OT: educate yourselves about oil and why we wage war.

[Barnabyhuggins]

Fascism is the enforcement of the ideals of the "State" (usually meaning an individual ala a 'personality cult') via overtly oppressive mechanisms of force. These mechanisms may include torture, imprisonment without trial, murder, threats, extortion and various other ways to force compliance (use your imagination). The ideals of said "State" may include any number of values that require such enforcement; i.e. decency, beauty, equality, patriotism, morality (however construed), etc.

Fascism, when properly construed, is not committed to any specific political ideology but only to the means by which that ideology is enforced.

[Stratotone]

This is for all of you. Now go back to talking about effects.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by Gristlefist So Fascism is merging state with business and Communism is merging business with state--sounds like the same thing to me! The main difference between Fascism and Socialism is Nationalism vs. Internationalism. Moussolini was a leading light in the Italian Socialist party, but he split off over just that issue. Bottom line, they are both excuses for authoritarian government--it must be done "for the common good." They just disagree about how to define the common good. If you call everything that fails "not Socialist," you're not left with anything "Socialist." It always fails. Lenin was a Marxist, and Marx praised the USSR. :confused: Wow, I'd really like to see a cite for that! Democracy is a process, not a few vague value statements about "the people." It's a process of chosing a government by election. It is "free market" government. It works for the same reasons that capitalism and science work. We've never met. You're projecting. You know what I mean by anti-balls--it's the kind of people that say: "Men are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world, especially men that have power and get things done and make money, especially if they're American and hetero and actually want to have sex with women. Especially if they play lacrosse. They ought to be conviced of rape just for playing lacrosse. Of course, any sex act where a man has an erection is rape . . . . " Typically Socialists.

Here is the thing about you. You're smart, but you take shortcuts to thinking in regard to definitions. I encourage you to drop the armors of entrenched ideology and consider how obsurd your arguements are to people not entreched WITH you. It wouldn't fly if I were to do the same types of things. Forexample, I could say the following truisms of the right from the perspective of the left:

1.) Republicans are in lockstep with "dear leader" sounds dictatorial to me. Proof is even the worst failures of current officials as long as they are loyal they are rewarded. If they aren't loyal there will be a scandel exposing them. Republicans eat their own.

2.) "Free Market" is good for everybody. Democracy or the will of the people often interferes with free market. Sometimes localities do not wish to have a big box Walmart or hardware store in their town. I'd say that is the right of the locality. Those on the right would say this is interference. Some go as far as to say that localities should entice such business' with darling deals from imminent domain to giant tax honeymoons.

3.) Rightwingers confuse firm policy (inspite of historical evidence proving the insanity of expecting a different result) with LEADERSHIP. They confuse dry drunken arrogance and swagger with confindence. Again "dear leader" mentality of followers.

4.) Name a current Republican who served in the military, especially in a time of war. Name one that was a "selfmade man" These guys are silverspoon grown babies who got picked on by girls on the playground in primary school. Yes they are men, yes they are mostly white, and they are all wealthy beyond the imagination of a joe like me. What can they possibly know about the plight of the poor and the minority?

5.) Rightwing truisms are fallacies of logic. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a bit of an irony like Yogi Bear telling Booboo as they are falling from the sky in a helicopter that they can "Wait till the very last second and jump out of the helicopter and be just fine".

There are many more but I am sure you can see how obsurd they sound to you.

Democracy is a process YES! But it is not a one way valve. Democracy can go forward as well as it can go backward. Since Reagan it has been going backward and it continued through Clinton and now Bush. They've all permitted the omminous wealth of big business to trump the well being of the demos.

Think about all the things that have been called "Unions" or "Socialist" that were pure hiarchy. From the current form of labor union in the USA to Hitler's Nazi party. It is a cloaking device for power hungry dictators to get their own ways. "Democracy" & "capitalism" can be used just as effectively for authoritarian means.

I keep my best belongings locked up so that nobody will steal them. I don't need to go outside and hold a gun to somebody's head and demand that they take my stuff. This is what the US is doing in Iraq "spreading democracy". EVERYBODY who thinks beyond RNC talking points will realize this is an experiment of advanced capitalism and empire. I don't want to own up to that as much as you may not. But look at history for hints to the posibility of this being truth... Rome did the same thing when they were running out of trees for their expansion.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by Barnabyhuggins Fascism is the enforcement of the ideals of the "State" (usually meaning an individual ala a 'personality cult') via overtly oppressive mechanisms of force. These mechanisms may include torture, imprisonment without trial, murder, threats, extortion and various other ways to force compliance (use your imagination). The ideals of said "State" may include any number of values that require such enforcement; i.e. decency, beauty, equality, patriotism, morality (however construed), etc. Fascism, when properly construed, is not committed to any specific political ideology but only to the means by which that ideology is enforced.

 

 

Thanks for that. I was using the example that we commonly understand of fascism... I think Mussolini himself called it "corporatism", which is more accurate. Sort of the same thing as confusing socialism with authoritarian experiences of the past. And like confusing a "republic" for "democracy" and continuing from here with "capitalism" being synonymous.

[Jeztastic]

Originally posted by Barnabyhuggins - It is not prima facie wrong for a nation to go to war to protect its economic interests and the ability of its people to remain content. In fact, this is the central and only defensible reason to go to war: to maintain your way of life. Commentators such as Newman seem to forget this very basic point and believe that showing the war in Iraq to be rooted in self-interest and economic concerns provides a damning condemnation to the entire endeavor.

 

 

Wow. That's quite a statement. I would say that war on the basis of self-interest is a morally, ethically, and philosphically indefensible reason.

 

I agree that it is really the only cause for war, but that in no way makes it defensible.

 

I saw Robert Newman on tour in London last year. He was a lot better then, not as on form in this vid!

[BryanMichael]

Originally posted by Gristlefist Well, if you're going to put it in caps TWICE, it must be true. There are only two political philosophies, True Liberalism and Excuses For Dictatorship. Theocracy and Socialism both fall in the second category. Hitler was no less a cult figure than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and now Chavez. Sure he hated the competition, but he called himself a Socialist, and, like a Socialist, he preached that the government should have greater power over individuals for the sake of the common good. (Theocrats preach that the government should have greater power over individuals for the sake of God.)

Well, Hitler was a theocrat in the sense that he preached that the 3rd Reich was divine destiny- He was a hard core right winger. That's for sure.

"socialism" is technically an economic system or at least does NOT have a cohesive doctrine enough that it can be attacked as a whole. I'm sure that you enjoy the socialist aspects of your American life...things like freeways (publically owned roads that are not TOLL roads) weekends and workers benefits (when the pure capitalism of the 19th century would have ended up creating mass poverty and people that could never afford the goods that they actually produced, it was SAVED by socialism- that's right! Marx was rallying against pure capitalism, the kind that was killing the underclasses in droves- becuase he was not dealing with the possibility that the capitalists might actually modify to accomodate change) That system can be supported by democratically elected governments or by fascists and dictatorships.
You probably also enjoy things such as public schools and universities and other amenities brought to you by socialism!

It's funny that Mr. Bush continuously preaches that the government should have greater power over individuals for the sake of the common good- He now wants to prevent two citizens from entering into a legal contract with each other because it may "damage the common good" He also preaches that the government should have greater power over individuals because of GOD. He has expanded the scope and reach of the federal government more than any president in the last 40 years...so what does that make him? A Socialist? A Theocrat? A fascist?


If going to war for self-interest is just fine and dandy, then why lie about it? Why not just say "Hey, we need more oil, and we know where to get it- come sign up to die for that cause."

I'm sure plenty of red-blooded AMerican repubicans would sign up in a heartbeat! Oh, wait....no. They institute a draft and send the poor. Jesus would be proud!

[zachary vex]

Originally posted by Gristlefist Just curious--what's your take on these: -The moon landings were faked -JFK was killed by the CIA -The Earth is hollow and inhabited by shape-shifting reptilian aliens

 

 

hmm. don't care, don't care, and if the earth was hollow, it would be really smelly and dark in there, and burning kerosene still wouldn't melt steel.

 

you don't know me. my educational background is science and music. that led me to apply technology musically, and ultimately technology led me to being a very successful capitalist. because i love my capitalistic success, and i know from empirical discovery that science and technology brought me that success, science and technology are the only things i fully trust. with my life. and science tells me that kerosene burns at an absolute maximum temperature of 1700 degrees. The temperature at which steel melts is approximately 2800 degrees. of course it softens at a lower temperature, but the problem is that kerosene can't get up to 1700 degrees burning a confined space... it will burn much cooler than the softening point of steel unless highly compressed air is provided (by a bellows or tanks of oxygen.) you've seen old westerns with those smithies and their bellows... that was to get the coals up hot enough to soften the horseshoes. inside a closed space, the oxygen is rapidly depleted and the burning temperature drops down quite low. so science tells me that steel can't be softened by a kerosene fire in my livingroom.

 

on edit: i'm going to give you one more little example of why confined spaces don't help fires. "stop, drop, and roll." why do you think they wrap burning people in heavy blankets to put the fire out? it removes one thing the fire needs... oxygen. the floors above and below and the glass around the flames formed a kind of blanket that deprived the the fire of oxygen. the fire was choking on its own smoke and carbon dioxide, which dropped the burning temperature down significantly. the same thing happens when you put a cover on a grease fire in a pan. it just goes out.

 

you know, if i was given the job of neatly demolishing a building with airplanes, i'd place explosives first. *shrug* that's just the scientific way to get the job done when nothing on the plane burns hot enough to soften structural steel. so my guess is, the terrorists did the same when they committed the atrocious acts of 9-11-2001. i mean, the last time the twin towers were attacked, explosives were placed, and they almost worked. remember? so why assume that they wouldn't do it again? why bury your head in the sand and say that only one part of what you saw on TV is the whole story? not very scientific to stop without doing some simple anaylsis. at least not if you're a successful capitalist who got there by keeping track of all of the little details. doing something complex to completion takes a lot of coordinated activities.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by Gristlefist If you call everything that fails "not Socialist," you're not left with anything "Socialist." It always fails. Lenin was a Marxist, and Marx praised the USSR.

 

 

Karl Marx (1818-1883) It would have been difficult for Marx to praise the USSR since it didn't even begin to exist until 1917.

 

There was barely an overlap in Lenin's life and Marx's life. Since Lenin was born in 1870. Lenin believed that Russia needed to go through the stage of capitalism to permit the development of infrastructure to distribute resorces. He died before there was a USSR. On his deathbed he warned of the dangers of Stalin taking control of their "revolution" because Stalin's agenda was selfserving.

 

The USSR was a premature experiment in something called socialism led by a dictator in a society that even the founders believed was not equipt for socialism.

 

I am not sure that humanity will ever be equipt for socialist societies as long as there is greed and insecurity in the hearts of individuals. I think socialism is a great idea, as I think that democracy is a great idea. The equations balance out only when you exclude the potential human nature as we understand it.

[zachary vex]

Originally posted by catalinbread Karl Marx (1818-1883) It would have been difficult for Marx to praise the USSR since it didn't even begin to exist until 1917...

 

 

look, facts don't mean anything to this guy.

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by catalinbread Here is the thing about you. You're smart, but you take shortcuts to thinking in regard to definitions. I encourage you to drop the armors of entrenched ideology and consider how obsurd your arguements are to people not entreched WITH you. It wouldn't fly if I were to do the same types of things.

 

More projection. Liberals can go to college, graduate, go live in a big city, and never encounter anyone who disagrees with the lefty politics that they so slavishly conform to.

 

 

Originally posted by catalinbread Think about all the things that have been called "Unions" or "Socialist" that were pure hiarchy.

 

All of them.

 

 

Originally posted by catalinbread It is a cloaking device for power hungry dictators to get their own ways.

 

Exactly. Bottom line, Socialism doesn't work. It's just another excuse for Authoritarian government, same as Theocracy.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by Gristlefist Exactly. Bottom line, Socialism doesn't work. It's just another excuse for Authoritarian government, same as Theocracy.

 

 

1+1=3?

[BryanMichael]

Originally posted by catalinbread Karl Marx (1818-1883) It would have been difficult for Marx to praise the USSR since it didn't even begin to exist until 1917. There was barely an overlap in Lenin's life and Marx's life. Since Lenin was born in 1870. Lenin believed that Russia needed to go through the stage of capitalism to permit the development of infrastructure to distribute resorces. He died before there was a USSR. On his deathbed he warned of the dangers of Stalin taking control of their "revolution" because Stalin's agenda was selfserving. The USSR was a premature experiment in something called socialism led by a dictator in a society that even the founders believed was not equipt for socialism.

 

 

Thanks, this gristefist idiot has his timelines all wrong.

"Marx praised the USSR!" The right wing needs more great minds like this.

 

Actually Marx also believed that societies had reach a kind of critical mass with capitalism before they could have a true "workers revolution"- He also envisaged highly developed URBAN societies- NOT a rural farming society like Russia or China.

So, no one has ever been a pure Marxist- they couldn't be.

 

He also supported collective marriges....where women were "communal property" - How enlightened!

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by catalinbread Karl Marx (1818-1883) It would have been difficult for Marx to praise the USSR since it didn't even begin to exist until 1917.

 

My bad--the article I was remembering says: "In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the 'Manifesto', his last published writing, Marx hoped that a revolution in Russia might become 'the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other'; if so, Russia, despite its pre-capitalist characteristics, 'may serve as the starting-point for a communist development.'"

 

 

Originally posted by catalinbread The USSR was a premature experiment in something called socialism led by a dictator in a society that even the founders believed was not equipt for socialism..

 

Historically, the USSR was a typical experiment is Socialism.

 

 

Originally posted by catalinbread I am not sure that humanity will ever be equipt for socialist societies as long as there is greed and insecurity in the hearts of individuals. I think socialism is a great idea, as I think that democracy is a great idea. The equations balance out only when you exclude the potential human nature as we understand it.

 

That is quite a confession, and I think you're right. In the mean time, democracy, free markets, federalism and our Constitution seem to be the best we have.

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by zachary vex look, facts don't mean anything to this guy.

Uh-huh. And where's that Rove indictment? Maybe it was stolen by the shape-shifting reptilians who demolished the WTC and tricked Dan Rather into using forged documents . . .

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by BryanMichael Actually Marx also believed that societies had reach a kind of critical mass with capitalism before they could have a true "workers revolution"- He also envisaged highly developed URBAN societies- NOT a rural farming society like Russia or China. So, no one has ever been a pure Marxist- they couldn't be.

 

Yes, it's a meaningless utopian fantasy.

 

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael He also supported collective marriges....where women were "communal property" - How enlightened!

 

He didn't anticipate the critiques of Marxist Feminism. What did I say about being "anti-balls"?

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by Gristlefist More projection. Liberals can go to college, graduate, go live in a big city, and never encounter anyone who disagrees with the lefty politics that they so slavishly conform to.

 

 

Shortcut again. I own a gun, I park my '67 Plymouth and it's 15mpg next to pickups with "W" stickers and fire at the range. I drink beer and talk {censored} about pinko's. I have friends and family who voted against their own economic selfinterests on so called "moral highground" issues.

 

Does playing the "Lefty Elitist" card make you feel better when it puts you in the roll of the victim? I know it is an effective way to make the troops fight harder giving them the notion of underdog status. C'mon you're a working class guy just like 95% of us. Issues of the working class do not care about political identities or whether or not you went to a fancy university. Last time I checked all the Republicans in office now went to fancy universities too. They certainly aren't locked into latte drinkin, even if they are afraid of horses.

[Esperanto]

Originally posted by Barnabyhuggins - Commentators such as Newman seem to forget this very basic point and believe that showing the war in Iraq to be rooted in self-interest and economic concerns provides a damning condemnation to the entire endeavor.

 

 

I love this guy Barnaby...I think you just wrote another column for symbolic order in this thread

 

For Newman, self-interest is the reason not to go to war

 

Newman, I assume, would only support a war if it was against his own civilization's self-interest...It's been awhile since I read Ayn Rand but I think she would have called Newman an altruist

 

"Peakniks"...It's becoming more clear that the global warming crowd is not interested at reasoning their way through a problem...They seem to have a religous belief system..What is that belief system? Earth over Man

[sonaboy]

Originally posted by zachary vex and science tells me that kerosene burns at an absolute maximum temperature of 1700 degrees. The temperature at which steel melts is approximately 2800 degrees. of course it softens at a lower temperature, but the problem is that kerosene can't get up to 1700 degrees burning a confined space... it will burn much cooler than the softening point of steel unless highly compressed air is provided (by a bellows or tanks of oxygen.) you've seen old westerns with those smithies and their bellows... that was to get the coals up hot enough to soften the horseshoes. inside a closed space, the oxygen is rapidly depleted and the burning temperature drops down quite low. so science tells me that steel can't be softened by a kerosene fire in my livingroom. on edit: i'm going to give you one more little example of why confined spaces don't help fires. "stop, drop, and roll." why do you think they wrap burning people in heavy blankets to put the fire out? it removes one thing the fire needs... oxygen. the floors above and below and the glass around the flames formed a kind of blanket that deprived the the fire of oxygen. the fire was choking on its own smoke and carbon dioxide, which dropped the burning temperature down significantly. the same thing happens when you put a cover on a grease fire in a pan. it just goes out.

 

 

while all those theories are sound, and the actions of the gov ARE questionable during the incident (compared to the similar situation during 93, which came to a satisfactory conclusion IMO) i wouldn't go so far as to call two 90+ story buildings with large gaping holes in the sides CLOSED SPACES.

has anyone considered the possibility that the structures with two open lanes of air on 2 sides of the towers worked much like a convection oven with a healthy supply of oxygen?

 

just saying - i mean, why consider the only supply of fresh air from INSIDE the building that could be cut off from floors below? couldn't air just rush in from the damage lanes?

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by sonaboy while all those theories are sound, and the actions of the gov ARE questionable during the incident (compared to the similar situation during 93, which came to a satisfactory conclusion IMO) i wouldn't go so far as to call two 90+ story buildings with large gaping holes in the sides CLOSED SPACES. has anyone considered the possibility that the structures with two open lanes of air on 2 sides of the towers worked much like a convection oven with a healthy supply of oxygen? just saying - i mean, why consider the only supply of fresh air from INSIDE the building that could be cut off from floors below? couldn't air just rush in from the damage lanes?

 

 

They fell at about the rate of gravity, very little resistance.

[Barnabyhuggins]

I have seen and/or examined the numerous movies/articles that have advanced the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

One aspect is often ignored in this debate: that if one floor of the Trade Centers collapsed it would create sufficient force to collapse the entire structure.

Using standard Physics 101 equations - p=mv - you can deduce a tentative momentum that would be created by 15,000 tons (20+ or so floors) falling 10 feet at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. Plus, you can deduce the force created by the change in acceleration; i.e. the floors falling into the floor below and rapidly decelerating and losing energy. The force created would be massive; beyond the structural capibilities of the structure.

The week of the attacks I was in a physics class at CU. The professor was a Nobel Prize winner (I know; "appeal to authority"). In that crazy week a student asked him why the towers fell. He figured out the above calculations on the board and produced an astronomically high figure for the force involved.

Anyway, not that I am too interested in this debate. I just thought I would mention it.

[zachary vex]

Originally posted by Gristlefist Uh-huh. And where's that Rove indictment? Maybe it was stolen by the shape-shifting reptilians who demolished the WTC and tricked Dan Rather into using forged documents . . .

dude, talk to the author of the article. all i did was report the existence of an on-line article. but go ahead, shoot the messenger. makes as much sense as everything else you post in here.

[zachary vex]

Originally posted by Esperanto ..."Peakniks"...It's becoming more clear that the global warming crowd is not interested at reasoning their way through a problem...They seem to have a religous belief system..What is that belief system? Earth over Man

 

 

i disagree. the global warming experts i hear on the radio and see on tv and read about in the papers and magazines and online almost universally talk about reasoning our way out of the problem before it gets too late. alternative energy is a GREAT idea. it eliminates the need for oil wars, eliminates pollution and greenhouse gas (or at least dramatically reduces it), and improves our economy by introducing something new that everyone needs and wants. new technology means new jobs, more education, and a better lifestyle for all Americans. it's totally pro-America... the only people who want to paint it as anti-American are the established energy industries and their cronies, who are making billions hand over fist and don't want it reduced by even a penny.

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by catalinbread Shortcut again.

I like talking about ideas and try to be clear. If that's a "shortcut" or using "talking points," feh.

Originally posted by catalinbread I own a gun, I park my '67 Plymouth and it's 15mpg next to pickups with "W" stickers and fire at the range.

I bet we're both cutting against our background, except in opposite directions politically.

[StompboxMan]

War should be outlawed. Yeah, right.

How long will peoples of the world support Leaders who choose each other off to create war? Educated men who would rather blow up another life then reach a peaceful resolution to conflict. How long will people fight that other man's battle knowing there is another way?

War will never be outlawed. The people will never wise up. You'll never see an end to war until one Jesus Christ returns to earth. Should we pray for peace?

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by Esperanto "Peakniks"...It's becoming more clear that the global warming crowd is not interested at reasoning their way through a problem...They seem to have a religous belief system..What is that belief system? Earth over Man

 

It's entirely religion--the religion of Environmentalism, the religion of Socialism, the religion of Narcissism. And it's going to get more and more appocalyptic as boomers get closer to their impending death.