Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

...now in full on elitist mode...keep going....it becomes you, and only proves his point.

So how is citing historians of fascism "elitist"...and citing Goldberg and Glenn Beck not "elitist"?

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

It's just mindless name-dropping, he's like a drone. All it does it show that he cannot articulate his own opinion. I'm not some moron who will swallow the lie of Nazism being a "far-right" movement. It is a leftist movement, with the only distinction being that is is nationalist in focus (and racist), while communism was internationalist.

This member can and has articulated original thought(s) in the past, but when confronted by your fresh assault on hallowed "lefty" ideals, he retreats for the cover of published dogma, as respected in his comfort zone. Any notion of individual concepts or purpose gets buried by definition.

Quite remarkable....

kraychik · July 7, 2012

So how is citing historians of fascism "elitist"...and citing Goldberg and Glenn Beck not "elitist"?

I never cited Glenn Beck, you were the one who brought him up. You drop names and can't articulate a point of view. This is standard leftist argumentation, you are a drone who follows your leaders.

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

So how is citing historians of fascism "elitist"...and citing Goldberg and Glenn Beck not "elitist"?

Do you ever think for yourself? I would hope so....

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

I never cited Glenn Beck,

Game, set, and match.

kraychik · July 7, 2012

This member can and has articulated original thought(s) in the past, but when confronted by your fresh assault on hallowed "lefty" ideals, he retreats for the cover of published dogma, as respected in his comfort zone. Any notion of individual concepts or purpose gets buried by definition.

Quite remarkable....

It's actually very typical.

In support of his (flawed) argumentation of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology, there have been some elements of the contemporary right that have supported erosion of individual liberty. I am a conservative, however, not a libertarian, so for me this isn't always a contradiction. For example, religious elements of the contemporary American right fought for censorship against pornography. The sad truth for leftists, though, is that there were leftist elements on board with this. Primarily feminists who viewed pornography as "anti-woman". Anyways, I'll stop there because it gets pretty boring when I have to start making the leftist argument because the resident leftist can't articulate an argument on his own.

kraychik · July 7, 2012

So how is citing historians of fascism "elitist"...and citing Goldberg and Glenn Beck not "elitist"?

Excuse me? You invoked both of those names, not I.

kraychik · July 7, 2012

Do you ever think for yourself? I would hope so....

Honestly, I'm shaking my head. This is brutal. I'm outta here.

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

... Anyways, I'll stop there because it gets pretty boring when I have to start making the leftist argument because the resident leftist can't articulate an argument on his own.

See...here's the thing...your recent arrival has upset the "balance of power", and you are forcing some to revisit battles fought long ago in previous threads. Articulate conservatives cause great alarm in the socialist nest.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

So I need to take my opinion from a "scholar"?

You evolved your opinions from people writing on the subject; it didn't come to you fully-formed in the nature of Divine Revelation.

So why do you need to take your opinion from those who aren't "scholars"?

I don't think you've thought any of this through.

"Noam Chomsky agreed with me" doesn't make for a compelling argument.

No..but you agree with Noam Chomsky on the subject of Lenin. so do I.

What's the problem?

You can't articulate your own reasons for thinking the way you do without name-dropping in a transparent attempt to impress us and create this image of you being well-read, so we see through you. It's infantile.

Get outta my face with that foolishness. I was offering you citations on the very subject we're discussing. that's not "name-dropping."

I also don't care what Jonah Goldberg has to say, I've known about these issues long before he came into the mainstream. It is the left that follows its leaders devotedly, not the right.

And so where did you come by this information?

It believes in centralization of control and a major abrogation of individual liberty in both the economic and social spheres. This is textbook leftism. Conversely, the contemporary right supports a retraction of government encroachment over the liberty of the individual in these two dimensions.

I'm aweare of the conventional pieties, kraychik.

But in fact, theorizing about what the contemporary right "believes" is an attempt to summon authority by simple virtue that some people make the claim you're making.

Like everything else in life, the "contemporary right" is what the "contemporary right" does.

You like things simple? It really is that simple.

It's simple, the contemporary left has far more in common with Nazism and other extreme manifestations of leftism than the contemporary right, despite the attempts at historical revisionism to portray Nazism as a "far-right" ideology. This was done for transparent reasons, to pretend that there is a counterweight on the right to communism. If you prefer, we can use the term statist, but for most honest people this is just a synonym for leftist.

First of all, the right are statists too. Very much so. So is the self-described centre. With very few exceptions (mostly from the intellectual but usually untried traditions of the libertarian right and left) conservatives, liberals, cventrists are all statists in certain ways.

And no, you are flatly ignorant about fascism and Nazism.

Again: we have current, contemporary fascists, right here in North America, who adore fascism, who call themselves fascist, and who read and think about fascism all the time.

And they're uniformly right-wingers, kraychik.

I'm sorry you don't like that; if it's any consolation, I'm not crazy about it either.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

Do you ever think for yourself? I would hope so....

Do you, cupcake?

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

kraychik · July 7, 2012

See...here's the thing...your recent arrival has upset the "balance of power", and you are forcing some to revisit battles fought long ago in previous threads. Articulate conservatives cause great alarm in the socialist nest.

The truth is he's arguing a false narrative, so he's at a distinct disadvantage. When the core of your argumentation is false, it's sort of difficult to support it against real opposition. It all comes down to him not wanting to accept, and more importantly trying to lie to others, about Nazism being a leftist ideology. It's as if he thinks he's now a Nazi by association. It's really sad.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

It's just mindless name-dropping, he's like a drone. All it does it show that he cannot articulate his own opinion. I'm not some moron who will swallow the lie of Nazism being a "far-right" movement. It is a leftist movement, with the only distinction being that is is nationalist in focus (and racist), while communism was internationalist.

You did not arrive at this conclusion on your own. It's standard fare among a small group of revisionist anti-historians, like Goldberg.

why are you pretending otherwise?

again: where did you get your information on the subject...since you didn't read about it, or hear it anywhere, it's a fascinating phenomenon.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

The truth is he's arguing a false narrative, so he's at a distinct disadvantage. When the core of your argumentation is false, it's sort of difficult to support it against real opposition. It all comes down to him not wanting to accept, and more importantly trying to lie to others, about Nazism being a leftist ideology. It's as if he thinks he's now a Nazi by association. It's really sad.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

See...here's the thing...your recent arrival has upset the "balance of power",

Ah. I had forgotten about my profound and baleful influence; now to be upturned by....fan of weepy little Glenn Beck!

and you are forcing some to revisit battles fought long ago in previous threads. Articulate conservatives cause great alarm in the socialist nest.

I, for one, would welcome them. We've got a couple already. This gentleman doesn't match their excellence.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

kraychik · July 7, 2012

Again: we have current, contemporary fascists, right here in North America, who adore fascism, who call themselves fascist, and who read and think about fascism all the time.

And they're uniformly right-wingers, kraychik.

No, they're not. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. I've articulated the core values of the contemporary right and contemporary left, and shown how the values of the left, not the right, have far more in common with Nazism. The ideological underpinnings of the contemporary right are antithetical to Nazism, which cannot be said about the contemporary left to the same degree. This shatters the false narrative that is still being parroted of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology. What have you provided to this discussion? Name-dropping (nobody cares about Noam Chomsky, Glenn Beck, or Raul Hilberg), obfuscation (nobody cares about Stormfront and your description of these leftists as right-wingers), and outright falsehoods (i.e. Nazism is a "far right" ideology).

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

.... It's as if he thinks he's now a Nazi by association. It's really sad.

Well, in this narrow dimension, we are what we type. Each seasoned member has a persona and outlook cemented by hundreds if not thousands of posts and rejoinders. Dismissing by association is just a (weak) tactic that reflects a lack of relevant counterpoint(s).

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

Ah. I had forgottyen about my profound and baleful influence; now to be upturned by....fan of weepy little Glenn Beck!

Did you broach Mr. Beck first or not? We know your game, sir, as you know mine.

I, for one, would welcome them. We've got a couiple already. This gentlemean doesn't match their excellence.

Look, I've dealt with your present and past persona, quick to attack down to even the silly pantywaist level. It's important to you, I guess.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

No, they're not. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

I have pointed you directly to the source...which is why you're hostile.

You offer zero--zero!--back-up, evidence, or support for your arguments whatsoever.

I gave you names of scholars on fascism (and obviously you're free to look at others if you suspect bias), and you called it "name-dropping."

I told you there are contemporary fascists--right now, here--openly fascist!--and told you where you could go to read their arguments and debates and discussions.

You don't want to.

Because you know damn well that they're right-wingers, kraychik. Everyone knows that.

Fine. you don't want to offer any evidence or supporting material to your argument; and you're openly hostile when someone else tries to do so.

That's your busness, but don't act affronted at standard debating practicve, simply because you suspect you'll lose.

I've articulated the core values of the contemporary right and contemporary left, and shown how the values of the left, not the right, have far more in common with Nazism.

You have offered your opinion. That's it.

The ideological underpinnings of the contemporary right are antithetical to Nazism,

Since contemporary fascist movements are uniformly right wing, you are wrong by definition.

which cannot be said about the contemporary left to the same degree.

"To the same degree"?

You're starting to hedge a bit, I see.

This shatters the false narrative that is still being parroted of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology.

No; it's largely a far-right ideology, with elements of leftism (hell, and of centrism); but it is primarily right wing.

The liberal fascist hypothesis has been discredited.

you might note that no one but you even really much uses it anymore.

What have you provided to this discussion? Name-dropping (nobody cares about Noam Chomsky, Glenn Beck, or Raul Hilberg), obfuscation (nobody cares about Stormfront and your description of these leftists as right-wingers), and outright falsehoods (i.e. Nazism is a "far right" ideology).

You think the Stromfront W. Nationalists are "leftists"?

Wowza

Then how come so many of their opinions--like, oh, say, about leftism, about persecuted Christians, about economics--align precisely with your own?

Too easy, man. Come on, try harder.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

Did you broach Mr. Beck first or not? We know your game, sir, as you know mine.

Of course I did.

Look, I've dealt with your present and past persona, quick to attack down to even the silly pantywaist level. It's important to you, I guess.

Yes, the pantywaist comments was an old favourite, which I have now abandoned as foolish.

As for attacks; ol' kraychik gives as much or more than he gets. His prerogativce, you might point out. Just so.

As any rejoinders on my part, are mine.

Canuckistani · July 7, 2012

Canadians earn less, pay more taxes, and pay more for goods and services directly as a consequence of the single-payer healthcare system (there's more to it than that, but this is a primary cause).

Please back that up. Why do Canadians earn less because of medicare when the employer doesn't have the expense of paying for medical insurance for their employees? Try to do it without being snide, if you can. Why does Costco charge more here than in the US because of medicare. You'll have to do more than just keep asserting it to be so.

Argus · July 7, 2012

That's just not true. You obviously haven't read the Medicare Trustees report. I guess you're also unaware of Obama's $500 billion dollar raid on Medicare to use to fund Obamacare.

Also, Medicare is funded by a specific payroll tax that has never been cut by Republicans or anyone for that matter. So no, no so-called starving of any federal treasury.

You can argue all you want, Shady, but the simple fact is that medicair needs more money, and rather than dealing with that the Republicans are trying to destroy it -- at the behest of their paymasters in the health care and pharmaceutical industries.

Argus · July 7, 2012

This is a complete mischaracterization of the Tea Party. Thank you for your post, however, because it serves to illustrate the typical ignorance of the leftist Canadian regarding the primary theme of the Tea Party movement. Everyone should take a moment to read this nonsense and realize that this is the narrative describing the Tea Party manufactured by most of the leftist Canadian media outlets.

My feelings about the Tea Party movement really are outside the scope of typical Left-Right ideological argument. I have contempt for them not because they're too far right, but because they're stupid. Their beliefs are childish, their objectives are moronic, and their world view is ignorant and simplistic. Not to mention that they are in pursuit of policies which are largely contrary to their own best interests, certainly contrary to the best-interests of Americans as a whole, and benefit only the very wealthy.

Argus · July 7, 2012

Assuming the Koch brothers have funded the Tea Party in one form or another, how does that do anything to support your false narrative of the Tea Party being an overtly religious gang of morons serving the interests of the rich (as if the interests of the rich are contrary to those of everyone else, which is a socialist narrative)? You even suggested that the Tea Party is similar to the Taliban, which pretty much tells us everything we need to know about your ideological point of departure when it comes to political discourse.

I didn't say they were 'overtly religious'. What I said was their world view is similar to the Taliban in that they are suspicious of outsiders and modernity. They don't like modern society and they want to return life to a mythical distant past when Daniel Boone was on the frontier without "no dem guberment' getting in his way. They don't want the government providing modern services or having rules to inhibit anyone's freedom of choice or behavior. They don't want to help their neighbors through welfare or social services. That 'all for one and one for all' thing is just a big 'socialist plot' to them. They're into 'me, myself and I'. This is inherently unChristian, but they're largely too dumb to realize that. Their 'religion' of freedom from government is built on Hollywood westerns and the mythos which sprang from them of the independent frontiersman.