The Party of Brownshirts

[Rufus_1611]

Relevance?

They've been rendered irrelevant and have nothing to do with the German Brownshirts of 1933 and the US NeoCons of today. History would've been very different had JFK, JFK Jr. and RFK not been assassinated but the Kennedy family was not as strong as the forces that took them out.

 

[carpro]

They've been rendered irrelevant and have nothing to do with the German Brownshirts of 1933 and the US NeoCons of today. History would've been very different had JFK, JFK Jr. and RFK not been assassinated but the Kennedy family was not as strong as the forces that took them out.

Your hate for Bush has overpowered you abilities to think logically.

Since Bush is a Nazi because his grandfather had financial dealings with the Nazis(according to you), it just naturally follows that Edward Kennedy is a Jew hating Nazi lover like his father was.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Your hate for Bush has overpowered you abilities to think logically.

Since Bush is a Nazi because his grandfather had financial dealings with the Nazis(according to you), it just naturally follows that Edward Kennedy is a Jew hating Nazi lover like his father was.

Again, it has nothing to do with emotion, it just is what it is.

 

[tinytim]

Is your point palindromes are fun?

No my point is, you are letting your hate for bush to allow you to think illogically... forward or backward...

Guilt by association is not guilt...
Prove Bush is a Nazi.

By the way I love palindrones... my favorite is racecar!

 

[Rufus_1611]

No my point is, you are letting your hate for bush to allow you to think illogically... forward or backward...

Guilt by association is not guilt...
Prove Bush is a Nazi.

By the way I love palindrones... my favorite is racecar!

I am not sure how to respond to individuals who think they understand my emotions. Am I to respond to your and Carpros comments by saying your love for Bush is allowing you to think illogically? I did not hate Bush and then figure this stuff out. I don't hate him now for I would prefer he would repent of his wickedness. I was a neocon supporter, voted for Bush, I was Carpro-light. It's not the person that caused me to believe him to be a worker of iniquity but the fruits of the person that can not be denied, though often is.

I can not prove to you that Bush is a Nazi anymore than you can prove that he isn't. History, in a Matthew 10:26 sort of way, will prove what he was. If you would like to learn about it in your lifetime, start with WTC-7.

 

[carpro]

Again, it has nothing to do with emotion, it just is what it is.

And what it is is pure conjecture motivated by ...love, maybe?

 

[James_Newman]

How about motivated by a desire to preserve freedom? A love for the constitution? But it is easier to ascribe hate to any opinions contrary to our own.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Or motivated by reckless hysteria.

 

[carpro]

How about motivated by a desire to preserve freedom?

In that case, he should stick with the facts and not half baked notions that are so only because he desperately wants them to be so.

Comparisons of Bush with Hitler have been rampant with Bush haters for years and there is no truth in them, just hate.

 

[Rooselk]

While I am very critical of the President and his administration I, too, think any comparison to the Nazis and Hitler is over the top. To compare any American politician to Hitler shows a gross ignorance to the horror and evil that the Nazis inflicted upon the world. Frankly, we heard enough of this kind of vile garbage from Republicans during the Clinton years, when Christians like Jerry Falwell were (falsely) accusing the President of everything from murder to drug running. Christians are called to be "salt and light" and to uphold the truth. Engaging in hyperbole and the spreading of baseless rumors and slander is none of these things.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

While I am very critical of the President and his administration I, too, think any comparison to the Nazis and Hitler is over the top. To compare any American politician to Hitler shows a gross ignorance to the horror and evil that the Nazis inflicted upon the world. Frankly, we heard enough of this kind of vile garbage from Republicans during the Clinton years, when Christians like Jerry Falwell were (falsely) accusing the President of everything from murder to drug running. Christians are called to be "salt and light" and to uphold the truth. Engaging in hyperbole and the spreading of baseless rumors and slander is none of these things.

These Bushites have a very short memory. It seems that the things they did to Clinton somehow don't apply now, since it is a Republican in the White House. It is nothing except pure hypocrisy.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Hopefully there will never be another regime that will compare to the Nazi Regime but I do think that those who wish to have a grasp of a long standing power that there are components of Nazism that are appealing and usefull in application. Some of the psychological aspects of Nazism such as propaganda campaigns and mass control of the populace through the use of fear mongering are used in the Bush Administration.

 

[poncho]

While I am very critical of the President and his administration I, too, think any comparison to the Nazis and Hitler is over the top. To compare any American politician to Hitler shows a gross ignorance to the horror and evil that the Nazis inflicted upon the world. Frankly, we heard enough of this kind of vile garbage from Republicans during the Clinton years, when Christians like Jerry Falwell were (falsely) accusing the President of everything from murder to drug running. Christians are called to be "salt and light" and to uphold the truth. Engaging in hyperbole and the spreading of baseless rumors and slander is none of these things.

How can a person uphold the truth and hide from it at the same time? Doesn't one first have to know the (whole) truth before he can uphold it? It's precisely because of that horror and evil that Hitler and the Nazi's inflicted upon the world that we should all educate ourselves in the devices and mechanisms tyrannts like he and his minions used to seduce whole populations including Christians into going along with their evil plans and deeds. The German people cheered Hitler on and ridiculed anyone that questioned the "great leader" calling them names like pacifists and traitors. I imagine there were some that even claimed that to question and/or disagree with him was to hate him too.

Couple present day examples

Comparisons of Bush with Hitler have been rampant with Bush haters for years and there is no truth in them, just hate.

Your hate for Bush has overpowered you abilities to think logically.

Or motivated by reckless hysteria.

This is a form of trying to enforce you're will on another isn't it? If so then it's brownshirting or redneck intimidation, sometimes I get confused which is which, in sales it's known as a "shame close" because you are attempting to "shame" the prospect into buying you're particular product or 'brand'. It's just a cheap play on emotions really, lawyers use it all the time too. Outward projection of the ongoing conditioning process we are all subjected to 24/7. some of us recognise it for what it is and resist it others embrase it because it feels good, gives them a sense of shared power and glory with "the leader" the party, ideology whatever, but anyway, Hitler and his propaganda meisters conditioned people to think just like our friends here through a number of means that can be studied, learned and used by anyone today with great affect including American politicians.

If we fail or are unwilling to make such comparisons and remain ignorant of those devices and how people are (easily) unknowingly conditioned and manipulated then how are we supposed to defend ourselves, family and country from them?

Hopefully there will never be another regime that will compare to the Nazi Regime but I do think that those who wish to have a grasp of a long standing power that there are components of Nazism that are appealing and usefull in application. Some of the psychological aspects of Nazism such as propaganda campaigns and mass control of the populace through the use of fear mongering are used in the Bush Administration.

Right in other words if we stick our heads in the sand deep enough and far enough for long enough that when we do finally come up for air we'll be begging for another "great leader" to come along and "save us" from the (fill in the blank) evildoers. We already know Bush thinks his job would be alot easier if America was a dictatorship and he was the dictator, his words. How many events seperate an executive decidership from a dictatorship? One, two, three?

 

[Rooselk]

I do not disagree that this administration has employed deception to accomplish its policies even as it has villified and questioned the patriotism of its critics. I would also agree that this administration has a tendency toward an authoritarianism that has shown little regard for our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would even go so far as to say that there are elements within the larger conservative movement that share many of the attributes of classical fascism. Nonetheless, I would still argue that President Bush and his administration are neither "brownshirts" nor fascists.

The neoconservative movement that you mention is a distinct segment of American conservatism and it's roots lie not in Nazism, but in Trotskyism. It needs to be understood that many of the founders of the neo-conservative movement were originally a part of the American left of the 1940's and 50's, specifially the Trotskyist movement. As strange as it may sound, the roots of neo-conservative political theory are actually to be found in the theories of former-Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky. In the 1920's Trotsky formulated his theory of Permanent Revolution which was in essence the following:

Trotsky's idea of the permanent revolution said that in order for a socialist revolution to survive in a single nation, it must be closely followed by revolutions in other neighboring countries. He believed that the road to socialism must be an international effort by many nations and if this coalition did not occur, socialism could never truly prosper because counter-revolutionary efforts would become too strong. Hence permanent, in that all the nations of the world must undergo a revolution within a close proximity of one another until a complete international union of socialism occurs.

Trotskyism from its inception was a movement against stalinism. Over a period of decades a segment of this movement, made up of left wing intellectuals and radicals, took a long journey to the right. Being bitter opponents of communism they were not without influence along the way. During the 1950's and 60's they were hardened cold war liberals who differed with liberals over the the issue of the Vietnam war and other foriegn policy issues. With the election of Ronald Reagan they made their final break with the Democratic party. But they never completely abandoned Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, instead adapting it to their changing ideological views.

Trotsky's adapted theory of Permanent Revolution can be found today in the neo-conservative construct for the Middle East, which was namely that if we remove Saddam from power the Iraqi people would create a democratic society which would serve as a beacon of hope for oppressed Arabs throughout the Middle East. With a democratic Iraq serving as an example and a staging ground for revolutionary movements, the Arab peoples would overthrow corrupt regimes and tyrants throughout the Middle East who would then align themselves with Iraq (and thus the United States). In this utopian scheme peace and democracy would come to the Middle East, thus assuring both security for Israel and US access to a dependable oil supply from friendly governments. Of course as we've seen this theory hasn't exactly panned out as promised.

I do not believe that President Bush was originally a big believer in these nutty neo-conservative political theories. Frankly, I think his motivation with regard to Iraq had more to do with pure politics, oil, and revenge coupled with legitimate security concerns. Even so, I am convinced that following the events of 9/11 there was a convergence of oil, politics, and neo-conservative pipe dreams that made the war in Iraq possible.

The resignation of Donald Rumfield was probably the final nail in the coffin of the neo-conservatives (other leading neo-cons have previously left the administration). And just as in the administration of Bush's father, the realists are now coming to prominence in the current adminstration. We can only hope that this new blood will find a way to make a purse out of a sows ear in Iraq and that some of the damage to our nation's reputation can be undone.

The Bush administration is all but done and their credibility severely tarnished, as current polls show. The neoconservative movement is likewise spent and their influence diminished. The task now is not to worry about the emergence of a non-existant movement of brownshirts, but to get to work picking up the wreckage and cleaning up the messes this administration have made.

 

[JDale]

As convenient as it might be to blame Clinton for all the ills of the world, you might want to do a little research about those Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. While Waco did indeed take place a few months after Clinton was sworn into office for the first time, the Ruby Ridge incident took place on August 21, 1992, while the first President Bush was still in office.

As to Koresh and his followers, sorry, but I have no sympathy with those who fire upon and kill federal agents who were serving a lawful warrant.

They could have served the warrant while Koresh jogged outside the compound ANY day -- what the FEDS did, they did to make a point -- to provide an example of what happens to those who would resist them. At least -- that was true in the Clinton (and Bush Sr.?) era.

JDale

 

[poncho]

Raise the level of discourse with people that consistantly deny whats blatantly going on right in front of their faces??? This is far from conclusive.

Only because you refuse to look at the mountain of evidence under your nose.

As we have seen you have a penchant for seeing things that are not actually there, and then pretending they are blatant.

There ya go thinking you speak for everyone again.:laugh:

As "we" have also seen you base your conclusions on half the evidence.

But be that is may, you raise the discourse by refusing to stoop to emotionally laden arguments in hopes of winning points.

No winning points implies we're playing a game. You may be but I am not. I'm trying to give people information the conglomerated media and self proclaimed "thinking people" hide and ignore.

I am being very real. I think your experience here has shown us that you are the one who is too often refusing to be real. And it is pretty well documented.

What's documented is that I am not afraid to face the truth and call it like I see it. That's being real. Trying to make a case on half the available evidence can only render a contorted conclusion not based in reality, therefore it's unreal.

I refuse to grant the premise. You pretend like your premise is true and then argue from it. But you have not proven that.

I have proven it many times over. You are just steadfast in refusing to see the world and history as it really is.

I think there is certainly some of this demonstrated here. Some, such as you, want power so badly in the hands of your friends, that you will say or do whatever to try to create enough fear to bring it about.

Uh, wake up PL you're dreaming again I'm Poncho not George Bush.

I reject that approach. I believe truth and integrity is more important than that.

Is that why you always resort to subterfuge and stealthy insults instead of debating the facts and evidence?

And if you have any understanding of history, you will never associate what is going on now with the Brownshirts unless you are intentionally dishonest.

I'm not the one deluding myself here by basing all my opinions on half the evidence. History plainly shows tyranny is the norm and "leaders" use the threat of terror to usurp power that does not rightfully belong to them.

It just isn't the same. What happened in the 30s and 40s in Germany was vastly different than what is happening now.

What's happening is the begining of a North American dictatorship. The "legal" infrastructure is now in place. All it would take is another staged event to bring about the weeping and nashing of teeth. You'll remember I said this when it happens...promise.

You can tell that just by looking at the values of the Neo-Nazi groups and seeing how much they do not like what is going on now. So this is clear. You just refuse to see it because it is easier to lvie in your little hole.

You really have knack for getting personal and blaming the other guy for it. Actually I expect this from a person who is unable to debate all the evidence point by point. It's really really boring too, it's like trying to talk to half a brick wall. Think I'm gonna just ignore you from now on.

 

[JDale]

What's happening is the begining of a North American dictatorship. The "legal" infrastructure is now in place. All it would take is another staged event to bring about the weeping and nashing of teeth. You'll remember I said this when it happens...promise.

You know, I almost agree with this portion of your statement. That you would blame this on GW Bush, though, makes you 180 degrees WRONG.

Oh, no question we are moving toward a "North American dictatorship." It's FAR more likely that it will be under the regime of one Hillary Rodham Clinton though.

First, you must understand that Republicans have as a party niether the guts nor the convictions to enforce such rule on the people. The "Democrats" (Liberals, Stalinists, Leftwing Fascists, whatever) on the other hand, have the statist philosophy, the elitist mentality and with Congress, the platform to make a dictatorship happen. And, if their guy gets in, they'll do it.

Some excellent examples of what Democrat control portends: (1) the movement toward gun control in the aftermath of Va. Tech (2) the movement away from engaging the "new media" aka Talk Radio, Fox News and other alternative media forums -- a new Dem Pres would bring back the "fairness doctrine," and regulate/tax the internet, websites, and even churches and ministries who stand up on moral issues (3) Surrender and retreatr from the coming Islamofascist onslaught (4) the rape of our military -- as happened under Clinton in the 1990's (5) economic socialism as health care becomes state run, as taxes skyrocket, as the deficit skyrockets, and as price controls and market restrictions multiply (6) Eventually, the declaration that NO form of voting machine is trustworthy, and thus, voting has outgrown its usefulness...

That last one was ALMOST tongue in cheek -- but not quite. Of course, I'd never make it past the imposition of #1, as I'd be in prison or dead at that point.

JDale

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It's FAR more likely that it will be under the regime of one Hillary Rodham Clinton though.

It is not "likely" at all.



http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27232

 

[Pastor Larry]

Only because you refuse to look at the mountain of evidence under your nose.

Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the evidence does not indicate what you think it does? Your slanted and prejudiced view does not bode well for objective evaluations.

There ya go thinking you speak for everyone again

Not at all.

As "we" have also seen you base your conclusions on half the evidence.

Not at all. I don't really draw conclusions about this because we simply do not know. As a whole, your interpretation is so far fetched, I wonder if even you take it seriously.

I'm trying to give people information the conglomerated media and self proclaimed "thinking people" hide and ignore.

But you are doing a bad job of evaluating that information. You are not giving it all. You are giving only the part that helps your position.

What's documented is that I am not afraid to face the truth and call it like I see it. That's being real.

Calling it "like you see it" is a far cry from "calling it as it is." I don't think you recognize that distinction.

Trying to make a case on half the available evidence can only render a contorted conclusion not based in reality, therefore it's unreal.

I agree totally. Can you not see that this is exactly what you are doing?

I have proven it many times over.

No you haven't, not here anyway.

You are just steadfast in refusing to see the world and history as it really is.

You know better.

Uh, wake up PL you're dreaming again I'm Poncho not George Bush.

I wonder sometimes. I have never seen you and him at the same time.

Is that why you always resort to subterfuge and stealthy insults instead of debating the facts and evidence?

I have never done that, much less "always." I am willing to debate facts. I am not always willing to engage in arguments about farcical interpretations of evidence.

I'm not the one deluding myself here by basing all my opinions on half the evidence.

I think you have proven this wrong.

History plainly shows tyranny is the norm and "leaders" use the threat of terror to usurp power that does not rightfully belong to them.

I agree with that. But that is not what is happening now.

What's happening is the begining of a North American dictatorship. The "legal" infrastructure is now in place. All it would take is another staged event to bring about the weeping and nashing of teeth. You'll remember I said this when it happens...promise.

I doubt it. I don't even remember what the last thing you said was.

You really have knack for getting personal and blaming the other guy for it.

I haven't gotten personal at all, certainly not to the level you have. I am not blaming you for anything. I am simply pointing out that you are following a very far fetched interpretation of the evidence, and pointing out that anyone who thinks that what is going on now is anything like Nazism is ignorant of history.

Actually I expect this from a person who is unable to debate all the evidence point by point.

It's not that I am unable to debate the evidence. It is that you rarely actually address the evidence. You referenced some document as a plan to give up America's sovereignty. I actually went and read the document (from your link as I recall) and it said nothing of the kind. You were simply dead wrong. There was nothing to debate.

Think I'm gonna just ignore you from now on.

It will fit right in with your pattern of ignoring everything that does not agree with your preconceived position.

 

[Rooselk]

It is not "likely" at all.

I agree. It's not the Clintons who called for wiretaps without warrants, indefinite detention without charges, defended the use of torture, or believed in a "unitary executive" which claims that the President is entitled to the powers of a king. And it is certainly not the Clintons who would attempt to break down the separation of church and state, which is a doctrine that Baptists traditionally upheld until recent decades.