Re: POLITICS My Ron 2008 Endorsement

[Guest guest]

>

> HATE mongering? Against whom? Pray tell.

>

> I¹ve already explained how I think that he is dangerous. Dismantling social

> welfare systems and federal taxes, allowing the states to determine the

> legality of issues like abortion will have a disasterous affect on many

> people, mostly poorer ones.

>

> I never claimed that he used the psychology of fear in his article. I said

> that you did.

>

>

>

>> >

>> >

>> > DANGEROUS...huh?

>> >

>> > It is not productive talking in generalities. If you want to list

>> where/when

>> > Ron has said many 'quite dangerous' things, please do so. Or how about

>> > listing ONE kinda dangerous..let alone MANY 'quite dangerous'.

>> >

>> > Otherwise, it's just empty, unsubstantiated hate-mongering.

>> >

>> > Oh, BTW, where did Ron use the psychology of fear in his article? He

>> didn't.

>> > He was being specific in backing up his statements. No half-truths,

>> > innuendo, lies, misinformation, etc. If anything, by exposing the fraud

>> of

>> > the Bush Admin, he was doing the exact opposite. I find it difficult to

>> > believe you experienced fear while reading Ron's words...poor dear.

>> >

>> > And you insist MY post was pointless? lol

>> >

>> > Pamela

>> >

>> > Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> >

>> > wrote: >> >

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>> The Fear Factor

>>>>> >>>> Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear

>>>>> is an

>>>>> >>>> essential component of those who would have us believe we must

>>>> >>> increasingly

>>>>> >>>> rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central

>>>>> government.

>>>>> >>>> Full article here:

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>> http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

>>>>> >>>>

>> >

>> > What point in the discussion is this answering? What he says about the war

>> > is pretty much true, and there are not many in Congress who speak the

>> truth.

>> > On the other hand, what he says about many other things is quite dangerous,

>> > and to imply that one is using the psychology of fear to raise it, is using

>> > that psychology also...

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>> >> I used 'nazi' sarcastically, because obviously it is a gross

>>> >> distortion, as is calling a socialist. A true socialist,

>>> >> or progressive would be horrified.

>> >

>> > Unfornutaley, scarcasm doesn't come through too well in typed

>> > messages.

>> >

>> >

Nor to people to whom is a far left socialist, apparently.

[Guest guest]

> If you consider someone like to be a far leftist sociallist, I¹d

> imagine that you¹d arrest someone like Noam Chomsky. In any case, whether you

> like him or not, to call a far leftist is ludicrous.

>

>> >

>> >

>>> >> None of those things are definitional of Socialism, other than by

>>> >> someone using the term to slander anyone who is slightly

>> > progressive.

>> >

>> > His ideas are collectivist and is pretty open about being far to the

>> > left, so no slander, I deal with facts. His voting record and

>> > introduced bills suggest this quite clearly. Whatever you want to

>> > label him politically, he is FOR destroying individual liberties just

>> > like all the others except Ron , McKinney, and perhaps

>> > Mike Gravel.

>> >

>>> >>

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> If you want to put a label on me I guess you could call me an

>> > anti-

>>>> >>> federalist or a student of classic liberalism. Which I suppose

>> > is the

>>>> >>> complete opposite of a nazi.

>>> >>

>>> >> I used 'nazi' sarcastically, because obviously it is a gross

>> > distortion, as is calling a socialist. A true socialist,

>> > or progressive would be horrified.

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

[Guest guest]

My original post had NO text of my creation..it was all a direct quote from Ron

. So it was impossible for me to provoke anything, let alone fear. Me

using the psychology of fear? lol

I think this discussion is done. I have learned a long time ago not to argue

with the uninformed/unintelligent.

Pamela

Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> HATE mongering? Against whom? Pray tell.

>

> I¹ve already explained how I think that he is dangerous. Dismantling social

> welfare systems and federal taxes, allowing the states to determine the

> legality of issues like abortion will have a disasterous affect on many

> people, mostly poorer ones.

>

> I never claimed that he used the psychology of fear in his article. I said

> that you did.

>

>

>

>> >

>> >

>> > DANGEROUS...huh?

>> >

>> > It is not productive talking in generalities. If you want to list

>> where/when

>> > Ron has said many 'quite dangerous' things, please do so. Or how about

>> > listing ONE kinda dangerous..let alone MANY 'quite dangerous'.

>> >

>> > Otherwise, it's just empty, unsubstantiated hate-mongering.

>> >

>> > Oh, BTW, where did Ron use the psychology of fear in his article? He

>> didn't.

>> > He was being specific in backing up his statements. No half-truths,

>> > innuendo, lies, misinformation, etc. If anything, by exposing the fraud

>> of

>> > the Bush Admin, he was doing the exact opposite. I find it difficult to

>> > believe you experienced fear while reading Ron's words...poor dear.

>> >

>> > And you insist MY post was pointless? lol

>> >

>> > Pamela

>> >

>> > Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> >

>> > wrote: >> >

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>> The Fear Factor

>>>>> >>>> Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear

>>>>> is an

>>>>> >>>> essential component of those who would have us believe we must

>>>> >>> increasingly

>>>>> >>>> rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central

>>>>> government.

>>>>> >>>> Full article here:

>>>>> >>>>

>>>>> >>>> http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

>>>>> >>>>

>> >

>> > What point in the discussion is this answering? What he says about the

war

>> > is pretty much true, and there are not many in Congress who speak the

>> truth.

>> > On the other hand, what he says about many other things is quite

dangerous,

>> > and to imply that one is using the psychology of fear to raise it, is

using

>> > that psychology also...

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

oh, I wish I was smart like you!

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Pamela <calblonde1@...>

> My original post had NO text of my creation..it was all a direct quote from

Ron

> . So it was impossible for me to provoke anything, let alone fear. Me

> using the psychology of fear? lol

>

> I think this discussion is done. I have learned a long time ago not to

argue

> with the uninformed/unintelligent.

>

> Pamela

>

> Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > HATE mongering? Against whom? Pray tell.

> >

> > I¹ve already explained how I think that he is dangerous. Dismantling

social

> > welfare systems and federal taxes, allowing the states to determine the

> > legality of issues like abortion will have a disasterous affect on many

> > people, mostly poorer ones.

> >

> > I never claimed that he used the psychology of fear in his article. I said

> > that you did.

> >

> >

> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > DANGEROUS...huh?

> >> >

> >> > It is not productive talking in generalities. If you want to list

> >> where/when

> >> > Ron has said many 'quite dangerous' things, please do so. Or how

about

> >> > listing ONE kinda dangerous..let alone MANY 'quite dangerous'.

> >> >

> >> > Otherwise, it's just empty, unsubstantiated hate-mongering.

> >> >

> >> > Oh, BTW, where did Ron use the psychology of fear in his article? He

> >> didn't.

> >> > He was being specific in backing up his statements. No half-truths,

> >> > innuendo, lies, misinformation, etc. If anything, by exposing the

fraud

> >> of

> >> > the Bush Admin, he was doing the exact opposite. I find it difficult

to

> >> > believe you experienced fear while reading Ron's words...poor dear.

> >> >

> >> > And you insist MY post was pointless? lol

> >> >

> >> > Pamela

> >> >

> >> > Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

> >> <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> >

> >> > wrote: >> >

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>> The Fear Factor

> >>>>> >>>> Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of

fear

> >>>>> is an

> >>>>> >>>> essential component of those who would have us believe we must

> >>>> >>> increasingly

> >>>>> >>>> rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central

> >>>>> government.

> >>>>> >>>> Full article here:

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>> http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

> >>>>> >>>>

> >> >

> >> > What point in the discussion is this answering? What he says about the

> war

> >> > is pretty much true, and there are not many in Congress who speak the

> >> truth.

> >> > On the other hand, what he says about many other things is quite

> dangerous,

> >> > and to imply that one is using the psychology of fear to raise it, is

> using

> >> > that psychology also...

> >> >

> >> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > HATE mongering? Against whom? Pray tell.

> >

> > I¹ve already explained how I think that he is dangerous.

Dismantling social

> > welfare systems and federal taxes, allowing the states to

determine the

> > legality of issues like abortion will have a disasterous affect

on many

> > people, mostly poorer ones.

> >

> > I never claimed that he used the psychology of fear in his

article. I said

> > that you did.

> >

Ancient, why don't you just embrace your socialist side instead of

denying it? Being opposed to the free-market, taking from one class

to give to another--these are socialist ideas. And taking power

from the states to give to the federal government is somewhat

fascist. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage

controls and other types of economic planning measures. So, when I

suggested you were a socialist with fascist tendencies, I was not

name calling, but rather making an observation.

[Guest guest]

No, you were name calling. One does not call someone a fascist just to make a

simple observation, but one who is disingenuous will insist that she was doing

so.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " maggiemoo567 " <maggiemoo567@...>

>

> >

> > >

> > > HATE mongering? Against whom? Pray tell.

> > >

> > > I¹ve already explained how I think that he is dangerous.

> Dismantling social

> > > welfare systems and federal taxes, allowing the states to

> determine the

> > > legality of issues like abortion will have a disasterous affect

> on many

> > > people, mostly poorer ones.

> > >

> > > I never claimed that he used the psychology of fear in his

> article. I said

> > > that you did.

> > >

>

> Ancient, why don't you just embrace your socialist side instead of

> denying it? Being opposed to the free-market, taking from one class

> to give to another--these are socialist ideas. And taking power

> from the states to give to the federal government is somewhat

> fascist. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage

> controls and other types of economic planning measures. So, when I

> suggested you were a socialist with fascist tendencies, I was not

> name calling, but rather making an observation.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

me too!

implode7@... wrote:

oh, I wish I was smart like you!

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Pamela

> My original post had NO text of my creation..it was all a direct quote from

Ron

> . So it was impossible for me to provoke anything, let alone fear. Me

> using the psychology of fear? lol

>

> I think this discussion is done. I have learned a long time ago not to

argue

> with the uninformed/unintelligent.

>

> Pamela

>

> Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

> >

> > HATE mongering? Against whom? Pray tell.

> >

> > I¹ve already explained how I think that he is dangerous. Dismantling

social

> > welfare systems and federal taxes, allowing the states to determine the

> > legality of issues like abortion will have a disasterous affect on many

> > people, mostly poorer ones.

> >

> > I never claimed that he used the psychology of fear in his article. I said

> > that you did.

> >

> >

> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > DANGEROUS...huh?

> >> >

> >> > It is not productive talking in generalities. If you want to list

> >> where/when

> >> > Ron has said many 'quite dangerous' things, please do so. Or how

about

> >> > listing ONE kinda dangerous..let alone MANY 'quite dangerous'.

> >> >

> >> > Otherwise, it's just empty, unsubstantiated hate-mongering.

> >> >

> >> > Oh, BTW, where did Ron use the psychology of fear in his article? He

> >> didn't.

> >> > He was being specific in backing up his statements. No half-truths,

> >> > innuendo, lies, misinformation, etc. If anything, by exposing the

fraud

> >> of

> >> > the Bush Admin, he was doing the exact opposite. I find it difficult

to

> >> > believe you experienced fear while reading Ron's words...poor dear.

> >> >

> >> > And you insist MY post was pointless? lol

> >> >

> >> > Pamela

> >> >

> >> > Ancient Eyeball Recipe

> >> >

> >> > wrote: >> >

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>> The Fear Factor

> >>>>> >>>> Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of

fear

> >>>>> is an

> >>>>> >>>> essential component of those who would have us believe we must

> >>>> >>> increasingly

> >>>>> >>>> rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central

> >>>>> government.

> >>>>> >>>> Full article here:

> >>>>> >>>>

> >>>>> >>>> http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

> >>>>> >>>>

> >> >

> >> > What point in the discussion is this answering? What he says about the

> war

> >> > is pretty much true, and there are not many in Congress who speak the

> >> truth.

> >> > On the other hand, what he says about many other things is quite

> dangerous,

> >> > and to imply that one is using the psychology of fear to raise it, is

> using

> >> > that psychology also...

> >> >

> >> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > What does it mean to be " actively anti-environmentalism " ?

>

> It WAS on his own website, but I just checked and obviously his

> handlers have had him clean it up quite a bit.

You can use the Wayback Machine to find it:

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php. It would be helpful to have the

actual quote for such a charge.

> So the REAL Ron

> is being hidden to make him more appealing to the general majority of

> voters, I guess.

I find that conjecture hard to believe because the REAL Ron is

easy to discover on the web and via his voting record. I'm not sure

why all of sudden he would think he needs to clean up his website. His

views on the environment have been pretty consistent.

> Cancer rates are skyrocketing, and it's

> not all just poor nutrition, a lot of it is exposure to more toxins

> than the body can eliminate.

Do you have any data you can post regarding this?

> I don't want to watch my kids die of

> cancer because nobody is regulating pollution anymore.

The biggest polluters on the planet have been governments

http://tinyurl.com/22eg4w

--

" It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate,

tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds

of men. "

[Guest guest]

Why, I read it on the internet.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> > > What does it mean to be " actively anti-environmentalism " ?

> >

> > It WAS on his own website, but I just checked and obviously his

> > handlers have had him clean it up quite a bit.

>

> You can use the Wayback Machine to find it:

> http://www.archive.org/web/web.php. It would be helpful to have the

> actual quote for such a charge.

>

> > So the REAL Ron

> > is being hidden to make him more appealing to the general majority of

> > voters, I guess.

>

> I find that conjecture hard to believe because the REAL Ron is

> easy to discover on the web and via his voting record. I'm not sure

> why all of sudden he would think he needs to clean up his website. His

> views on the environment have been pretty consistent.

>

> > Cancer rates are skyrocketing, and it's

> > not all just poor nutrition, a lot of it is exposure to more toxins

> > than the body can eliminate.

>

> Do you have any data you can post regarding this?

>

> > I don't want to watch my kids die of

> > cancer because nobody is regulating pollution anymore.

>

> The biggest polluters on the planet have been governments

>

> http://tinyurl.com/22eg4w

>

>

> --

> " It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate,

> tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds

> of men. "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Maggie,

> Ancient, why don't you just embrace your socialist side instead of

> denying it? Being opposed to the free-market, taking from one class

> to give to another--these are socialist ideas.

Socialism is state ownership of the means of production and

distribution. State controls of the market long predate socialism,

and it is somewhat abusive of terminology to say that someone is a

" socialist " because they support some type of modest redistribution

scheme.

> And taking power

> from the states to give to the federal government is somewhat

> fascist. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage

> controls and other types of economic planning measures. So, when I

> suggested you were a socialist with fascist tendencies, I was not

> name calling, but rather making an observation.

Price controls date back thousands of years, whereas Fascism dates

back around 70. It would make much more sense to call something

fasicst because it embodies particular qualities that are unique to

fascism, rather than because it includes some qualities that fascism

shares in common with many other political systems.

This is probably a good description of what " fascism " means in

contemporary discourse:

=====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that there are, at

present, few self-identified fascists. Since the defeat of the Axis

powers in World War II, the word has become a slur throughout the rest

of the political spectrum; since 1945 it has been extremely uncommon

for political groups to call themselves fascist. In contemporary

political discourse, adherents of some ideologies tend to associate

fascism with their enemies, or define it as embodying the opposite of

their own views.

==========

Chris

[Guest guest]

Lynn,

> That said, I have to say that on the Republican side there's only one

> candidate I could support, and that's Dr . He's a small-L

> libertarian--a common-sense libertarian, not a " sell the park service "

> kind of libertarian.

Actually, while he is a minarchist, he would I believe " sell the park service. "

> He's that rarest of Republicans, or Democrats,

> that really is interested in the common man, not the corporations.

Probably because he is neither. I think he originally came to Congress

as a libertarian, lost his seat, and then realized if he wanted to go

back he would fare better as a member of one of the two parties.

No Corporate Welfare - Ron

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul32.html

> I'm

> registered Democrat, and I call myself a libertarian Democrat:

Sounds like an oxymoron to me :-)

--

" It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate,

tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds

of men. "

[Guest guest]

>> I'm

>> registered Democrat, and I call myself a libertarian Democrat:

>

> Sounds like an oxymoron to me :-)

Not necessarily. I think it's the original slant of the party when

Jefferson founded it.

Lynn S.

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

For feminist homemakers: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

On 7/31/07, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Probably because he is neither. I think he originally came to Congress

> as a libertarian, lost his seat, and then realized if he wanted to go

> back he would fare better as a member of one of the two parties.

He began his career as a Republican:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_#Early_congressional_career

He ran on the Libertarian ticket for president; he has said he won't

run as an independent this year if he loses the nomination.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > Probably because he is neither. I think he originally came to Congress

> > as a libertarian, lost his seat, and then realized if he wanted to go

> > back he would fare better as a member of one of the two parties.

>

> He began his career as a Republican:

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_#Early_congressional_career

>

> He ran on the Libertarian ticket for president; he has said he won't

> run as an independent this year if he loses the nomination.

I will have to check, but I think when he won the special election to

Congress in 1976, he did so as a libertarian, only to lose a few

months in the general election.

--

" It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate,

tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds

of men. "

[Guest guest]

Lynn,

> >> I'm

> >> registered Democrat, and I call myself a libertarian Democrat:

> >

> > Sounds like an oxymoron to me :-)

>

> Not necessarily. I think it's the original slant of the party when

> Jefferson founded it.

Well *that* party no longer exists :-)

On the other hand, the Republicans have returned to their roots in BIG

government :-(

--

" It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate,

tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds

of men. "

[Guest guest]

> > Collectivism = Slavery = Evil

>

> I disagree. I think collectivism is superior to individualism.

> However, I do not see Ron 's stance as being pro-individualism.

> Rather, his stance allows people the liberty to choose to participate

> voluntarily in individualism, collectivism, or, as most people do, an

> amalgamation of both.

I don't think either is superior. I think most people participate in

an amalgamation of both because such is a reflection of their true

nature, and to focus on one over the other leads to gross distortions.

When Christianity states that man is made in God's image, that image

is a reflection of the *triune* God: one and yet many. When two people

marry and become " one flesh " they nonetheless are not swallowed up by

the whole, there are still two distinct persons. Changed and

transformed? Yes. Becoming what they truly are or should be as a

result of that union? Yes - but there personhood is not lost. I might

be " body, soul, and spirit " but I'm still only one . The

philosophical problem of the one and the many is resolved in the

*triune* nature of the *one* Holy God.

--

" It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate,

tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds

of men. "

[Guest guest]

> As a neat woman I used to work with said, " Opinions is like noses,

> everyone has one " .

Okay, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

> I would hope you'd take some time to look into what Dennis Kucinich

> has been doing, since everything I read leaves me more impressed.

While reading about Kucinich is a fine thing, this thread is about Ron

, and my sense is you have spent precious little time learning

what he is about.

> Like his taking an hour of the Senate's time to educate them about

> the confidential documents he's studied that say the US won't pull

> out of Iraq until they sign over the vast majority of their oil to

> the control of foreign investors, yes, 80% of the existing and

> undeveloped oil fields. Wonder who the foreign investors are?

>

> Or how our government is now funding the same groups they used to

> target as terrorists, to get them to destabilize the government of

> Iran, because so far the American public can't get behind another

> invasion over there.

Okay but this is just standard run of the mill stuff for anyone who is

not beholden to either of the political parties.

> Since your guy is much more likely to win than mine, I sure do hope

> you're right!

Why don't you do some research and find out. BTW, Ron is not " my

guy " . I don't think national politics will change much of anything,

although for the things the President directly controls Ron , IMO,

would be a HUGE improvement. And I certainly don't think politics is

the hope of humankind. Personally, I think America is beyond the point

of no return and we are suffering the fate of every other republic has

that has become an empire. So you will never see me get excited about

any politician, especially a national one. Nonetheless I am intrigued

by Ron 's candidacy and may violate my personal rule never to vote

in a national election. After all, I have no interest in encouraging

politicians by my voting.

> The problem I see with endless debate is people's minds become more

> closed as they dig them selves deeper into their " side " . Not really

> enlightening, but then again that's also just an opinion.

You do the research, I'm open to changing my mind. But no, just

because you say something doesn't move me.

Nobody has a corner on the truth, and as far as I am concerned school

is never out, but you got to bring the goods, otherwise you are just

whistling in the wind.

--

" It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate,

tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds

of men. "

[Guest guest]

Ron is the man! he is leading a very strong populace movement.

he is number 2 or 3 in $ generation within the republicans (while

being blackballed by the media).

he was left out of the republican Iowa forum last month. so he had a

gathering at the same convention hall as the forum and out drew the

forum by 40%.

Ron has consistantly won the debates that he has participated

in. he speaks his mind without guard. this is refreshing!

Ron has impeccable integrity and is fully supportive of our right

to choose and live... including choosing our foods and medicine. very

different than all the other candidates.

my guess is that most from this group that would go to his web site

and look at his positions would agree with 90% of what he has to say

and would become supporters of the Ron movement. i went to look

after reading some of these posts and i am fully board the Ron

train. previously i was curious about him.

he's a good man. don't know when the last time i could have said this

about a candidate.

[Guest guest]

Actually, I was somewhat quoting wikipedia who gave a much broader

definition of both words. They said there were many forms of both.

One of the definitions said it (socialism) was the opposite of the

free-market and from what I interpreted (maybe incorrectly?) from

Ancient, he sounded anti free-market. The part about fascism was a

quote from wikipedia. Again, I interpreted that Ancient was for

more federal power, less states' rights.

-- In , " Masterjohn "

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

> Maggie,

>

> > Ancient, why don't you just embrace your socialist side instead

of

> > denying it? Being opposed to the free-market, taking from one

class

> > to give to another--these are socialist ideas.

>

> Socialism is state ownership of the means of production and

> distribution. State controls of the market long predate socialism,

> and it is somewhat abusive of terminology to say that someone is a

> " socialist " because they support some type of modest redistribution

> scheme.

>

> > And taking power

> > from the states to give to the federal government is somewhat

> > fascist. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage

> > controls and other types of economic planning measures. So,

when I

> > suggested you were a socialist with fascist tendencies, I was not

> > name calling, but rather making an observation.

>

> Price controls date back thousands of years, whereas Fascism dates

> back around 70. It would make much more sense to call something

> fasicst because it embodies particular qualities that are unique to

> fascism, rather than because it includes some qualities that

fascism

> shares in common with many other political systems.

>

> This is probably a good description of what " fascism " means in

> contemporary discourse:

>

> =====

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

>

> Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that there are, at

> present, few self-identified fascists. Since the defeat of the Axis

> powers in World War II, the word has become a slur throughout the

rest

> of the political spectrum; since 1945 it has been extremely

uncommon

> for political groups to call themselves fascist. In contemporary

> political discourse, adherents of some ideologies tend to associate

> fascism with their enemies, or define it as embodying the opposite

of

> their own views.

> ==========

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

> Wikipedia

>

> ³Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass

> movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate

> to the needs of the state²

>

> I have never said or implied anything of the kind, and, believe that your

> intention was simply to attack me.

>

>> >

>> >

>> > Actually, I was somewhat quoting wikipedia who gave a much broader

>> > definition of both words. They said there were many forms of both.

>> > One of the definitions said it (socialism) was the opposite of the

>> > free-market and from what I interpreted (maybe incorrectly?) from

>> > Ancient, he sounded anti free-market. The part about fascism was a

>> > quote from wikipedia. Again, I interpreted that Ancient was for

>> > more federal power, less states' rights.

>> >

>> > -- In

>> > <mailto: %40> , " Masterjohn "

>> > <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>>> >>

>>> >> Maggie,

>>> >>

>>>> >>> Ancient, why don't you just embrace your socialist side instead

>> > of

>>>> >>> denying it? Being opposed to the free-market, taking from one

>> > class

>>>> >>> to give to another--these are socialist ideas.

>>> >>

>>> >> Socialism is state ownership of the means of production and

>>> >> distribution. State controls of the market long predate socialism,

>>> >> and it is somewhat abusive of terminology to say that someone is a

>>> >> " socialist " because they support some type of modest redistribution

>>> >> scheme.

>>> >>

>>>> >>> And taking power

>>>> >>> from the states to give to the federal government is somewhat

>>>> >>> fascist. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage

>>>> >>> controls and other types of economic planning measures. So,

>> > when I

>>>> >>> suggested you were a socialist with fascist tendencies, I was not

>>>> >>> name calling, but rather making an observation.

>>> >>

>>> >> Price controls date back thousands of years, whereas Fascism dates

>>> >> back around 70. It would make much more sense to call something

>>> >> fasicst because it embodies particular qualities that are unique to

>>> >> fascism, rather than because it includes some qualities that

>> > fascism

>>> >> shares in common with many other political systems.

>>> >>

>>> >> This is probably a good description of what " fascism " means in

>>> >> contemporary discourse:

>>> >>

>>> >> =====

>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

>>> >>

>>> >> Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that there are, at

>>> >> present, few self-identified fascists. Since the defeat of the Axis

>>> >> powers in World War II, the word has become a slur throughout the

>> > rest

>>> >> of the political spectrum; since 1945 it has been extremely

>> > uncommon

>>> >> for political groups to call themselves fascist. In contemporary

>>> >> political discourse, adherents of some ideologies tend to associate

>>> >> fascism with their enemies, or define it as embodying the opposite

>> > of

>>> >> their own views.

>>> >> ==========

>>> >>

>>> >> Chris

>>> >>

>> >

>> >

>> >

>

[Guest guest]

I truly apologize to Gene (Ancient). I really was not intending to

attack you or bad-mouth you. I really interpreted your statements

as I indicated.

> >>> >>

> >>> >> Maggie,

> >>> >>

> >>>> >>> Ancient, why don't you just embrace your socialist side

instead

> >> > of

> >>>> >>> denying it? Being opposed to the free-market, taking

from one

> >> > class

> >>>> >>> to give to another--these are socialist ideas.

> >>> >>

> >>> >> Socialism is state ownership of the means of production and

> >>> >> distribution. State controls of the market long predate

socialism,

> >>> >> and it is somewhat abusive of terminology to say that

someone is a

> >>> >> " socialist " because they support some type of modest

redistribution

> >>> >> scheme.

> >>> >>

> >>>> >>> And taking power

> >>>> >>> from the states to give to the federal government is

somewhat

> >>>> >>> fascist. Fascist governments introduced price controls,

wage

> >>>> >>> controls and other types of economic planning measures.

So,

> >> > when I

> >>>> >>> suggested you were a socialist with fascist tendencies, I

was not

> >>>> >>> name calling, but rather making an observation.

> >>> >>

> >>> >> Price controls date back thousands of years, whereas

Fascism dates

> >>> >> back around 70. It would make much more sense to call

something

> >>> >> fasicst because it embodies particular qualities that are

unique to

> >>> >> fascism, rather than because it includes some qualities that

> >> > fascism

> >>> >> shares in common with many other political systems.

> >>> >>

> >>> >> This is probably a good description of what " fascism " means

in

> >>> >> contemporary discourse:

> >>> >>

> >>> >> =====

> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

> >>> >>

> >>> >> Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that there are,

at

> >>> >> present, few self-identified fascists. Since the defeat of

the Axis

> >>> >> powers in World War II, the word has become a slur

throughout the

> >> > rest

> >>> >> of the political spectrum; since 1945 it has been extremely

> >> > uncommon

> >>> >> for political groups to call themselves fascist. In

contemporary

> >>> >> political discourse, adherents of some ideologies tend to

associate

> >>> >> fascism with their enemies, or define it as embodying the

opposite

> >> > of

> >>> >> their own views.

> >>> >> ==========

> >>> >>

> >>> >> Chris

> >>> >>

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > I have never said or implied anything of the kind, and, believe

> >that your intention was simply to attack me.

So I have a question for you Ancient?

Would you volunteer to be chipped with an RFID device?

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Marc " <wmupton@...>

> > > I have never said or implied anything of the kind, and, believe

> > >that your intention was simply to attack me.

>

> So I have a question for you Ancient?

>

> Would you volunteer to be chipped with an RFID device?

>

>

Have you ever owned a cat or dog that, in your opinion, communicated with

extraterrestrials?