The Liberal Disease

[Jack Weber]

Yes, the man who gave America the nuclear bomb, a communist. Lol.

Rememeber...

You are dealing with a child who has actually thought out the benefits of Allied/NAZI collaboration during WW 2 and a global Fascist empire that would follow...

I did'nt say it had a toe hold on reality...But...It's a theory!!!

Edited July 10, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lictor616]

Yes, the man who gave America the nuclear bomb, a communist. Lol.

lol! what`s so funny?

even wikipedia documents extensive communist activity in Oppenheimer's case...

"Only when he became involved with Jean Tatlock, the daughter of a Berkeley literature professor, in 1936, did he show an interest in politics. Like many young intellectuals in the 1930s he became a supporter of social reforms which were later alleged to be communist ideas. After inheriting over $300,000 (equivalent to about $4.6 million in 2010 dollars) upon his father's death in 1937, he donated to many progressive efforts which were later branded as "left-wing" during the McCarthy era. The majority of his allegedly radical work consisted of hosting fundraisers for the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War, and other anti-fascist activity. He never openly joined the Communist Party, though he did pass money to liberal causes by way of acquaintances who were alleged to be Party members.[23] Historian Gregg Herken claims to have evidence that Oppenheimer interacted with the Communist Party during the 1930s and early 1940s."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0316821152/002-6605161-0167653

There is even documentation is declassified soviet files that Oppenheimer betrayed the secrets of the bomb to the soviet Union: every seriour historian on the subject today accepts that the atomic bomb secrets were betrayed not by the Rosenbergs but by none other than Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi.

-Herken, Gregg (2005-03-25). "The Oppenheimer Case: An Exchange". The New York Review of Books.

keep laughing clown,

[nicky10013]

lol! what`s so funny?

even wikipedia documents extensive communist activity in Oppenheimer's case...

"Only when he became involved with Jean Tatlock, the daughter of a Berkeley literature professor, in 1936, did he show an interest in politics. Like many young intellectuals in the 1930s he became a supporter of social reforms which were later alleged to be communist ideas. After inheriting over $300,000 (equivalent to about $4.6 million in 2010 dollars) upon his father's death in 1937, he donated to many progressive efforts which were later branded as "left-wing" during the McCarthy era. The majority of his allegedly radical work consisted of hosting fundraisers for the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War, and other anti-fascist activity. He never openly joined the Communist Party, though he did pass money to liberal causes by way of acquaintances who were alleged to be Party members.[23] Historian Gregg Herken claims to have evidence that Oppenheimer interacted with the Communist Party during the 1930s and early 1940s."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0316821152/002-6605161-0167653

There is even documentation is declassified soviet files that Oppenheimer betrayed the secrets of the bomb to the soviet Union: every seriour historian on the subject today accepts that the atomic bomb secrets were betrayed not by the Rosenbergs but by none other than Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi.

-Herken, Gregg (2005-03-25). "The Oppenheimer Case: An Exchange". The New York Review of Books.

keep laughing clown,

Hahahaha if it's on wikipedia you KNOW it must be accurate. Despite his involvement in radical politics, I've never heard anything remotely close to what you're inferring, and while you infer most serious historians claim to be believers of this theory, I personally know a lot who aren't. In fact, I haven't really heard about this before you mentioned it. You're right though, it wasn't entirely the Rosenbergs (though they were involved), it was Klaus Fuchs. Before you talk about secret soviet files which you clearly don't know about, how about reading "The Mitrokhin Archive." It's a book written from smuggled first hand documents from the KGB's First Chief Directoate which was their foreign department. I'm sure you'll be enlightened by what you find.

Edited July 10, 2010 by nicky10013

[lictor616]

Hahahaha if it's on wikipedia you KNOW it must be accurate. Despite his involvement in radical politics, I've never heard anything remotely close to what you're inferring. You're right, it wasn't the Rosenbergs, it was Klaus Fuchs. Before you talk about secret soviet files which you clearly don't know about, how about reading "The Mitrokhin Archive." It's a book written from smuggled first hand documents from the KGB's First Chief Directoate which was their foreign department. I'm sure you'll be enlightened by what you find.

no if its on wikipedia, YOU KNOW ITS MAINSTREAM.

and by the way sillypants, the Mitrokhin Files also corroborate that the Manhattan project was peopled form top to bottom with soviet spies and known communist sympathizers including.. you guessed it! Robert Oppenheimer.

"While the Venona and Mitrokhin files conclusively proved the guilt of well-known traitors such as Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, neither source shed much light on one of the last remaining mysteries of the era--the role played by nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer in providing the Soviets with details about the atom bomb. However, Mitrokhin revealed the existence of numerous other Soviet moles inside the Manhattan Project, and the Venona texts identified some of the individual code names for high-level Soviet operatives and agents among scientists in the United States, including "Erie," "Pers," "Huron" and "Quantum."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_38_18/ai_93457400/

ahahahahahaha

[nicky10013]

no if its on wikipedia, YOU KNOW ITS MAINSTREAM.

and by the way sillypants, the Mitrokhin Files also corroborate that the Manhattan project was peopled form top to bottom with soviet spies and known communist sympathizers including.. you guessed it! Robert Oppenheimer.

"While the Venona and Mitrokhin files conclusively proved the guilt of well-known traitors such as Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, neither source shed much light on one of the last remaining mysteries of the era--the role played by nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer in providing the Soviets with details about the atom bomb. However, Mitrokhin revealed the existence of numerous other Soviet moles inside the Manhattan Project, and the Venona texts identified some of the individual code names for high-level Soviet operatives and agents among scientists in the United States, including "Erie," "Pers," "Huron" and "Quantum."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_38_18/ai_93457400/

ahahahahahaha

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. Including people like you. Therefore, it is absolutely an unreliable source. If you write any kind of sourced work and use wikipedia as a source, be prepared to be laughed at and not taken seriously.

Where in that quote does it mention that he spied? Of everything you've posted, not one even attempts to try and pin espionage on him. Notice the word "mystery" IE no one knows but everyone likes to speculate.

[Jack Weber]

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. Including people like you. Therefore, it is absolutely an unreliable source. If you write any kind of sourced work and use wikipedia as a source, be prepared to be laughed at and not taken seriously.

Where in that quote does it mention that he spied? Of everything you've posted, not one even attempts to try and pin espionage on him. Notice the word "mystery" IE no one knows but everyone likes to speculate.

Are you saying Whiffy is'nt as well read and accurate as he lets on???

And could you delve into the "people like you" quip for the class?

[nicky10013]

Are you saying Whiffy is'nt as well read and accurate as he lets on???

And could you delve into the "people like you" quip for the class?

Adle minded conspiracy theorists shouldn't be able to dictate what's "mainstream."

[Jack Weber]

Adle minded conspiracy theorists shouldn't be able to dictate what's "mainstream."

I was going to say openly Fascistic crypto bigots intellectualizing insular ethnic superiority who blame almost evrything on some perceived Communist re-emergence...

But yours works...

[nicky10013]

I was going to say openly Fascistic crypto bigots intellectualizing insular ethnic superiority who blame almost evrything on some perceived Communist re-emergence...

But yours works...

The first part denotes the lack of education I was getting at. The second donotes the conspiracy theory. I think they both line up pretty well.

[bloodyminded]

Yes but on the essential points leftists are all identifiable... the breaking down of the nation, the artificial stirring up of the society so that the dregs on the bottom can become the scum on top, the promotion of every racial enclave EXCEPT of course: White Europeans, the promotion of a big government with enormous taxation powers, the regimentation of the public (political correctness), the meddling of government in every aspect of our lives, the elimination of 'dangerous freedoms" such as freedom of expression, freedom of association and the like... The NDP and Liberal party have essentially the same position on all these issues. the only "variation" is in degree not kind...

Again, you're dead wrong. You attribute everything you don't like to some entity you call "the left"...and then, through pitch-perfect tautology, you think that all leftists are of the same ilk.

And you're right, an anti-communist party would be kind of difficult a proposition, it should be anti-liberal... which is precisely the same thing anyway.

Liberals aren't communists.

[Wild Bill]

Liberals aren't communists.

Maybe yes,maybe no, BM! Depends on how you define a liberal.

Classic Liberalism is all about the rights of the individual, laissez-faire capitalism, individual responsibility and initiative and a BUNCH more stuff! However, MODERN Liberalism hasn't stood for any of those things since the days of Mike Pearson, here in Canada!

If you go by actions and not words modern liberalism is now known for brokerage politics, where as many people as possible are receiving government money, with a ruling (liberal) party controlling the flow and receiving the benefit of votes.

By classic definitions, the closest political philosophy today to classic liberalism might be the Libertarians. Certainly, the modern Liberal party of the past half century or so just doesn't fit the definition.

[bloodyminded]

Maybe yes,maybe no, BM! Depends on how you define a liberal.

Who are these liberals who qualify as "communists"? Let's remember that "communist" has meaning.

Classic Liberalism is all about the rights of the individual, laissez-faire capitalism, individual responsibility and initiative and a BUNCH more stuff! However, MODERN Liberalism hasn't stood for any of those things since the days of Mike Pearson, here in Canada!

Yes, the conservatives, contrarily, are shining beacons of freedom.

We know this because they say so...it doesn't matter that they have displayed none of this, at all.

By classic definitions, the closest political philosophy today to classic liberalism might be the Libertarians. Certainly, the modern Liberal party of the past half century or so just doesn't fit the definition.

Every self-styled libertarian I've had discussions with fully supports the idea of weatlh being the yardstick of power and rule.

That's not freedom.

The primary difference between rule by the wealthy and rule by big government is that we at least get to elect the latter.

At any rate, what I said was that liberals aren't communists.

I feel I can safely stand by that remark.

Edited July 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[nicky10013]

Maybe yes,maybe no, BM! Depends on how you define a liberal.

Classic Liberalism is all about the rights of the individual, laissez-faire capitalism, individual responsibility and initiative and a BUNCH more stuff! However, MODERN Liberalism hasn't stood for any of those things since the days of Mike Pearson, here in Canada!

If you go by actions and not words modern liberalism is now known for brokerage politics, where as many people as possible are receiving government money, with a ruling (liberal) party controlling the flow and receiving the benefit of votes.

By classic definitions, the closest political philosophy today to classic liberalism might be the Libertarians. Certainly, the modern Liberal party of the past half century or so just doesn't fit the definition.

You also don't know what brokerage politics is. It's when a party ditches ideology and moves into the centre to try and win the most votes. It has nothing to do with money. As someone who would like to see a pragmatic government instead of an ideological one, I like where the Liberal Party sits. The Conservatives are attempting to be one (the old PC party was one), but everyone sees through the charade considering the stone age cave dwellers in Harper's caucus.

Edited July 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

You also don't know what brokerage politics is. It's when a party ditches ideology and moves into the centre to try and win the most votes. It has nothing to do with money.

I wasn't clear on what brokerage politics means and got curious. I found a couple of pieces that might interest you.

The Liberal Party is a centre orientated, brokerage-styled, and nationally based political party. The party tends to pursue policies that are between right-wing conservatism and left-wing socialism. The party will practice brokerage politics by shifting its policies in accordance with public attitudes.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/election/federal/2004/platform/liberal.html

The Liberal Party has been the governing party at the federal level for most of the period since the late 1890s, bringing together pragmatic social policy reformers and advocates of free enterprise, the balance between them shifting as leaders and context changed. The Liberal Party has been described as a “brokerage” party, in recognition of its success in appealing to a range of interests divided by region, language, ethnicity, and social class

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339142/Liberal-Party-of-Canada

The Conservative Party is also a brokerage party.

Like the Liberals, the PCs are classified as a brokerage party. A brokerage party attempts to achieve consensus between different regional, linguistic, and other groups, both to achieve electoral success and to allow a number of different voices to be represented in Parliament.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/features/party/unite-right/unite-right.html

Brokerage politics

Political behaviour based on practicality, which compete to deliver policies that meet the desires of the greatest number of the people.

http://www.vocabularyserver.com/csps/?tema=168

[nicky10013]

I wasn't clear on what brokerage politics means and got curious. I found a couple of pieces that might interest you.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/election/federal/2004/platform/liberal.html

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339142/Liberal-Party-of-Canada

The Conservative Party is also a brokerage party.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/features/party/unite-right/unite-right.html

http://www.vocabularyserver.com/csps/?tema=168

I don't get it. Are these definitions here to prove me wrong? From what I've read, all these definitions prove my point 100%.

[capricorn]

You said brokerage politics is "when a party ditches ideology and moves into the centre to try and win the most votes". As shown in what I posted, ideology plays an insignificant role in how Canadian politics work. Therefore, your understanding of what constitutes brokerage politics appears to be based on a false premise.

[nicky10013]

You said brokerage politics is "when a party ditches ideology and moves into the centre to try and win the most votes". As shown in what I posted, ideology plays an insignificant role in how Canadian politics work. Therefore, your understanding of what constitutes brokerage politics appears to be based on a false premise.

No it doesn't, it says that parties move to where the political centre is during that time to "bring people together." To me, that lines up with what I said perfectly.

Edit: I've misread what you said and you've misread what I've said.

Like you said, ideology plays an insignificant role. As did I. I said when a party "ditches" ideology and moves to the center of the spectrum. TO ditch is to leave behind. We're arguing over something we agree on haha.

Edited July 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

Yup. We're basically of the same opinion that, in general, ideology takes a back seat to brokerage politics.

[nicky10013]

Yup. We're basically of the same opinion that, in general, ideology takes a back seat to brokerage politics.

Yep. Now, the real question is whether we agree that's a proper course of action. I think it's great. We need politicians who will stand up to common knowledge/wisdom to say this is the way we know things work despite what we think and despite popular opinion, us implementing this policy will make things better no matter from what side of the spectrum the solution belongs to.

[lictor616]

Again, you're dead wrong. You attribute everything you don't like to some entity you call "the left"...and then, through pitch-perfect tautology, you think that all leftists are of the same ilk.

Liberals aren't communists.

People who are called "liberal" today certainly are closer to communism then any other ideology. They are not liberal in the proper sense of the word (which is actually closer to "libertarianism" with a strong emphasis on personal freedom, they are apostles of the "social gospel" they have taken over from the rabble-rousing Christian witch-doctors whose trouble-making righteousness they emulate as well as marxists.

On all the essential points, the size of government, orwellian political correctness, the social superstitions, they are INDISTINGUISHABLE from socialists and communists.

As I said, they are a difference of DEGREE not KIND.

Socialist might be a little more aggressive in nationalizing assets, capturing the salary of the tax paying "boob-oisie", and liquidating what is left of our nation then liberals but liberals are all the more dangerous for it

Edited July 11, 2010 by lictor616

[nicky10013]

People who are called "liberal" today certainly are closer to communism then any other ideology. They are not liberal in the proper sense of the word (which is actually closer to "libertarianism" with a strong emphasis on personal freedom, they are apostles of the "social gospel" they have taken over from the rabble-rousing Christian witch-doctors whose trouble-making righteousness they emulate as well as marxists.

I've had this argument before. Founders of the church of libertarianism were often far more social democratic than today's conservatives would like to admit. John Stuart Mill, the man who wrote "On Liberty" also wrote "On the Principles of Political Economy." This basically called for the creation of the welfare state. He knew and admitted to the fact that horrible inequities existed within the capitalist system and wanted the government to address the issue. He specifically discounted private charity as it inevitably would be applied unevenly throughout the state and therefore completely undesirable when it came to addressing human need.

Indeed, isn't it completely in the spirit of the value of individualism that these projects are inspired? Individualism is only good if you're able to use it to try and advance yourself. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE can logically make an argument saying a completely free and fettered market will allow for an every day man's advancement. You've got to level the base playing field first. Then, and only then can there be true competition with true individuals. It shouldn't only be people born with silver spoons who are able to succeed.

On all the essential points, the size of government, orwellian political correctness, the social superstitions, they are INDISTINGUISHABLE from socialists and communists.

Yeah it is. Furthermore, I'd actually read orwell before you use the term. If you think that the world of 1984 bears any resemblance to this world, well, my friend, you need help.

As I said, they are a difference of DEGREE not KIND.

It's both.

Socialist might be a little more aggressive in nationalizing assets, capturing the salary of the tax paying "boob-oisie", and liquidating what is left of our nation, but they are all the more dangerous for it...

No, no I don't think we are.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Individualism is only good if you're able to use it to try and advance yourself. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE can logically make an argument saying a completely free and fettered market will allow for an every day man's advancement. You've got to level the base playing field first. Then, and only then can there be true competition with true individuals. It shouldn't only be people born with silver spoons who are able to succeed....

I think you meant "unfettered" market....but no matter...as ANYONE can logically make such a case. This is where the idea of a "self-made" man/woman comes from. In some instances, the case can be made that government intervention actually skews markets in favor of corporatists and capitalists and against "every day man's advancements".

[nicky10013]

I think you meant "unfettered" market....but no matter...as ANYONE can logically make such a case. This is where the idea of a "self-made" man/woman comes from. In some instances, the case can be made that government intervention actually skews markets in favor of corporatists and capitalists and against "every day man's advancements".

But the advancement of corporate interests aren't necessarily bad for the common man. Coporate citizens employ the majority of citizens. Allowing them ample opportunity to hire more people can't possibly be a bad thing. Once in the company a person can do anything. It's the barriers to getting hired which need to be removed. Healthcare, affordable and equitable education at all levels, youth sports programs, communications infrastructure, and yes, even equitable hiring practices (to combat seen and unseen racial bias which every study ever conducted confirms exist) are all things needed to give all people the same opportunity to excel. What they do with that opportunity is up to them.

Edited July 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[bloodyminded]

People who are called "liberal" today certainly are closer to communism then any other ideology. They are not liberal in the proper sense of the word (which is actually closer to "libertarianism" with a strong emphasis on personal freedom, they are apostles of the "social gospel" they have taken over from the rabble-rousing Christian witch-doctors whose trouble-making righteousness they emulate as well as marxists.

I'm not seeing any substantive difference between this and contemporary conservatism:

On all the essential points, the size of government

And where in the world do you get the wild notion that conservatives do not support big government?

They continually say the words, yes, certainly. But they definitely tend to support big government.

Particularly if we're not so unimaginative and materialist to assume "big government" refers only to taxes.

Because it doesn't.

orwellian political correctness

And again. This applies very obviously to conservatism, who are politically correct to a sublime degree.

I would think this has become more than painfully obvious by now.

the social superstitions, they are INDISTINGUISHABLE from socialists and communists.

....and yet again!

Why do you use such hallmarks of contemporary conservatives to excoriate liberals and leftists?

Even in the ways your points do apply to liberals, they also apply beautifully to conservatives.

So why the selective criticism? Shouldn't you be worried about cleaning up your own camp first?

[bush_cheney2004]

But the advancement of corporate interests aren't necessarily bad for the common man. Coporate citizens employ the majority of citizens. Allowing them ample opportunity to hire more people can't possibly be a bad thing. Once in the company a person can do anything.

This is contrary to your premise of self made advancement. Every man/woman does not need a corporate framework to thrive.

It's the barriers to getting hired which need to be removed. Healthcare, affordable and equitable education at all levels, youth sports programs, communications infrastructure, and yes, even equitable hiring practices (to combat seen and unseen racial bias which every study ever conducted confirms exist) are all things needed to give all people the same opportunity to excel. What they do with that opportunity is up to them.

No....this is just slavery to a different social framework. Clearly there were/are many successes by individuals without any of these things in place. "All things to all people" is an entirely different objective that can actually remove opportunity and incentive.