Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
Harry Reid throws down the gauntlet
Topic Started: Nov 1 2005, 01:03 PM (1,651 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Apology accepted.

The intent of the first point was in comparison to the social programs and underpinning political philosophies ("FDR and the other great socialists of the time"). The second point, about the fasces as a fashionable symbol of Imperial pretensions, was somewhat ancillary. The fasces were actually first fashionable under Coolidge and Hoover -- the same time Mussolini was rising. Which is why I made the point in reference to "something about the era". FDR was not even elected until 1933. It was something that I had clearly separated in my mind, even if it appeared ambiguous in my message.

Nevertheless, I do tend to agree with Ropke that fascism and socialism are close cousins in that both exult in the idolatry of the State. However, I draw the line well short of L. Neil Smith who writes:
Quote:
 
If you study the domestic policies of the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administrations, and compare them with the policies of Adolf Hitler and his mentor, Benito Mussolini, you will eventually come -- however reluctantly -- to the conclusion that World War II was not a conflict between fascism and something else, as advertised, but a conflict between competing brands of fascism.
.

I would rather suggest competing brands of socialism.

Still, it is great fun to ponder the similarities. :P
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kathyk
Nov 4 2005, 02:21 PM
After all, back in 1998 Bill Clinton thought there was a suit.

IIRC, it was a blue suit.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
If you study the domestic policies of the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administrations, and compare them with the policies of Adolf Hitler and his mentor, Benito Mussolini, you will eventually come -- however reluctantly -- to the conclusion that World War II was not a conflict between fascism and something else, as advertised, but a conflict between competing brands of fascism.



Socialism is another one of those words that means different things to different people. In my opinion, social democracy (e.g. British labour party) is very different to 'communism' as applied by Stalin. Providing a nationalised health care system does not make one a communist. It also appears that socialism and communism are very much boogey-man words in the US. Europe doesn't normally react the same way to the term 'socialist'.

The above statement also somewhat overlooks the fact there were a lot more than two countries involved in WWII, or 3 if it is taken to also include the Soviets. Of course, there's nothing new there.

To describe Churchill as a socialist really would be idiotic. :smile:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Larry
Nov 2 2005, 06:17 PM
Jack Frost
Nov 2 2005, 02:09 PM
The fact remains that Libby was concerned enough about what he had done to lie about it under oath; the reasonable inference is that he lied to protect Cheney becuase he believed that Cheney had done something wrong.

jf

Excuse me, but the man has been accused of lying. It has yet to be shown that he actually did. You're a lawyer, you should know that the man is innocent until proven guilty, and a grand jury indictment can in no way be taken as a sign of guilt. You should also know that once all the facts come out in trial, it is very possible that the charges are proven to be untrue.

And speaking of Karl Rove, shall we apply the same standard of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when deciding to pull the security clearance of someone under investigation for revealing classified information; or shall we perhaps suspend his security clearance until all the fact emerge?

A few secrets here or there..what's the big friggin deal?

jf

Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jack Frost
Nov 4 2005, 07:21 PM
Larry
Nov 2 2005, 06:17 PM
Jack Frost
Nov 2 2005, 02:09 PM
The fact remains that Libby was concerned enough about what he had done to lie about it under oath; the reasonable inference is that he lied to protect Cheney becuase he believed that Cheney had done something wrong.

jf

Excuse me, but the man has been accused of lying. It has yet to be shown that he actually did. You're a lawyer, you should know that the man is innocent until proven guilty, and a grand jury indictment can in no way be taken as a sign of guilt. You should also know that once all the facts come out in trial, it is very possible that the charges are proven to be untrue.

And speaking of Karl Rove, shall we apply the same standard of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when deciding to pull the security clearance of someone under investigation for revealing classified information; or shall we perhaps suspend his security clearance until all the fact emerge?

A few secrets here or there..what's the big friggin deal?

jf

And speaking of Rove, it is very telling that Bush refused to support him when asked today whether there was pressure in the White House to get rid of Rove.

When the boss refuses to endorse his most trusted aid, it means his days are clearly numbered.

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Or maybe it just means that Bush meant what he said when he said he wasn't going to discuss things while an investigation is in progress.

Everything is a conspiracy to you lefties, isn't it.....

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Nov 4 2005, 02:55 PM
Quote:
 
If you study the domestic policies of the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administrations, and compare them with the policies of Adolf Hitler and his mentor, Benito Mussolini, you will eventually come -- however reluctantly -- to the conclusion that World War II was not a conflict between fascism and something else, as advertised, but a conflict between competing brands of fascism.



Socialism is another one of those words that means different things to different people. In my opinion, social democracy (e.g. British labour party) is very different to 'communism' as applied by Stalin. Providing a nationalised health care system does not make one a communist. It also appears that socialism and communism are very much boogey-man words in the US. Europe doesn't normally react the same way to the term 'socialist'.

The above statement also somewhat overlooks the fact there were a lot more than two countries involved in WWII, or 3 if it is taken to also include the Soviets. Of course, there's nothing new there.

To describe Churchill as a socialist really would be idiotic. :smile:

It would indeed. The quote is by an American Libertarian....

Regardless, you seem to think that the politics of Britian was somehow important in the mix during WWII. Really, for Hitler it was all about the land. :D

Just kidding -- I am actually a big Churchill fan.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Regardless, you seem to think that the politics of Britian was somehow important in the mix during WWII. Really, for Hitler it was all about the land. 


I realise you were kidding, and that Hitler didn't actually want a war with Britain, or with the USA for that matter. I thought the quote was a bit silly. Apart from the Soviet Union, which was forced into the war by an invasion, all of the other major allies were democracies, and were fighting for the standard purpose of enlightened self-interest.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5