
"State" in German is just Staat. This is also used for what Americans call "the government", the thing that can be big or small, the whole bureaucratic apparatus, as opposed to "the administration" alone.
"Country" is Land. Reich is unambiguously something... grander.
I'd rather say that a nation are all those people that have a state's citizenship, but usages differ here.
Certainly. That's why the rest of the First World has just that. It would also go a long way towards solving the problem that only millionaires and billionaires can dream of running for POTUS.
But if you agree, why do you go on praising Paul? Isn't he against, like, doing anything with public money? After all, he's stupid enough to be against universal healthcare...
Yep, the freedom to die from easily preventable causes, and the freedom to cause unnecessary expenses to employers and whatever healthcare system would be left. Guess what: I can live with that, pardon the pun.
We discussed the New Testament not long ago, didn't we? Don't you feel a little strange lacking empathy? James 2:2-4, 19-26; 5:4; 1 Corinthians 13:1-2, 13. (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com is a really great resource.)
Where then is the catastrophe that Europe is in?
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2008 3:04 PM
"We discussed the New Testament not long ago, didn't we? Don't you feel a little strange lacking empathy? James 2:2-4, 19-26; 5:4; 1 Corinthians 13:1-2, 13. (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com is a really great resource.)"
This is a great point. It gets to the core of what I have been wrestling with lately. Is Socialism compassion? I am not saying it is or is not. I really do not know. I do know that I am skeptical of any move toward collectivization. Why? This was the very thing that the King's used to consolidate power in the middle ages. Read what I posted on the ACLJ post today. Rothbard may just be right. I think we have gone after the small business owner(Bourguise) in this country and let the elite (who control the corporations) have their own way. How is this done? DIVIDE THE CLASSES OF THE COMMON PEOPLE. I think this is what Marx did in his writings. Maybe I should say this is what I am studying to see.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 12, 2008 3:25 PM
Ah, yes; the well-known marxist tendencies of medieval-era monarchs.
Posted by: Coin | March 12, 2008 4:03 PM
"Ah, yes; the well-known marxist tendencies of medieval-era monarchs."
How about we changed the wording to the well known "Collectivist" tendencies of the medieval-era monarchs. Does this sound so far fetched?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 12, 2008 4:16 PM
I didn't even say that. I implied that universal healthcare is compassion. Universal healthcare is a good conservative value where I come from; all political parties take it for granted. (That said, of course, where I come from Clinton and Kerry would be conservatives.)
In any case, however, universal health insurance is a financial investment that pays off very, very handsomely. Americans pay more for their healthcare and get less than Europeans, and several big corporations have come forth and said there should be universal healthcare in the USA.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2008 6:32 PM
"In any case, however, universal health insurance is a financial investment that pays off very, very handsomely. Americans pay more for their healthcare and get less than Europeans, and several big corporations have come forth and said there should be universal healthcare in the USA."
This is a tough issue. But I have to come down on the side that the less Federal Govenment interference in anything the better. This is one of the problems I see in both parties in America. In one sense they are Libertarian when it suits there cause and non-Libertarian when it does not suit their cause. Example would be Conservatives that want smaller government and less taxes that also want to legislate morality. On the the left have people that want to stay out of social issues with government but seek to use government to eradicate financial woes. I see a lot of hypocrisy in both stances. I also see collectivist interests winning no matter who is in charge for that reason.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 13, 2008 1:13 PM
My fellow Americana's,my fellow Democrates!!
we need to do the right thing,we need to do what we wished the republicans would have done 4 years ago. we need to make sure with our votes that a bad,bad horrid man does not take the highest office in our land.
8 years ago the republicans voted for bush and we democrates were very sad,than 4 years ago we figured no way would we let that happen again,but alas bush won again. 8 years of pure hell for all to share.
but this time its not the republicans that have the horrible candidate! its us the democrates that have the horrid man that will destroy America.its is us the democrates that must do the right thing and vote for the best person running and that man is McCain.
the dnc has done everything it can to make sure we have no choice of a president.
we have never been huge Hillary supporters but she is better than obama,we would vote for her,barack we will never vote for.
do we like john McCain??? no not really!!!
do we respect john McCain??? yes we do!! he is a good man.
do we want john McCain as president?? no,but he is better than obama!!!
we are a small group of democrates called keepers that just do not think barack obama cares about our united states of America.
we keepers will vote in this election and if our choice is barack obama or john McCain,we will have no choice but to vote for john McCain.
barack obama will destory and divide our United States of America!!! We the people must stand united and stop him or divided we fall!!!
Posted by: sassy | May 8, 2008 7:45 PM
Wow, sassy, you can't even spell "democrats" and you expect us to think you know what you're talking about? Go back to bed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 8, 2008 9:22 PM
well you people wanted a nigger in the white house well you nigger lovers got it and now your gonna pay the price for betraying the only race that matters the white race now your all cryin to us raciests sayin we were right all along well fuck all you your gonna all die
Posted by: johnny fore fingers | June 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Johnny Ten Thumbs, like all other racists, shows himself to be both late and slow in his response to this months-old post.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 13, 2009 1:35 PM