How does 'neofascist' differ from 'neocon'? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 12:13 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
I would argue that the descendents of both the Progressives and European socialists have been thoroughly left out of the US political process. The Dems have a few of the former operating within their core activist base, but they don't have any sway over party policies or agenda. Bernie Sanders might be the last American socialist allowed to operate in close association with that party.

I suspect the Republicans are ripe for periodic ideological bloodshed.
Zeitgeist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 12:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
This is the kind of conversation that I can appreciate, neither side going off the deep end. There is in fact value on both sides of the isle, but extremists cloud the issues with pure politics, then the other side returns the volley with more venom, and nothing gets accomplished other then burning up bandwidth…….. Finger pointing does nothing except piss people off and yield more finger pointing.
No, no. Calling conservatives facists and comparing them to Hitler and Stalin...that is perfectly reasonable.

I love how "right down the middle" you guys are.

Hilarious.
DaveN007 is offline  
post #23 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 01:07 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
As the growth of the Libertarian party bears testament to. Although it draws from both folds to some degree, your typical Libertarian is a Goldwater conservative, thoroughly disgusted by the fact that the Republican party has abandoned those principles.

I agree. But the Democrats are not a viable alternative.

That is the problem.

All of the out of control spending, in my opinion, has been a cynical way to undercut the efforts of Democrats. Their stock in trade is buying the votes of 2 people with the money confiscated from one.

Bush has basically said, OK...you want all this government crap? I will give it to you if that is what it takes to stay in power.

I don't like that at all.

The left in this country has no right to criticize, however. They are getting all the boondoggle programs they want. It isn't as though they would be fiscally more responsible if they were in power.
DaveN007 is offline  
post #24 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 01:20 PM Thread Starter
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN007
I agree. But the Democrats are not a viable alternative.

That is the problem.

All of the out of control spending, in my opinion, has been a cynical way to undercut the efforts of Democrats. Their stock in trade is buying the votes of 2 people with the money confiscated from one.

Bush has basically said, OK...you want all this government crap? I will give it to you if that is what it takes to stay in power.

I don't like that at all.

The left in this country has no right to criticize, however. They are getting all the boondoggle programs they want. It isn't as though they would be fiscally more responsible if they were in power.
Given the choice, would you rather spend $1,000,000,000,000 on an imperialistic misadventure overseas, fostering international hatred, killing innocents, and enriching Halliburton, or on health insurance for Americans? I'm sure we would both select Option C if it were on the table, but it isn't...

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #25 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 01:32 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
And I always wonder why they do. When the Democratic Party was almost exclusively the Southern Party, prior to 1910, it was blatantly racist, anti-Federalist and states rights to the core. In 1910, the Progressive Republicans, who are the fore runners of modern anti-corporatism, were left with no place to go when the Republican Party split in the Bull Moose election. Wilson, the Democrat who was elected, who altho a Northerner was utterly Southern in his thinking, offered them nothing. If things had continued normally, we would have probably had a three party state: anti-corporate Northern Liberals, States Rights Democrats and Pro-business Republicans.The Republicans would still be ruling, as they continually did from 1860 on. But the Depression upended everything. The arch conservatives of the time, the Southern Democrats, found their farms and ranches blown away in the Dust Bowl, their homes taken by bank failures, and their crop prices reduced to pennies on the dollar. At the same time, Roosevelt was creating a massive Democratic machine in the North out of a combinition of ex-Republican Progressives and European immigrant socialists whose sole raison d'etra was to oppose the Republican Corporate Machine, which the Southern Democrats blamed for much of their problems. It was a marriage of convenience, and it kept Liberals and Racist Populists arm and arm in power for 40 years. What ended it? Civil Rights for blacks. Whose left in the Democratic Party? The idealogical decendents of the two Roosevelts. Whose left in the Republican Party? The idealogical descendents of McKinnely, Taft and Jefferson Davis. Whose left out? The orphans of the new Corporate Republican Fascist Party: Goldwater conservatives. My grandfather, a true Goldwater man, said a conservative is a man who wants the Democrats out if his pockets and the Republicans out of his bedroom, and that a man's primary right was to be left the hell alone. It is obvious that is the man who has no place to go.
A smart Democrat could win so easily in this country. The problem is that they trade in class envy and can't get past their hatred for those who pay for the programs they endorse.

Look at yourself. You call me a facist because I disagree with your characterization of the republican party as a swamp of gay pedophiles.

The top Democrats in our country share your hatred. They can't get past it. Clinton was good at concealing it. That was by design. Hide what you believe so you can get elected and push your real agenda. Triangulation. I was the president of YD at my college. All we talked about was how the Republicans were better at scheming. We never looked at what we believed and questioned it.
DaveN007 is offline  
post #26 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 01:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
Given the choice, would you rather spend $1,000,000,000,000 on an imperialistic misadventure overseas, fostering international hatred, killing innocents, and enriching Halliburton, or on health insurance for Americans? I'm sure we would both select Option C if it were on the table, but it isn't...
Hmm...Safety for Americans, or a communistic debacle at home, fostering rationing, death, and depair, and enriching an increasingly intrusive federal government, creating a monstrous new boondoggle jobs program?

Yeah, I agree. I pick C.

The sad part? We already spend the health "insurance" money on Health care for the indigent. They get healthcare. Emergency room/ free clinic style healthcare. There has to be a better way of spending that money we already spend.

A national system may be the answer. We are rich enough to afford it as a safety net.

People who frame the debate as though people don't get HealthCARE in this country are demogogues [sic].
DaveN007 is offline  
post #27 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 01:51 PM Thread Starter
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN007
Hmm...Safety for Americans, or a communistic debacle at home, fostering rationing, death, and depair, and enriching an increasingly intrusive federal government, creating a monstrous new boondoggle jobs program?

Yeah, I agree. I pick C.

The sad part? We already spend the health "insurance" money on Health care for the indigent. They get healthcare. Emergency room/ free clinic style healthcare. There has to be a better way of spending that money we already spend.

A national system may be the answer. We are rich enough to afford it as a safety net.

People who frame the debate as though people don't get HealthCARE in this country are demogogues [sic].
How on earth does fulfilling Bin Laden's prediction of a U.S. takeover of a ME nation add to our safety? In fact, it detracts from it. Once you let go of that misguided notion, you'll be on the true path to conservatism and libertarianism. In my horrifying scenario, health insurace for Americans is clearly the more conservative choice.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #28 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 01:54 PM Thread Starter
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN007
The sad part? We already spend the health "insurance" money on Health care for the indigent. They get healthcare. Emergency room/ free clinic style healthcare. There has to be a better way of spending that money we already spend.

A national system may be the answer. We are rich enough to afford it as a safety net.

People who frame the debate as though people don't get HealthCARE in this country are demogogues [sic].
I actually found Kerry's h/c proposal last election interesting. The problem with it was that it's difficult to imagine it as something other than a stepping stone to socialized medicine. Like when Wrigley Field put lights in and swore they would only play 12 night games per year. Right.....

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #29 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 02:11 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Again, one needs to look back at the compromises of the past to see how it was handled when we had a viable conservative party. Medicare, phone companies, electric utlitities, mortgage outfits, etc were set up as monopolistic corporations where the government was often the majority stock holder and others could purchase stock as well. It was a compromise between the free market and socialists who would have used beauracracies if allowed. Most of these occurred during the Eishenhower and Nixon eras where Republican executives need to compromise with Democratic Congresses. One can see the excesses which later killed the Democrats that occurred when they held total power in the three branches and DID set up beauracracies, which became symbols of government madness. The Clinton's totally blew the best chance for National Healthcare by presenting a beauracracy solution. It is obvious to me that a single-payer government-chartered healthcare monopoly on the line of ATT would be the best solution, with all employers required by law to buy insurance from them.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #30 of 50 (permalink) Old 10-13-2006, 02:11 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
How on earth does fulfilling Bin Laden's prediction of a U.S. takeover of a ME nation add to our safety? In fact, it detracts from it. Once you let go of that misguided notion, you'll be on the true path to conservatism and libertarianism. In my horrifying scenario, health insurace for Americans is clearly the more conservative choice.

I can't argue with the premise that it is possible that we could have simply "contained" Sadaam. But that is with the benefit of hindsight.

I am gravely concerned about the lack of a counterbalance to Iran in the region that is the main result of toppling Sadaam.

That is a problem.

I would like to see National Health Insurance as a safety net, but not a Canada-style mandatory plan. So, yes, we agree on that one.

It would have been nice if we had just bombed the shit out of Iraq, but left them intact. Now what? Okinawa in Iraq?
DaveN007 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    European vs. U.S. Rear Bumper? How differ? rpribilski W211 E-Class 3 10-03-2006 09:18 AM
    How do you talk to a Neocon.... Shane Off-Topic 39 02-06-2005 11:09 AM
    Why do the used car prices of Kelly Blue differ so much from what dealer will give.... Jeff R170 SLK-Class 4 08-30-2001 06:05 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome