Open Thread: Public Rejecting Media's Spin on Giffords Shooting, Poll Shows
Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey links to a CBS poll showing that 57 percent of Americans believe that American politics is not responsible for Saturday's tragic shooting in Tucson. In other words, most Americans are clued into reality, despite the best efforts of the news media.
Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.
In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn’t connecting the shooting to politics.
Morrissey concludes:
It seems that the public has been able to separate the spin from the actual facts, which show that Loughner was a loon acting out of insanity and a personal grudge against Giffords, one completely of his own making...
Getting back to the poll, it seems as though the media spin of the first 48 hours failed to even convince the predisposed. Only 42% of Democrats in the survey believed that the shootings were a political act, and independents broke out at about the same ratio as the overall sample, 56/33. That is very good news for America, and bad news for those in the media and in Congress who hoped to leverage the shooting to pass gun-control and speech-control legislation and bully grassroots conservatives into silence.
NB publisher Brent Bozell recognized the same malicious motives in his statement on the media's reaction to the shooting.
Are you surprised that Americans have predominately rejected the media's spin on this issue?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I hate so say it, but I'm
Submitted by Bruzilla on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:10am.
I hate so say it, but I'm kind of enjoying all this. Since Saturday night, when Wolf Blitzer said the shooter had listed his favorite books as the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, and then said this showed he was influenced by the Far Left and the Far Right, I've been having some great debates with Lefties who don't want to hear that Hitler was in fact a Socialist and that Fascism has nothing to do with the Right Wing or Conservatism.
It's been hysterical to hear people with degrees in politics try to worm their way out of admitting Hitler was Socialist by claiming he was a Fascist (which he was, but Fascism is a form of government and Socialism is a form of social organization, hence why you can have Socialist Fascists like Hitler, Communist Fascists like Chavez, etc.), or that just because he formed a Socialist Workers party, he wasn't actually a Socialist, or just because he ruled as a Socialist and believed in Socialist policies, he wasn't a Socialist. It's just too funny... watching Lefties treat Hitler like some pedophile uncle that no one in the Progressive family wants to acknowledge as being related to them.
Nazism vs Communism
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:27am.
The way it was explained to me many years ago was fairly simple:
The line from left to right does not end in a point but with a perpedicular line at both ends.
On the left you go up and at one extreme of social thinking you have Communism. You go down to the other extreme of Facism.
On the right you go up and at one extreme you have liberatarians and the other the religious right.
The line from left to right is actually an "H" with many stops along the way to any given point.
It isn't perfect but much bettter than the current idealogy graph being portrayed today in the media and schools.
Circle
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:31am.
To me, the ideological graph is best explained as a circle, where communism and fascism/Nazism close the circle, because despite one key difference, in practice, they do resemble each other.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
circles?
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:37am.
Where is conservatism and are there any subdivisions you recognize?
Understand your point not sure I agree totally; not because of the idealogical beliefs of the two systems but the historical actions and results - fortunately we have very little material to work with to compare Fascism to other systems in sustained systems.
The circle
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:19pm.
Think of the top of the circle as the narrow ideological spectrum of the United States. Conservatism as we define it would be on the right side of the top of the circle. Sub-categories like reactionary thought (like Ron Paul) would be further down, tracing the circle clockwise.
The bottom of the circle is where you find communism and fascism. In fact, think of the single line ideological spectrum we were all taught in school, and take the ends and bend them until you form a circle with it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
circles to loopy
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:16pm.
I think that would put the religious right at the top with Fascism and Communism and I don't think that is what you mean. However, I think your point is made. They taught us a system that had leftest at both extremes but tried to convince the students that one was right and the other left.
Circle, continued
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:47pm.
No, the bottom of the circle would have fascism and communism. Therefore the American "religious Right" would be at the top of the circle, where the narrow American political spectrum is.
Here is the problem I ultimately have with people who contend that fascism is Leftist. It is very simple. The issue of private property.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
as the circle turns
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:54pm.
There is nothing that prevents a leftest society from having private property. It is the individual beliefs, feelings and expectations about private property that are different between the two ends of the spectrum.
The kulaks might disagree
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:34pm.
Nothing prevents a Leftist society from having private property?
I'm sure the kulaks would be comforted by that.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
unsane - not too literal
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:24pm.
philosophically not in reality - in reality private property is controlled by the state.
The real difference is that
Submitted by Bruzilla on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:17pm.
The real difference is that Fascism is a form of government, and Socialism and Communism are not. They are defined as means of social organization.
The definitions are:
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Put away the dictionary
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:29pm.
Unfortunately for you the political world is not determined by dictionary definitions.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Give me a break
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:29am.
You don't understand politics either, yet you have the audacity to attack people with degrees in political science.
Since you think you know more about politics than anyone else, please explain the key difference between fascism and communism. There is but one.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I never claimed to know more
Submitted by Bruzilla on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:24pm.
I never claimed to know more about politics than anyone else... those are your words. What I did say is that Progressives are adament about denying that Hitler was a socialist, which he was. They are adament that Fascism is strictly a right wing thing, which it isn't.
And just for you, here are the Random House definitions of Fascism and Communism (bolding is mine):
Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Please note that Communism is not considered a governmental system, rather a means of social organization. Fascism is a form of government, hence, again, why you can have Fascist governments that are Socialist, Communist, and even Conservative.
Please note you don't know what you are talking about
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:44pm.
Well, you are the one that was running smack at people "with degrees in politics", not I.
What is ironic is that you are sounding every bit as pseudo-intellectual as those with PhDs in political science in this thread.
The only thing you have done here is demonstrate you do not understand a damn thing about politics. Great. So you have a Random House dictionary. So what?
Not only are you not at all a conservative, you are an extremely poor student of history. If fascist government can be communist, as you are the only person in the world to claim, please explain why major German cities weren't absolute love fests in the late 1920s and early 1930s, instead of the scene of major street brawls.
Also, for the last time, please explain the fundamental difference between fascism and communism. Put away the precious Random House dictionary. It is even more fundamental than that.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane is unhinged
Submitted by rgr11 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:59pm.
Of course Facism and communism are compatible..
One trait they share in practice is a total takeover or nationalization of industry. Whether the siezed properties technically belong to the government or "the people" is of little concern to the former owners.
In both cases, preoperty is taken from "the rich", and handed over to intellectual or military ideologues, because they, of course, are much more capable of running it than the former owners.
Sound familiar?
Private property
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:31pm.
Really? In fascism, many, if not most of industry, is left in private hands. Property CAN be privately owned in fascism. Now, of course the state can and does tell you what to do with it, but private ownership is permitted.
If that isn't true, please explain why many who owned industries and businesses supported the Nazis/fascists.
Try that in communism. EVERYTHING is owned by the state in communism.
Unhinged? All the time! Thanks! Ignorant of history? Never. Check out Robert Gellately's Lenin, Stalin and Hitler sometime.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am not impressed
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:50pm.
"You don't understand politics either, yet you have the audacity to attack people with degrees in political science. "
Since when does a college degree guarantee expertise in any given topic, especially when dealing with political science? That degree doesn't give people absolute knowledge and understanding, you know. It is't even an indication that someone is accurate in their perceptions, analysis, and conclusions. All it means is that the person who was awarded that degree impressed his or her's professors enough to receive a good grade.
Case in point, the inability of most political science graduates to understand the small difference between international socialism (The Soviets) and national socialism (The Nazis). Most of the "experts" describe them as occupying opposite ends of the political spectrum (Soviets "Left" and Nazi's "Right") when, in reality, they are merely two separate applications of left-wing political ideology. Where's the supposed "expertize" in this inability to recognize the ideological commonality of Nazism and Socialism?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Interesting...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:19pm.
Case in point, you don't understand the single, fundamental difference that separates communists from fascists/Nazis.
If this "ideological commonality" is so obvious, please explain why communists and fascists/Nazis first instinct, when you put them together in the same room, is to try and kill each other. Please explain why they were not bosom buddies in the Weimar Republic, among other places.
Please point out to me where I claimed that a college degree guaranteed expertise in a given topic. What I DID say was that the non-conservative Bruzilla was claiming that expertise (not in so many words, but read his entire smug post) but yet in the same breath was blasting people with political science degrees. I found that ironic and laughable.
By the way, you should be aware that I do not have any degrees in political science, and the reason for that was that I have taken courses in political science. That was enough for me.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hitler wasn't a socialist but
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:30am.
Hitler wasn't a socialist but took over a party that was and molded it to his desires. True socialism and communism cannot exist because in effect people are motivated by greed and wants whereas socialism and communism are ideas that suppress these emotions; similar to being a Vulcan.
But Hitler was a megalomaniac and only cared for power, he was neither right nor left but an opportunist.
I see.. Hitler was a
Submitted by Bruzilla on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:15pm.
I see.. Hitler was a Socialist in Name Only (SINO) lol
Hitler was a Vulcan?
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:26pm.
Hitler was a Vulcan?
Property
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:34pm.
Hitler and Mussolini had NO PROBLEM with private ownership of property. THIS is the difference between fascism and communism. Now, both would tell their people what they could do with their property, but property ownership was still permitted.
Private property is complete anathema under communism.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
HUH?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:59pm.
Hitler nationalized EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS, every single company, every single, enterprise, including farms, in Germany! He awarded his close friends and supporter the management of those business, but he still nationalized them, which means centralized government control over what to produce and how much to produce and supply to the public for a government set price.. That is the hallmark of socialism.
By the way, Socialism also believes in "private property," It's just that, similar to Nazism, the government decides what private property you can actually have and how much you can have of it. That car, if it is allowed to you, is still YOUR car once you receive it. The same with other types of "property." That house, if you are allowed one, is still YOUR house.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The difference
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:24pm.
Negative. He allowed them to be privately owned. The difference was (and this was key) those who owned the industries could make as much as they wanted.
Many of these industries supported Hitler early on. These same industries did NOT support the KPD because they understood if the KPD took power, they would be nationalized outright.
Please explain why they supported the Nazis if they did not support a party that absolutely would have nationalized them outright.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Postive!
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:35pm.
No, he did NOT allow them to be privately owned! He ASSIGNED management, assigned "ownership" to each and every company. It was not unusual for the "owners" to be replaced with someone else, if those" owners" failed to maintain the production quotas that the government set for the products that the government decided should be produced, or were outspoken in their dissent of government or Hitler himself.
"Please explain why they supported the Nazis if they did not support a party that absolutely would have nationalized them outright. "
Because they know that this type of government was inherently corrupt and that they could, you know, personally PROFIT from that. They lost ownership of their business, but they could still have the money, power, and prestige that they coveted. So, what difference would it make to people like that if they privately own that business or could still profit from government ownership of that same business. OF COURSE they'd support Nazism, as long as they could still profit from the arrangement (never mind the real threat of death they faced for not supporting Nazism). Once that profit disappeared so did the support.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Consider this:
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:25pm.
Um, YES he DID.
From Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power, page 351:
"Despite interventionist institutions like the Reich Food Estate, Hitler and the Nazi leadership generally sought to manage the economy by tough control of the market economy rather than by nationalization or direct state takeovers." This sentence alone directly contradicts your claim that the Nazis practiced nationalization. Further on the page, I.G. Farben was pressed into developing and producing synthetic fuel for motor vehicles and planes by hydrogenation of coal.
When a company refused to play ball, then the state would intervene (ask Junkers). However, as the Nazis repeatedly insisted, Germany would be a free-market economy in which the the state provided leadership and set the primary goals.
THEREFORE, private ownership of property and industry was permitted, whereas in the Soviet Union and, say, 1950s China, it was not. Hence, the key difference between fascism/Nazism and communism. Hence, the reason though both mirror each other in appearance and deed, they violently oppose each other.
This is from the second of three books on the Third Reich by Richard Evans. Awesome books. I encourage one and all to read them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane - great post
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:34pm.
Also, party members were installed to either manage, oversee or spy on companies to insure compliance to the regime.
I would have to say though that the main important difference between Facism and Communism is the palatability of the associated rhetoric. The Nazis had brilliant people working towards ways to control the masses but it essentially boiled down to fear, paranoia and forced ignorance. On the other hand the power to the oppressed message of Communism plays well to the naturally sympathetic human heart.
Fair enough
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:57pm.
Sure, the Nazis made damn sure various companies complied with their wishes. But even they knew that if they spoke about nationalization, they were doomed politically. So the Nazis never made it a commonplace practice as CobraMan insists they did. Industrialists fell in behind Hitler due to this, and the Nazis' fondness of autarky, which guaranteed business to various German industries. (Anti free trade types take note: the collapse of free trade in the 1930s caused much economic and political damage.)
An often overlooked aspect of the rise of Nazism was their political savvy. They knew to play up their anti-Semitism in certain regions of Germany and to play it down in others, for one example. The Nazis knew their audiences and tailored their message accordingly.
Even then, the Nazi's high water mark at the ballot box had passed when von Papen and Hindenburg made the decision to allow Hitler to form the government on 30 Jaunary 1933. The most votes they ever got in an election, IIRC, was in 1931, not 1932.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Nazi high water mark
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:03pm.
In the beginning of Hitler's take over of the government, if accounts can be believed, he had not behaved megamaniacal to the point that if detrimentally effected his decisions. It is possible that he realized that businesses needed business people and that running businesses would drain the resources his expansion of Germany required.
Isolation looking a little good to me
Submitted by StarAZ on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:05pm.
A fiend of mine in New Mexico reads a small local paper only and said she hadn't heard that right-wing media were being blamed. I am envious--I want to not be caught up in this dopiness--I am losing IQ points reading NYT commenters, etc. You know what...I am THIS CLOSE to saying I will never read Krugman again--I am still shocked that he would push his wishful thinking foward as fact. He knows better and he did it anyway--and it makes him a lightweight, in my view.
good points
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:36pm.
The term "Nazi" is a Germanic rendering of what is otherwise called "National Socialism."
While I am not a "political scientist," in my reckoning Communism appears quite similar to Nazism in its aims. In fact, the only substantive difference that I'm aware of is Nazism's preoccupation with race.
It seems to have been lost to history that during WWII, the Allied Powers were at first every bit as concerned about the spread of Soviet Communism as they were about the aggression of Nazi Germany. Hitler even used this to his advantage throughout the war, claiming that only Germany could prevent the spread of Soviet Atheistic Communism to the rest of Europe and the World. The USA was at first loathe to ally itself with the USSR, and only did so after the growing Fascist German and Japanese threat forced the need for "strange bedfellows."
The fundamental difference
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:46pm.
They indeed look similar. There IS one basic, fundamental difference, and this forced Communists and Nazis/Fascists to completely hate each other.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The only difference...
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:20pm.
The only difference between Socialism and Nazism is how they defined their boarders.
Nazism is "national socialism," which means that the centralized control only extended to a national boarder (in theory). This didn't prevent the Nazi's from expanding their boarders though military conquest, of course. That's the "Greater Germany" Hitler and the Nazi's talked about. It wasn't "Greater" in scope or achievements, it was "Greater" in land area due to the conquest of other nations.
Socialism is "international socialism," which means that centralized government control is extend outside one nation's boarders to include other associated nations. It is a Union as opposed to a Nation.
The end product, of course, is the same for both systems. That is the complete centralized government control of a given region and it's population.
"Communism," as most people define it, is closer to Nazism than Socialism. The Chinese, for example, operate under a Nation Socialism type of communist system, as does Cuba. But, I'm not surprised that they don't call themselves Nazi's, not after what Hitler and the German Nazi's did! I mean, really, how many people name their children Adolf?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Fundamental differences
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:27pm.
The one fundamental difference is their attitudes to private property. Fascists and Nazis were fine with private property. So long as you understood that you were subordinate to the state, they were fine with private property.
Communists do not believe in private property.
And this is why, in reality, Communists and Nazis/Fascists violently oppose each other. Over that one tiny difference, even though they look and act alike.
I would say China, in your example, is closer to fascism than Cuba is, because China allows SOME ownership of property (but not much; farmers, for example, do not own the land they farm in China). Cuba does not permit private property. IIRC they have even turned back on their very tiny privatization program from years back.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You still don't understand.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:53pm.
You still don't' understand. Nazism , Socialism, Fascism, Communism, all have a concept for private ownership of "property." That "property" being the individual's possessions and not their land holdings. In each case, it is the government that decided what possessions you may or may not have. They may vary in their definitions of allowable "private property," but they all include that concept as part of their social system. They are all facets of left wing ideology. BUT NONE of those systems believe in "private" ownership of land or "business."
The Nazi's especially HATED the concept of private ownership of businesses. You see,it was that private ownership, that capitalism, that the Nazi's blamed for their terrible economic situation, and it was that economic situation, a 20 year long depression, that LEAD to the rise of Nazism.
It's interesting to note that all of those systems are proven to be failures and that even the die-hard's like China and Cuba are diverging away for the communist ideals, especially in the "market place." They are slowly, inextricably reverting to true private ownership of business and free market economies. I guess they're finally becoming of last 2000+ years of successful capitalism that has existed around the world in one form or another.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Semantics
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:28pm.
Communism does not allow for the ownership of property.
And by bringing in individual possessions, you are turning this argument less into a political one and more of a semantic one.
If the Nazis so hated the concept of private ownership of business, please explain why ownership of businesses by industrialists were permitted. Please explain why, for the most part, the Nazis shied away from nationalization, as Richard Evans points out. By the way, where are you getting your information?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane, also
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:38pm.
While I agree with your main point - the reason the Nazis allowed ownership of businesses and land was two fold. One, because they were smart enough to realize that running a business was a skill that was not in the realm of government expertise. And two, because allowing the owners to retain ownership they were attempting to buy loyalty and promote increased production/innovation from businesses.
Of course!
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:59pm.
Hey, in no place did I ever try to say the Nazis motives were anything but cynical! :o)
One of my regrets in life: that I never knew my grandmother, who lived under the Weimar Republic, and the Nazis. With my interest in history, I would have interviewed her once a week.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
again, good points
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:07pm.
But I do wish to point out what I believe is the fundamental commonality of both political systems: The premise that there is no God.
All the other particulars of both systems are derived from this premise.
The first political consequence of such a premise is that the State is considered superior to the Individual, given that the State exceeds the Individual both in space (quantity) and time (duration of existence). And from that consequence, all other affronts to the dignity of the human person commence.
The United States, on the other hand, begins with the premise that "All men [all persons] are created equal... endowed with certain unalienable rights...." (emphasis and parenthetical mine). It begins with the premise of a Creator (a Personal First Mover) who has endowed mankind with certain rights as individuals, and thus the State must be subordinate to the Individual.
Replacement
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:28pm.
Oh, all three believed in God, all right. Just not in the one and I you are familiar with.
They sought to replace God with The State. I would further argue that American Leftists wish to do this as well.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hey Bru, love the quote :)
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:17pm.
Hey Bru, love the quote :)
State control has never been a tenet of conservatism
Submitted by JakeMo on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:53pm.
The link between communism and fascism is in their need to exercise state control to satisfy their social engineering goals. State control has never been a tenet of conservatism.
Arguing about "right" vs. "left" implies a devotion to the "political spectrum" paradigm that forces thinkers to pick a point on a linear scale and not deviate from that choice. The "political spectrum" is a construct of high school teachers who needed a simple illustration to hold the attention of classes peopled by students of wide ranging intellectual ability.
For the complex thinker, the best way to consider political attitudes is to imagine a visual depiction of the phrase "universe of political thought" wherein each person is represented by a star. No two are exactly alike, but they do tend to bunch together. Still, stars from opposite sides of the universe can have similarities that their closer neighbors don't share. (My analogy ends there)
I don't use my Poli Sci degree to validate my views as the degree was given to me by a bevy of liberal beard scratchers.
still spinning
Submitted by forest on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:12am.
And they are still spinning in both the Hill and CBS write-ups about the poll. They can't help themselves.
"Loughner's writings and videos suggest a worry about intrusions on the Constitution and some anti-government sentiments."
That's it. Just hanging right out there without further explanation or context about it. Loughner is "anti-government" because he believes it is exercizing 'mind control' via the rules of 'grammar' and 'currency'. They don't feel the need to inform their readers of that, and instead frame it up in a manner similar to how they smear Tea Partiers as being "anti-government" or "obsessed" with the Constitution. It's absolute media malpractive - right in the article describing the poll that says the public isn't buying it. Good grief.
Wait until everyone sees the mugshot. They can't spin that.
Hey Mechelle
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:16am.
Here is one of the most sane voices I have heard on childhood obesity. I met this man many years ago and feel he uses common sense when it comes to children. He helped us in our fight many years ago in Gaston County when we were fighting Outcome Based Education.
Hey Rick
Submitted by jdlybrand on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:22am.
I remember this guy too. Didn't he write for the Gazette? He would have been much too pragmatic for the folks at the Charlotte Observer.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
John Roseman
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:08pm.
He still writes a weekly column for the Gaston Gazette. That is where the article is from.
and that's the way it is...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:15am.
If the polls are accurate then that means the MSM is losing even more credibility.
It also means that the targets of this Liberal smear campaign will emerge from all this even stonger than before.
Does anyone think there may
Submitted by Hunter12 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:27pm.
Does anyone think there may be a coorelation between this type of behavior by liberals and their MSM minions and fewer and fewer people identifying themselves as Democrats every day?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Obama Wants a Marxist/Socialist United States
Submitted by Retired Geek on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:16am.
We must remember that U.S.S.R stood for 'United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic' and also NAZI was an acronym for 'National SOCIALIST German Workers Party'.
Between 150,000,000 and 200,000,000 Humans have been murdered, tortured to death and worked to death in attempts to coerce Marxist/Socialism/Communism on the World.
Not that it matters that much, but "U.S.S.R." stands for
Submitted by virginia republican on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:39am.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Personally, arguments as to whether some tyrannical regime meets a definition of right wing, left wing, socialist, fascist, whatever, is like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's immaterial and strictly an academic exercise. The only thing that matters is that the average citizen living in a country ruled by a dictator has no human rights, no freedom. Does it really matter what definition that form of government fits? Not to the poor soul living in that environment, that's for sure.
Va Repub
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:43am.
It does when our HS/college students are being taught that conservatism leads to Fascism. I heard this sitting in class and nearly fell out of my chair - not good. This particular teacher didn't allow discussion. He was there on his soapbox and the students were there to absorb his wisdom.
The simple fact is, most
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:22am.
The simple fact is, most people don't believe the liberal MSM. It's time for them to start telling the truth and stop stirring the pot.
Am I surprised?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:22am.
That's the question, "are you surprised Americans have predominately rejected the media's spin on this issue?" I'm relieved actually and I sure as hell hope there's going to be a real serious fallout from all this blame going to the wrong people for what happened. Rush, Sarah, Glenn, they all need to sue those people and their respective companies for all the crap that's been spewed since Saturday.
I'm sure we can count on the FCC for their help against the LSM for their slander. /sarc
-Jon
No, not surprised.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:24am.
Mostly the media is talking to themselves anyway. Out of 300 million people in this country 20 million watch the Big 3's Evening news, and the cable news audience is miniscule. More people listen to Rush Limbaugh than watch any TV program.
The MSM has forgotten that with no audience they have no influence.
They would have far more viewers and influence telling the truth. They would have more power too because the truth scares many in politics.
Sometimes I think people that do not keep themselves informed should not vote. But given what passes for news these days I am glad that most pay little attention to politics, and go with their "gut" feelings.
Thank God that most Americans still have a lot of common sense and wisdom about the things that are happening. They live in the real world. The MSM millionaires do not.
Translation: Real Americans
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:27am.
Translation: Real Americans are still rejecting Barack Obama and the democrat party.
No one in their RIGHT, as opposed to left, mind would buy into the shameful behavour exhibited by the left this week.
Barack_Must_Go.....
The MSM has always viewed
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:34am.
The MSM has always viewed the great unwashed masses as empty vessels and the only thing that these backwater people understand about the world is what the elites tell them. When the Liberal Lords and Ladies go whirling by in their fine carriages and they see us dirty hungry peasants struggling in our fields of toil they feel a great pity for us.
What is truth to a Leftist? Truth is what promotes the Leftist agenda and calms the populace into submissiveness. That's why the Left constantly accuses Right-wing radio, blogs, and FOX News of spreading lies and misinformation. The Liberals have no sense of guilt concerning their missuse of facts because since the masses are not yet educated or mentally evolved enough to know what's good for them it's up to the elites to guide them to a rightful social situation by whatever means is necessary.
I agree with all of your post...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:54pm.
except one thing...You say that the libs feel pity for the unwashed masses...I'm not sure about that. I think they feel disdain more than pity. When one feels pity for someone, there is usually sympathy, kindness and understanding that is forthcoming as a result of this pity. Disdain, on the hand, tends to engender feelings of disgust, revulsion, rejection, and a lack of respect, all of which the left relentlessly directs at the right, or anyone else that they find "unworthy" or who has the temerity to disagree with them.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
you are correct...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:09pm.
Yeah they have no respect or piity for the masses. That is merely their justification for taking away the freedoms of the 'little people'. I phrased it as pity because that's what they think they are feeling as they look down their noses on all the 'undeveloped' lower classes.
Understood...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 4:22pm.
and I agree...It's likely a mix of pity for who they consider the poor, ignorant, unsophisticated, unwashed masses ( as in, "If they just understood and agreed with us, they'd be so much better off..."), and a disdain because the poor unwashed masses just don't seem to "get it".
What these elitist fools never seem to get, is that there are a lot more of us than there are of them...It never seems to cross their narrow little minds that they just might be the ones who have it wrong. Pathetic aren't they?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
The liberal media.....
Submitted by Patriot II on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:35am.
Are SICK LUNATICS......except they are not smart enough to recognize it!!!
Sheriff Dupnik has blamed
Submitted by amram on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:39am.
Sheriff Dupnik has blamed everything and everyone (conservative, that is) except the shooter for the shooting. The shooter's mother is a Pima County manager. It seems to me quite likely that Dupnik and the shooter's mother know each other and are possibly friends. This helps to explain to me why the sheriff has made such unprofessional and inflammatory remarks. Could the sheriff be diverting as much blame as he can away from the shooter and embarassment as he can away from the mother?
Scholastica
amram, as you said, wethinks he doth protest too much
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:05pm.
I think this is going to end badly for the Sheriff.
Perhaps the reason the "contacts were unofficial" with Loughner is exactly as you say. Speculation at this point, but where there's smoke....
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Oh I hope so...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:44pm.
You say that you think this will end badly for Dupnik...I hope so. This man is a shameless, leftist political hack, as his history shows, and has no business in the job that he currently has. He is a complete disgrace, and I would dearly love to see him fired, forced to resign or, assuming he was elected, recalled by the voters.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Blonde
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 1:30pm.
Van had the same thing posted on Moonbattery.com yesterday. My question is who is going to dig through the records of the Pima County Sheriff and look for documentation of the threats this kook made? The MSM is not going to do it because it blows their Tea Pary arguement all to pieces. Will it take somebody like Andrew Breitbart or his staff to do it?
I don't know how big their county is personnel wise but common sense tells you that the sheriff knew the kook's mother. Our county is not that big. I know a lot of folks in county government and I don't work for them.
Perhaps Breitbart
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:08pm.
Or perhaps some young, intrepid journalist who hasn't been corrupted yet.
Time will tell, but it will be a "big" story if and when it breaks. Someone's ticket to fame. So if there is any there, there...I think we'll see it eventually.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Start naming names
Submitted by gwalt on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:45am.
Mr. Bozell,
Start calling these people out by their names in your Stop The Lying Campaign.
It's a lie that the shooter was right-wing inspired. Put Mitchell, Olbermann on your moving trucks and billboards. And for Gods sake, would some Republican please stand up and make some noise? How about House and Senate leaders hold a press conference? Or at least Michael Steele?
So far O'Reilly has been the only one (I've seen anyway) to speak out strongly and accuse the specific people, Krugman and MSNBC's anchors (Matthews) as liars.
"A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan
Where the Hell are the republicans and the "conservatives?"
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:52am.
The communist left declared all-out total war on real Americans three days ago, and the very people who are supposed to be standing up for said Americans are suddenly nowhere to be found.
If the people we elected to stop Obama are too candy-ass chicken-sh*t to stand up to this obvious leftist nonsense, why do we think they are going to stand up against the Comrade Chairman and the imposition of his Marxist/statist freedom and liberty-destroying agenda when it is really going to matter?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
In thinking they are staying
Submitted by Hunter12 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:48pm.
In thinking they are staying above the fray, they come off as a bunch of p_ssies, if I may be so crude. Also, the left and those that believe their spew will take the silence as an acceptance of guilt. GOP, grow a pair and stand up to this. A simple statement delivered by Boehner or Ryan, or any recognized leader: "The politicization of the tragedy in Arizona by uncited individuals on the left is an insult to conservatives everywhere across this great nation. Please stop it now."
Fun fact for Republican politicians: The press is never going to love you. Get over it and get used to it.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
The anger-inducing vitriol comes from the pop-liberals
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:43pm.
The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010 By Michelle Malkin • January 10, 2011 03:19 AMThe Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.
They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.
Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.
And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.
They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.t
Bad = conservative, Good = liberal
Submitted by JakeMo on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:45pm.
"Nearly six in 10 Americans" using their God-given powers of reasoning hardly sounds like a victory. That still leaves 4 in 10 Americans living in a world of delusion created by liberal prestidigitation.
While we look for that one knock out punch that will finally unmask the liberal media for all to see, they continue to incrementally establish a permanent link in the minds of the masses: Bad = conservative, Good = liberal.
Reporting of this event was just one more straw on the back of Reason.
Every day, in every medium, they (sometimes overtly, but more often subtly) cast conservatives next to decay, malevolence and human misery while juxtaposing liberals with visions of love, kindness and joy.
Read the phrases below and fill in the blank to indicate which phrase the MSM would use to describe a conservative and which is associated with liberals:
_____ enjoyed ice cream and smiles from the crowd.
_______ picked his teeth at the table after dining on the meat of a roast pig carcass.
______ relaxes with her family under blue skies.
_______ work tirelessly to provide for the poor.
_________ stewed in a violent rage under gray skies and clouds of doom.
_______ are ignorant of the suffering of others.
While all of us can easily predict who the MSM would cast in these phrases, the casual citizen would never guess. But their minds would catalog the sentiment and over time develop a general impression.
We may think we've pushed the MSM off their narrative for awhile. But trust me, tonight they'll smile in the mirror and congratulate themselves on another job well done.
Arizona's law discriminating against undocumented persons
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:03pm.
contributed to the recent tragedy in Arizona. This important fact comes from the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley.
The Daily Caller reports that "Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said that it was no “coincidence” that Saturday’s tragic shooting of Ariz. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others at a public event in Tucson occurred in a state that recently enacted what he suggested was a discriminatory immigration law."
Chancellor Birgeneau sent an email to the Berkeley campus community that said in part:
------------------------
What liberals like Chancellor Birgeneau are saying is that we can easily stop this violence by not passing or enforcing laws that prevent "undocumented persons", i.e illegal aliens, from crossing the border, and by repressing the hateful speech coming from the right.
Very creative
Submitted by JakeMo on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 7:08pm.
Well, they always say liberal academics are the most 'creative' thinkers. Chancellor Birgeneau fails to disappoint.
In drawing a link between opposition to illegal immigration by one group and a criminal act of violence by an unrelated individual with no proven motive, Birgeneau ignored the far more obvious link: It's no coincidence that this calamity has occurred in an atmosphere where liberals encourage illegal activity and cheer those who insist that the democratically enacted laws of our nation should not apply to them.
Again, not blaming liberals. But if we are going to draw tenuous causal links between attitudes and events, we shouldn't ignore the link that's staring us in the face.
Superb point,
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 7:29pm.
Superb point, JakeMo.
Promoting illegal activity does not engender respect for other laws.
JakeMo......You make an excellent point regarding liberals
Submitted by Rush Fan on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:08am.
only wanting to enforce the laws they agree with. Actually some liberals in positions of power refuse to enforce laws they don't agree with. Take for example liberal Sheriff Dupnik, who in this VIDEO is telling a reporter from KGUN9-TV that he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's new illegal immigration law. I'm almost certain that part of the Sheriff's Oath of Office is to uphold ALL the laws of the State of Arizona.
However, unlike you, I am blaming liberals. Liberals have many character flaws. Among them is a habit of handling the truth recklessly or in layman's terms lying.
I hear you
Submitted by JakeMo on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 1:14am.
Thanks Rush Fan.
But when I said I'm "not blaming liberals" I meant I'm not blaming them for the actions of lone gunman Jared Loughner. His actions are his own.
I do blame liberals for plenty of other stuff though.
Point taken....By the way, let me take this opportunity to wish
Submitted by Rush Fan on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:06am.
you a very Happy New Year!
Basketball Whiz Kid!
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:14pm.
http://www.komonews.com/sports/heroes/111892554.html
Amazing coordination and athleticism, more so in a youngster.
The left and media as Chicken Little
Submitted by crazymountain on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:19pm.
We might as well call the left and the lamestreammedia (one and the same var fctb_tool=null; function FCTB_Init_009a984e083e4c70ba550609f2339c45(t) { fctb_tool=t; start(fctb_tool); } ) Chicken Little as it took them less than two hours to begin their blame game. Instead of sadness and proclimations of support for the victims, Chicken Little dug into its bag of predictable blame-game political moves. Chicken Little has no shame, just venom. What assholes.
hmmmm
Submitted by crazymountain on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:20pm.
var fctb_tool=null; function FCTB_Init_73c611ee43504374bc93cec2cfba4ae2(t) { fctb_tool=t; start(fctb_tool); } That turned out well!
Only 42%?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 6:27pm.
"Only 42% of Democrats in the survey believed that the shootings were a political act,"
Only 42%? That's scary.