Friday, August 7, 2009

Nazis and environmentalism.


(Pawing off of others' good work, with a little spin of my own.) I found this interesting article linked from Rush Limaugh.com. It states how the Nazis used environmentalism to gain control over Germany.
"It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current 'green' movement, as we know, is no exception...Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform, sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun; usually a subtle mixture of the two. It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit."

"Once Hitler consolidated his position and that of his party, the true face of Nazism had to be masked somewhat to appease the people who generally desired an age of peace instead of another disastrous World War...But in order to realise his grand scheme, it can be credited to the cunning of the dictator that he realised he could not submit the German people by terror alone...As Hitler reasoned, lots of trees and wide-open spaces would take the minds of his subjects off the war he was preparing and the liberties they had lost along the way."

"In the 2005 published book _How Green were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich_ the authors explain the Nazis received a warm welcome by the existing environmental organisations as there was 'an ideological overlap between Nazi ideas and conservationist agendas'...But the hardcore environmentalists who had found their champion in the person of Adolf Hitler were soon to be disappointed. By the end of the 1930s, with a World War imminent, Hitler abandoned most of the environmental pretexts he had used to trick the masses, hook, line and sinker, replacing it with a war-ethos of sacrifice for the greater good and 'lebensraum'."

"It will not be necessary to further point out the many similarities to our own time, where any and every environmental 'good intention' is hijacked by the elite for the advancement of its own objectives. It is true; most environmentalists love collectivism and are prepared to marry almost every regime that claims to work for a clean and green environment. That makes this group extremely susceptible to the arguments of tyrants."

It is not so hard to believe Patrick Moore when he stated that the environmental movement has been hijacked by communist and socialist. Another good illustration on how communism is creeping into America though the EM. History is just repeating itself. Hopefully, this is nothing mind blowing or hard to comprehend for people, especially when looking back on history.

26 comments:

  1. There are a lot of ways now to get tax credits through using environmentally friendly assisting machines such as AC units, cars, furnaces, etc. So basically, through an indirect way, the government is making it mandatory to buy these environmentally friendly and sometimes inconvenient things. I think technology will either slow down or take a step back from this. Instead of great thinking scientists trying to invent the next machine to transport deeper in space, they will try to invent the most insulative window. Better start conserving your oil for the oil lamps.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Correction: environmentally friendly life assisting machines

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess they are also diverting scientific development away from other areas by forcing this technology on us.

    There are some good things that will come out of being more energy efficient, but it needs to come about by the free market and not by government mandate. If there were a market for this stuff, it would have already been made. They are draining the economy by promoting inefficient technology.

    As with equality, they are using the EM to promote their own cause and as a smoke screen to implement their agenda. They have to wrap their cause up in the garb of justice and freedom and all of the values that most people hold. They claim to be promoting the very same values they are destroying. Smart.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know, it's fascinating. Admiration of nature was a strong theme of the German Nazi party and the Wagnerian German romanticism that predated it. The Nazi government investigated sustainable forestry, and were at the forefront of conservationism, with Nazi Germany having some of the first legally protected wilderness reserves. During their rise to power, the Nazis were supported by German environmentalists and conservationists, but environmental issues were pushed aside in the build-up to WWII.

    Of course, you have to remember the philosophies involved. Environmentalism, vegetarianism, and animal rights are directly connected to the Nazi's use of Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of biology, eugenics, and social Darwinism.

    Their concept of racial hygiene was suppose to cleanse the human genetic stock, just like ecology cleans the environment. All of these concepts are related, emphasising the importance of nature, and man's duty to behave as steward.

    Now, if you really want to compare political parties to the Nazi's, the rest of the philosophies won't be found on the Democratic side of the aisle. Do you really want to go there? Because I'll be happy to start listing some fascinating comparisons.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that both political parties have some similarities to communism/socialism/Nazism, but the left is a lot closer to these ideologies than the right is. The current right in this country is not truly conservative. It is well known that the left supports and promotes big government. Government growing too big and gaining too much power leads to tyranny due to human nature. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." History shows that a big government leads to tyranny. By tyrannies' very nature, it is on the left. True conservatism promotes the individual over the collective and values individuals more that the left. Look at America and all the good things it has done for the world. No need to explain.

    The left plays to our nature human desire to despise and ignore reality. Conservatism is mean and horrible and hard because it makes one face reality. The left makes us feel good by talking about providing health care for all and creating some nice utopia. But how the left goes about it by going through and using the government, leads to tyranny. To have these warm and fuzzy things, people need to be willing to provide it for themselves--they need to be self sustaining, a productive person can only provide for so many non productive members of society before both types are destroyed--you tie the productive to the destructive ways of the non productive/reality deniers. A free, productive society with out government interference will naturally take care of the people who are not able to provide for themselves. It is not conductive to human life to force productive people to be slaves to the needy or "less fortunate" that won't work and provide for themselves by allowing these parasites to leach off of everybody else. Why should you be a slave to a needy person by having to spend a portion of your life through work to provide for these people? A big government can use this excuse to gain power for itself. Just about everything Obama wants to do will lead to our country being put in the control of government. Where are there any good examples of a benign, loving, and caring government providing for people and not becoming a tyrannical gov? I think you only look at what these big government people's intentions are. You don't examine what their policies will lead to. We live in a real world, reality can not be denied--to do so leads to death. I say let America remain a free nation. To try to change this, as Obama wants to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY , is to go against human life. Why do we need to change the America? Is America such a horrible country? Think, change from a free country to what? Something other than a free nation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let me take a wild guess and say that you've read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. Well, if you take a closer look at that book, you'll note that he defines "fascism" as "whatever I disagree with." Not real scholarly work there.

    If you actually read history, you'll note that fascism comes invariably from the right. This current effort on the parts of fatuous fat-heads like Limbaugh and Beck is blatant historical revisionism.

    It is well known that the left supports and promotes big government.

    See, now you're falling into the fallacy of "common wisdom." The Right loves to make that statement, as if it was even remotely true. Hell, even World Net Daily figured it out (although they weren't willing to go farther back than Bush v. Clinton).

    Or to put it in simple terms, during the last 50 years, who cut government the most, and who built it up the most?

    Well, you probably guessed that Reagan cut the most. Unfortunately for your theory, though, then we get Clinton, Carter (yup, sorry), and LBJ. All Democrats. Trailing the pack, we get Nixon, George Bush, and finally George W. Bush. So it would appear that, except for Reagan, it's the Right who love big government.

    It's kind of cool to deal in facts instead of talking points, isn't it? (Oh, wait. That's the name of your blog... hmmm...)

    Look at America and all the good things it has done for the world. No need to explain.

    Oh, absolutely. At the risk you getting all ad hominem on me again, let me just mention a few of the wonderful things America has done. Like invading Iraq on false pretenses, or Vietnam, or supporting dictators in South America.

    I mean, yeah, America has done some great things for other countries. Thanks to WalMart, we've built up the economy of China so much that they now own us. (Literally.) Thanks to us, the various Middle Eastern countries are so astoundingly wealthy that our own government ignores the fact that much of the Islamic terrorism seems to have an odd affinity for Saudi Arabia.

    Then you get this long paragraph+ of lovely, unsupported statements. I could go into the fact that you have one view of human nature ("A free, productive society with out government interference will naturally take care of the people who are not able to provide for themselves") seems to be in direct opposition to your other view of human nature ("Government growing too big and gaining too much power leads to tyranny due to human nature"). Are you saying that if you get a lot of power as a corporation, you become benevolent, but if you do it as a government, you become evil? You know that makes no sense, right?

    When you look around the world to see corporations that have grown without government interference, you tend to find sweat shops.

    Where are there any good examples of a benign, loving, and caring government providing for people and not becoming a tyrannical gov?

    I've lived in Germany for 15 years of my life. Damned nice country. The people are free. And they have universal health care.

    (Before you swing into knee-jerk, right-wing "Europe sucks!" talk, make sure you get your facts straight. And I'd like to emphasize "facts," not GOP talking points or "common wisdom.")

    Is America such a horrible country?

    No. Absolutely not. But the GOP would sure like to make it one.

    Think, change from a free country to what? Something other than a free nation.

    Look at those sentences for a second. Just as you wrote them. Somewhere between the phrases "circular logic" and "redundant", you'll probably find the truth.

    Why are you trying to extrapolate "universal health care," which every other industrialized nation offers, into "complete takeover of every aspect of our lives"? (I mean, other than your myopic political agenda, that is.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with you that under Bush the government did grow a lot. You are correct there. The right has supported big government; but, as a whole, this has happened under the left to a greater extent than it has under the right. I don't claim to be a staunch, blind supporter of the left or right.

    I have only read the last chapter in the book as of now.

    Your statement about human nature is off base. The government has power. This corrupts people. A free people will not have this power. There will always be those who will take care of the weak, if they are not taxed to death and have money to help with.

    These corporations gain a lot of power especially monopolistic powers due to government interference in the market and by preventing capital accumulation through taxes of the potential entrepreneurs. Read _the constitution of Liberty_ chap 21 to see this or the whole book. In a truly free market there can be no monopolies, for long, only when the government prevents competition or it creates laws that favours big corporations and hamper competition can they exist. Read the book if you care. I would trust a "Big Corporation" with power as opposed to the government. The "Big Corporations" has to answer to the market, unless the conditions exist above, nor does a BC have the exclusive power of government--the power of the gun. A BC can coerce, but only with Gov help and not with the same amount of power. My statement about Gov getting too much power is backed by historical facts. Your desire to have a benign Gov prevents you from seeing this. You are correct that the economies of the world are being built up. There is a active attempt by the Gov to take Wal Mart over through the card check bill. The Gov helps to create a monopoly, then it takes it over. So maybe when the Gov takes it over it will become a benign, loving corporation. Sweat shops, BCS seek cheap labor because of the high labor cost and taxes imposed on them by the Gov here in America. These sweat shop workers, what are their alternatives to working in a sweat shop? Probably a lot worse in that country. Not good, I agree, but compared to the alternatives, not that bad. Wal Mart saves the average consumer 3100 dollars a year regardless of where they shop.

    Universal health care will give the gov a lot of power to regulate our lives. It is a big step into loosing our freedom.

    America is not perfect. I can not answer you anti-American mentality. It is disgusting. America just saved the world during two WWs. We buy foreign oil because the left does not want America to drill for our own oil. With these statements, you are blaming other nations' evil on America. American deserved to be attacked, right? If you have your way, American can become a average country like everyone else.

    Circular reasoning? If something is free and you want to change it, would that not be changing to something other than freedom. He wants to change the foundation of America--freedom. Please show me how this is circular reasoning

    ReplyDelete
  8. Health care is only one area, big one, of where the Government is trying to assume economic functions once carried out by the free market.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let me introduce you to a couple of concepts. From history, the term is "robber barons." And from modern day, the term is "sweat shops." Look them up. Consider that this is what happens when government doesn't put limits on overreaching corporations.

    I can not answer you anti-American mentality. It is disgusting.

    Yup. There it is. I told you it was coming. The standard answer from a small mind with no answers. "America can't make no mistakes!! Not never! And if it did, I'm gonna pretend it didn't happen!! Because America can't make no mistakes!!"

    Pathetic.

    How much time did you spend in the military, you unamerican loser? I gave half my life to this country - I think I've earned the chance to point out when they're fucking up.

    America just saved the world during two WWs.

    Wow. You sure can collapse history when you want to. Sixty years ago, none of us was alive. (My dad was, if it helps.) What have you done for me lately?

    If something is free and you want to change it, would that not be changing to something other than freedom.

    Very black-and-white of you. No shades of gray in your myopic little world at all, are there?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Its so discussting that you liberals are so quick to bash your country when we try to speak of how great it is. We say that America has done great things and whats the immediate thing you do? Bash your homeland and state how wrong it is. You don't even try, not for one bit, to justify any good in it. You know what? Leave it then. Then you'll really have something to bitch about since your favorite hobby is obviously whining. Once again, femanine psyche. I know we've done some wrong things. Who hasn't? I don't agree with the majority of wrong things we have done. But what about single handidly destroying the Japs?(ask the Koreans if they hate the Americans for the A bomb) What about slaughtering thousands of terrorists? What about Martin Luther King Jr and being the most racially equal country in the world? What about Michael Phelps? See, there is good here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So your solution to making our country good, is giving all the power to a select few and hoping they will be the best to judge? Because when you reach the goal of your political path, there will be no rights.

    I can't believe Nameless Cynic stooped to the low of actually calling someone a loser. Ha! Fucking National Guard. Serving sloppy joes at the chow hall in Kuwait doesn't amount to shit.

    Give me chow! I'm fuelin some birds!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I do respect your service though. Lets not get out of hand. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Let me introduce you to a couple of concepts. From history, the term is "robber barons." And from modern day, the term is "sweat shops." Look them up. Consider that this is what happens when government doesn't put limits on overreaching corporations."

    I just stated how this mostly happens because of government involvement, and you counter with this intelligent statement. I know, capitalism and corporations are bad. Where did you get this ideal. From the government? This is what they want you to believe. You, like a perfect mindless zombie, accept this notion from the government, all the while they are the very ones that are doing the very things they want you to believe that corporations and capitalist are doing. Evil lenders caused the mortgage crisis, right? Your blind emotional hatred for capitalism and America prevents you from thinking or seeing facts. I don't know what leads one to think like this.

    I said America was not a perfect country. You say America is, in part, a bad country because it set up and supported dictatorships; but when America frees a people from the rule of a bad dictatorship, IRAQ, it is still a bad country. Nothing America does is good in your eyes. America sends a lot of food and other aid to poor countries. America under Bush spent a lot of money to fight aids. America has created a lot technology and increased the standard of living for the rest of the world.Without America, the world would be engulfed in a tyrannical rule. America has the best health care in the world, as shown by the fact that people come here from other countries to get the best medical care. You did 21 years in the military and you have not noticed or experienced the good that America has done to the world? These facts don't matter to you.
    Un-American loser? There is no need to resort to name calling. What America did you serve? The communist one? A lot of men gave their lives to fight the very same thing that you want established in this country. From what you have said on these blogs, you are a disgrace to anyone who have given their life to the cause of freedom. I was not around for the WWs, but I did do a very small part in the war on terrorism. You said you did 21 years in the military. You were probably one of the guys that were afraid to get out on their own and liked the government taking care of you--I can understand, really. You have a right to be who you are, I wont say what that is.
    Black and white corresponds to good and evil or the good and the bad, right? You must know these two extremes in order to know where the middle, or gray, is right? If you know what is right and wrong, why choose a mixture of the two. Sometimes this is necessary in dealing with people--on certain issues, Freedom and fundamental liberties not included-- in this imperfect world. If you don't know what fundamentally, interesting meaning in the dictionary, changing America means, then you are just incapable of thinking. What was, maybe still is, America fundamentally? A free nation. What other base was he referring to? In Obama's own word, he want to fundamentally transform America. O, but yes I forgot America is really a mean and evil and racist nation founded by a bunch of dumb white men. Well, Obama is here to save the day and make America just and moral and fair and nice and provide parental loving kindness to all of its subjects. Enjoy it. It is your time in the sun. The change you want is here and coming. I hope you still like it within the next decade.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Talking to you is a waste of time. Thinking and reasoning is not automatic. It takes effort, so people like you who don't think or reason, you use your emotions, can not be persuaded by reasoning or logic or facts. When they contradict your world view, you ignore them. Keep on hating America and thanks for being one of the dumb masses who are helping to destroy freedom, all while they think they are fighting for freedom, like in 1984. You are a perfect example. I though 1984 was an over dramatization. You just made me a believer. Just like the people in the first five mins of the movie. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5464625623984168940 Let me know when you want to start thinking and overcome your deep hatred for America and capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ToeJamm: Wait a minute? Did you just say that America did something wrong?

    You unamerican bastard!

    Grow up and get a clue, both of you. Nothing in the world is either entirely good, or entirely evil; that's the mindset of a child. Adults can see those shades of grey I mentioned.

    Because guess what? It's possible to love your country and still see that there are things wrong with it.

    Like the frothing cloud of lemmings who believes that Glenn Beck is telling them the truth, and isn't a shameless promoter of only one thing - Glenn Beck.

    Like the inbred morons willing to believe things like the senseless and illogical tripe you're pushing: healthcare will kill us; not polluting is the same as killing Jews; fighting lies and smears is the start of fascism.

    I know that there's good in America - that's why I didn't retire in Germany. But I also know that you and your three friends aren't part of anything good. You're allying yourself with an unthinking mob of gullible and potentially dangerous idiots, willing to believe anything negative about their President because, for an entirely-too-large percentage of them, the thought that a black man was elected to the highest office in the land (and might therefore be better than they are) is too much to bear.

    Or worse, you might actually believe this garbage. Which would mean that you either don't have, or refuse to use, the simple gift of logical thought.

    Either way, it's sad.

    (Oh, and a thought for the future. When you're trying to list the good things about America, you probably shouldn't include the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Because he was assassinated. By an American.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow. JFK was shot by a marine, am I evil for it? Martin Luther King Jr was a good AMERICAN. You just said that I admitted that America did something wrong and then said that its possible to love your country and see something wrong with it(obviously implying that I don't). Contradiction?

    But these are the pointless debates that I don't want to get tangled up in. We need to discuss fundemental ideals on political philosophy. So I ask you, the coward who wants to remain nameless and is cynical of everything, what do you want from your government? I honestly am under the impression that you want the government to be in full control of your life. Please tell me how you think? I seriously would like to hear from a liberal and I will try not to use any bias in my evaluation of your response(no matter how much you think I will). There has to be logic in your brain somewhere, but I can't see it. And don't respond with insults, because that would be avoiding my question.

    ReplyDelete
  17. When did anyone say anything about a black man? I'm color blind, I thought Obama was from the middle east? I guess I thought that because I judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character(as does everyone on RTP's).

    ReplyDelete
  18. LBJ shrank the government? You got a reference for that? And your fearless leader is poised to dwarf all his predecessors in this area. FDR?

    Yes, as everyone here at RTP knows, government has grown continually since FDR's terms. This doesn't make most Conservatives happy and is one of the reasons GW Bush got such low approval ratings: Conservatives were pissed off at him for not reining in spending. But during Reagan's, Clinton's, and GWB's tenures, government as a percentage of GDP shrank. So, though government grew, it shrank in terms of the overall economy. No, we're not happy that government grew.

    The fact is that Democrats support government solution to problems generally, Republicans support removing government from the problem to let it heal itself generally. Neither way is perfect. One is better than the other.

    I'm not sure that I'm totally on board with Jeff's topic above. Not everything the National Socialist government in Germany dictated to their people was bad. Volkswagen? National Parks? I'm not opposed to those things. It's possible for a Socialist government to get some things right. And if Obama does get his health care plan through, I'd bet that preventative care for the poorest of Americans will actually improve. Even his disaster of a proposal (admittedly, we don't even know for sure what it all is yet) will end up doing some good. Just 'cause a Socialist culture/economy does something, doesn't mean it's automatically evil. Just 'cause a Capitalist culture/economy does something doesn't mean it's automatically good. Nameless Cynic's offhand remark about robber barons is a dark side of Capitalism that we all learned about in high school, and points out that government shouldn't be completely removed from the process. And certainly there are many socialist aspects to our econonmy that predate Obama, some I approve of, most I don't.

    But, it's the clear overall track record of successes and failures in comparing those two forms of economies that show that one (Capitalism) is without a doubt superior to the other (Socialism) in terms of improving the lives of its citizens.

    Nameless Cynic, the mass slaughters that were committed by Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia in the 20th century were all committed by Socialist/Communist governments. Denying that fact is no different than denying the sun rises in the east. We've read a lot of books and know about fascism. We don't need you lecturing us. 'Mussolini made the trains run on time.' The fact that Mussolini did that is an example of Socialism in Fascist Italy too. America doesn't need her government to make the trains run on time. In fact, when the government tries to make the trains run on time (Amtrak), they quit running on time. That entire comment post above by you is just silly.

    I may have to start Moderating, because your whithering analyses and biting bumper sticker quotes are just too much to bear. Or rather because we don't have time for your silly remarks. Make them on your own blog.

    Be reasonable and don't try to impress us with your service, 'cause we've all been there but don't feel the need to throw it in our opponents' faces. Seems only libs like you and Kos feel the need to do that. We do respect your service, regardless of branch or MOS, but no we don't care what either were or when you served.

    Be reasonable and I won't moderate. Be silly as you did above and I will. Only we Contributors get to be silly. It's our blog.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ToeJamm:
    JFK was shot by a marine, am I evil for it?

    Did I say you were? See, if you'd made it through high school, you'd know that type of fallacy comes from confusing cause and effect (it's also a hasty generalization, but that's probably too much information to be throwing at you all at once).

    Martin Luther King Jr was a good AMERICAN .

    Actually, there were allegations he was a communist (this seems to be the first attack of the conservative mind, but still...) How do you feel about that? Would it change your opinion any?

    You just said that I admitted that America did something wrong and then said that its possible to love your country and see something wrong with it(obviously implying that I don't). Contradiction?

    Actually, if you read it again, you'll see that I was pointing out the contradiction between your description of me ("...whats the immediate thing you do? Bash your homeland and state how wrong it is. You don't even try, not for one bit, to justify any good in it. You know what? Leave it then."), followed by your statement. You are all about jumping to conclusions, aren't you?

    you, the coward who wants to remain nameless and is cynical of everything

    And yet you've already been to my blog at least twice. Your reading comprehension isn't real high, is it?

    what do you want from your government? I honestly am under the impression that you want the government to be in full control of your life.

    No. But I believe that universal healthcare will be beneficial for the country. For reasons I've already stated, and for those that I'll be dropping in my next post. You are also a big fan of generalizing from a single point, aren't you? You should work on that.

    the coward...
    ...cynical of everything...
    (ok, it's true, but that's not how you mean it)
    There has to be logic in your brain somewhere, but I can't see it...

    And don't respond with insults, because that would be avoiding my question
    .

    I'm going to have to assume that was a joke, but it just seems too subtle for what I've seen from you.

    When did anyone say anything about a black man? ...I thought Obama was from the middle east?

    And now you show your ignorance again. Obama is from Hawaii. He also happens to be of mixed white/Kenyan descent. But that's OK. I'm starting to expect this kind of thing from you.

    (I'm not forgetting about you, Bud-D - I'm just on a break at work. I'll answer your more reasonable response later today. All things in their time.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is a need for government limited oversight. I like parks. My whole point was to show how the EM was taken over by the Nazis and used as a means to implement their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Now, if your point was to show how Socialists twist Environmentalism to push their agendas, then I'd be totally on board. Witness the Spotted Owl fraud that decimated the NW timber industry and the current Global Warming fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The fact is that Democrats support government solution to problems generally, Republicans support removing government from the problem to let it heal itself generally. Neither way is perfect. One is better than the other.

    Well, oddly, it hasn't worked out that way.

    Now, LBJ did, in fact, build up the Departments of Education, and Health and Human Services, and, in fact, created HUD. On the other hand, he cut the budget of 1 out of every 4 government agencies, and spent less in real dollars than his Republican counterparts.

    I know, you're all cranky that he spent money on his "Great Society," a bunch of touchy-feely programs, but then Nixon came along and tripled the budget of HUD, and just to be complete, doubled the EPA's budget as well.

    Incidentally, let's see if you can spot the humor in the following statement:

    Even his disaster of a proposal (admittedly, we don't even know for sure what it all is yet)...

    Not that you're a little premature on that "disaster" call or anything.

    the mass slaughters that were committed by Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia in the 20th century were all committed by Socialist/Communist governments.

    Absolutely. Nobody's arguing that. This might very well qualify as a strawman argument.

    Let's put it this way. Every other industrialized nation offers universal health care. Are you saying that every other industrialized nation is therefore socialist? Really? All of them? Even Japan?

    And if they aren't, why are you insisting that America will suddenly metamorphose into some kind of strange socialist state if we offer to give the odd homeless guy a band-aid once in a while?

    That would be where your argument falls down. You make this stunning logical leap from universal health care to a complete and total alteration of the entire fabric of society. Are you serious? Do you really believe that will happen?

    I may have to start Moderating

    Certainly your right. Most conservative blogs do. (I've always wondered how they justify claiming respect for the First Amendment at that point... yeah, I know, another silly statement...)

    I like to think I'm quite reasonable. I'm not the one claiming "death panels" and the like. Glance back up a few inches, and tell me why I brought up my military service. I'll give you a hint - scroll up a little more and look for the phrase "anti-American." It's the standard first response of the right-winger with no answers - question his opponent's patriotism.

    Be silly as you did above

    I can only assume that you're unhappy that I suggested that the mob you're allying yourself with might be something less than a group of patriots?

    Well, feel free to explain to me why a randomly shouting mob is a good thing; or why death threats to Congressmen is the sign of someone who supports the Constitution; or why you're in favor of people walking into Holocaust museums (or churches, for the love of God!) just to shoot people for supporting a different political agenda.

    Because that is the GOP right now. And since you're parroting their lies and fantasies, I can only assume that you support it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I see no numbers to support your LBJ claim. Just spouting things you feel like is OK, I certainly do it, but I'm not going to take you seriously about that particular point. And I'm pretty tired of the Trolling.

    Little nitpicky misdirectional silliness (ie bringing up the Holocaust Museum shooting). I'm not impressed and I'm not interested in carrying this on further. Consider yourself moderated. Go have fun on your own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ah. You wanted wonky numbers - you need to be a little more specific about these things.

    (Not that I expect this to get posted, but we'll see)

    While the national debt increased an average $40 million in each of Lyndon Johnson's terms, if you take that as a percentage of GDP (and accepting the partial first term that he shared with JFK as being "his"), he reduced the debt/GDP by an average of 8.25% during each term (which is slightly better than Eisenhower managed as an average over his two full terms). Is that what you're looking for, or were you after something more like what I originally posted?)

    (In fact, overall from 1978-2005 - which cuts out Bush's disasterous 2nd term - under Democratic presidents, Federal spending increased 9.9%, the Federal debt increased 4.3% and GDP increased 12.6%. But under Republican presidents, Federal spending increased 12.1%, the Federal debt increased a staggering 36.4%, and GDP only increased 10.7%. So please explain how you claim that Republicans are better stewards of the American economy?)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Good charts. Yes, I should have read the AEI link, though that chart certainly didn't exonerate LBJ. But, the Wikipedia chart does back up your statements regarding the different presidents and the debt/GDP ratios. I stand corrected regarding my debt/GDP claims.

    In response to that I'd say that Clinton only looks good because the Republican controlled Congress forced the discipline (reforming welfare, shooting down Hillarycare) that would have made his numbers worse, though certainly the booming economy in Clinton's years would have made things look good no matter what.

    And though Carter looks good in these charts, double digit inflation and double digit unemployment belies any claim of good stewardship of the economy. The real "worst economy since the Great Depression" was the Carter Recession, and you Nameless Cynic, know that!

    Reagan doesn't look good because he did the drastic measures required to break Carter's stagflation: cutting taxes to jump start the economy (but which also dug us deep into debt for the time) and dampening the automatic cost of living increases that kept inflation from ever abating. But, Reagan broke the US economy out of the socialistic tendencies that had dominated since FDR and that Carter had been powerless to control. Thatcher accomplished the same thing at the same time in Britain (and was up against stronger opposition too).

    GWB had a tougher situation what with the economy beginning to drop at the end of the Clinton administration, and then 9/11. Despite that, the economy did relatively well until the end of his reign, and of course the main driver of its downfall was the Subprime Loan fiasco for which the Democratically-controlled Congress, including your fearless leader, were largely responsible.

    But, yes, as I've said above, Bush's low poll numbers were particularly low because of his lack of ability to control spending, pissing off Republicans as much as Democrats, and Republicans were punished for it in 2006 & 2008.

    Unfortunately, America traded in bad for worse in replacing Bush with Obama. NC, we'll see what those charts you referenced look like in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I notice I contradict myself in the second paragraph of my last response. Clinton would have looked good regardless of the controls the Republican Congress put on him, but those controls made him look better than he would have been if left to his own impulses.

    ReplyDelete