Comments on: Joel Mowbray On Foreign “Observers” http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/ Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Expatlse http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1291 Expatlse Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:59:17 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1291 Here is more from 2002: By Ken Guggenheim / Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Despite President Bush's tough line on Cuba, support for trade sanctions is crumbling in Congress, with anti-Castro activists struggling to preserve an embargo that has lasted more than 40 years. "We're working hard and we know the odds are against us. It's like David vs. Goliath," said Cuban-born Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. The House in late July approved proposals by two Republican lawmakers that, while leaving the embargo in place, would effectively ease travel and trade restrictions. The Senate is considering similar changes. House Majority Leader Dick Armey recently said that the United States needs access to Cuban markets. If economic sanctions continue for another year, he said, "it will be the last year they last." His comments dealt a blow to pro-embargo lawmakers who were counting on Armey to use his office to derail efforts to weaken the sanctions. "I think because he is an economics professor, he should know better than to pump money into a failed, totalitarian regime," Ros-Lehtinen said. Armey, who is retiring from Congress this year, once chaired the University of North Texas' economics department. If the changes get through Congress, pro-embargo lawmakers have a big ally in Bush, who has threatened a veto. Bush has had strong support from anti-Castro Cubans in Florida and his brother Jeb is seeking re-election there as governor. But a veto would have consequences beyond Cuba. The proposals to ease the embargo are part of a Treasury and Postal spending bill. A veto would affect billions of dollars of unrelated programs. "We know we're asking the president for a lot," Ros-Lehtinen said. The embargo is intended to force democratic changes on Fidel Castro's communist island. It prohibits most business dealings with Cuba and limits travel to certain categories of visitors, including relatives of Cubans, researchers and working journalists. For many years, liberal Democrats were practically the only opponents of the embargo, considering it ineffective and too harsh on Cuban citizens. But after the Cold War, with Cuba seen as less of a threat to the United States, some conservative lawmakers became uneasy about government-imposed travel restrictions. And farm state Republicans saw Cuba as a potentially lucrative market for agricultural products. Congress loosened the embargo in 2000 to allow the sale of agricultural products on a cash-only basis. Cuba has since become the United States' 54th largest agricultural export market, importing products from 30 states, said John Kavulich of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. "The issue of Cuba has shifted from being one of politics to being one of commerce, has shifted from being conservative vs. liberal and has shifted from Democrat vs. Republican," Kavulich said. Pro-embargo lawmakers can no longer count on the rock-solid Republican support they once had. "The coalition of the traditional leftists, big business and farm states is a difficult coalition," said Steve Vermillion, an aide to Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. Last year, the House voted to prohibit the Treasury Department, which oversees the embargo, from enforcing the travel ban for a year. The provision, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., was dropped in the name of national unity after the Sept. 11 attacks. But it was included in the 2003 Treasury spending bill approved last month. Another Flake proposal approved by the House would lift the $1,200 a year cap on what Cuban Americans can send to relatives in Cuba. And a provision by Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., would allow U.S. private financing of food and medicine sales. Wayne Smith, a former U.S. diplomat and longtime embargo opponent, said lawmakers recognize that the embargo has failed. "It's not rational. It doesn't serve its purpose," he said. Even if these provisions are approved, their effect is uncertain. Kavulich said that most travel to Cuba still would be illegal -- only Treasury wouldn't be allowed in 2003 to penalize travelers who violate the ban. Here is more from 2002:
By Ken Guggenheim / Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush’s tough line on Cuba, support for trade sanctions is crumbling in Congress, with anti-Castro activists struggling to preserve an embargo that has lasted more than 40 years.
“We’re working hard and we know the odds are against us. It’s like David vs. Goliath,” said Cuban-born Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
The House in late July approved proposals by two Republican lawmakers that, while leaving the embargo in place, would effectively ease travel and trade restrictions. The Senate is considering similar changes.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey recently said that the United States needs access to Cuban markets. If economic sanctions continue for another year, he said, “it will be the last year they last.”
His comments dealt a blow to pro-embargo lawmakers who were counting on Armey to use his office to derail efforts to weaken the sanctions.
“I think because he is an economics professor, he should know better than to pump money into a failed, totalitarian regime,” Ros-Lehtinen said. Armey, who is retiring from Congress this year, once chaired the University of North Texas’ economics department.
If the changes get through Congress, pro-embargo lawmakers have a big ally in Bush, who has threatened a veto. Bush has had strong support from anti-Castro Cubans in Florida and his brother Jeb is seeking re-election there as governor.
But a veto would have consequences beyond Cuba. The proposals to ease the embargo are part of a Treasury and Postal spending bill. A veto would affect billions of dollars of unrelated programs.
“We know we’re asking the president for a lot,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
The embargo is intended to force democratic changes on Fidel Castro’s communist island. It prohibits most business dealings with Cuba and limits travel to certain categories of visitors, including relatives of Cubans, researchers and working journalists.
For many years, liberal Democrats were practically the only opponents of the embargo, considering it ineffective and too harsh on Cuban citizens. But after the Cold War, with Cuba seen as less of a threat to the United States, some conservative lawmakers became uneasy about government-imposed travel restrictions. And farm state Republicans saw Cuba as a potentially lucrative market for agricultural products.
Congress loosened the embargo in 2000 to allow the sale of agricultural products on a cash-only basis. Cuba has since become the United States’ 54th largest agricultural export market, importing products from 30 states, said John Kavulich of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council.
“The issue of Cuba has shifted from being one of politics to being one of commerce, has shifted from being conservative vs. liberal and has shifted from Democrat vs. Republican,” Kavulich said.
Pro-embargo lawmakers can no longer count on the rock-solid Republican support they once had.
“The coalition of the traditional leftists, big business and farm states is a difficult coalition,” said Steve Vermillion, an aide to Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.
Last year, the House voted to prohibit the Treasury Department, which oversees the embargo, from enforcing the travel ban for a year. The provision, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., was dropped in the name of national unity after the Sept. 11 attacks. But it was included in the 2003 Treasury spending bill approved last month.
Another Flake proposal approved by the House would lift the $1,200 a year cap on what Cuban Americans can send to relatives in Cuba. And a provision by Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., would allow U.S. private financing of food and medicine sales.
Wayne Smith, a former U.S. diplomat and longtime embargo opponent, said lawmakers recognize that the embargo has failed.
“It’s not rational. It doesn’t serve its purpose,” he said.
Even if these provisions are approved, their effect is uncertain. Kavulich said that most travel to Cuba still would be illegal — only Treasury wouldn’t be allowed in 2003 to penalize travelers who violate the ban.

]]> By: Expatlse http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1290 Expatlse Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:54:25 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1290 I did a little looking around, and found that it isn't just some Dems that want to ease sanctions against Cuba (not that that means supporting Castro--on the contrary, the intention would be to help the people and keep a steady flow of American ideals). However, I included Delay's words of criticism for fairness: July 24, 2000 Web posted at: 9:21 AM EDT (1321 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House's third-ranking Republican said Sunday that he is ashamed of his colleagues for voting to ease the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba and its "ruthless, murdering dictator," Fidel Castro. Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas believes Castro would use the food and medicines to increase repression in Cuba. Two House amendments, both sponsored by Republicans, that were approved last week would ease sanctions in place for almost four decades against the communist-ruled island. The amendments would restore virtually unlimited travel to Cuba as well as allowing export of food and medicine to Cuba. They were included in legislation to finance the Treasury Department in the next fiscal year. . . . The House vote was 301-116 to allow sales of food and medicine to Cuba. Voting "yes" were 119 Republicans, 180 Democrats and two independents. Opposed were 93 Republicans and 23 Democrats. The provision's sponsor was Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. The travel vote was 232-186, with support from 60 Republicans, 171 Democrats and one independents. Voting "no" were 153 Republicans, 32 Democrats and one independent. DeLay said Democrats provided the important support, even though Republicans Moran and Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina sponsored the two amendments. "Overwhelmingly, the majority of the Republicans voted against this," DeLay said. "All those that believe in appeasement and have sympathy toward Fidel Castro come from the Democrat side." "This is a ruthless, murdering dictator in Cuba, and all the food will go through him," DeLay said. "He'll use that food and medicine as a tool to continue to oppress his people." On ABC's "This Week," White House chief of staff John Podesta welcomed the legislation as long as its benefits go to the Cuban people and not Castro's government. Generally, the Clinton administration has not supported tourist travel to Cuba for fear the influx of money would boost Castro. "We want to try to work with Congress to see if we can implement that policy of creating ... more people-to-people contacts, which the travel amendment goes to, and to provide food and medicine to the people of Cuba," Podesta said. He cautioned, "We want to do it in a way that doesn't support the Castro government. So I think we can work something out." I did a little looking around, and found that it isn’t just some Dems that want to ease sanctions against Cuba (not that that means supporting Castro–on the contrary, the intention would be to help the people and keep a steady flow of American ideals). However, I included Delay’s words of criticism for fairness:

July 24, 2000
Web posted at: 9:21 AM EDT (1321 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House’s third-ranking Republican said Sunday that he is ashamed of his colleagues for voting to ease the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba and its “ruthless, murdering dictator,” Fidel Castro.

Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas believes Castro would use the food and medicines to increase repression in Cuba.

Two House amendments, both sponsored by Republicans, that were approved last week would ease sanctions in place for almost four decades against the communist-ruled island.

The amendments would restore virtually unlimited travel to Cuba as well as allowing export of food and medicine to Cuba. They were included in legislation to finance the Treasury Department in the next fiscal year.

. . .

The House vote was 301-116 to allow sales of food and medicine to Cuba. Voting “yes” were 119 Republicans, 180 Democrats and two independents. Opposed were 93 Republicans and 23 Democrats. The provision’s sponsor was Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.

The travel vote was 232-186, with support from 60 Republicans, 171 Democrats and one independents. Voting “no” were 153 Republicans, 32 Democrats and one independent.

DeLay said Democrats provided the important support, even though Republicans Moran and Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina sponsored the two amendments.

“Overwhelmingly, the majority of the Republicans voted against this,” DeLay said. “All those that believe in appeasement and have sympathy toward Fidel Castro come from the Democrat side.”

“This is a ruthless, murdering dictator in Cuba, and all the food will go through him,” DeLay said. “He’ll use that food and medicine as a tool to continue to oppress his people.”

On ABC’s “This Week,” White House chief of staff John Podesta welcomed the legislation as long as its benefits go to the Cuban people and not Castro’s government. Generally, the Clinton administration has not supported tourist travel to Cuba for fear the influx of money would boost Castro.

“We want to try to work with Congress to see if we can implement that policy of creating … more people-to-people contacts, which the travel amendment goes to, and to provide food and medicine to the people of Cuba,” Podesta said.

He cautioned, “We want to do it in a way that doesn’t support the Castro government. So I think we can work something out.”

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1286 SCSIwuzzy Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:50:06 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1286 Calm down, Beavis :) Myabe she just meant that she recognizes that she has a different background than you, in all likelyhood. I don't think she was saying her argument was more valid as a result. You're reading into it a bit. Take a deep breathe... it is only a blogg. A damn fine blogg. But a blogg. However, since it has been brought up, what is your background, 5thsister? Calm down, Beavis :)

Myabe she just meant that she recognizes that she has a different background than you, in all likelyhood. I don’t think she was saying her argument was more valid as a result. You’re reading into it a bit. Take a deep breathe… it is only a blogg. A damn fine blogg. But a blogg.

However, since it has been brought up, what is your background, 5thsister?

]]> By: FilthyCommie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1263 FilthyCommie Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:48:09 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1263 'capatilism to remain so long as it is owned by party members ' Do you have proof of this? Of course you dont. Hitler knew he needed big companies on his side, and so he went about doing this. Indoctrinated party members were very rarely just given ownership of a company, just as Indoctrinated party members were rarely given high ranking army positions. I really dont think you understand economic politics too well. Regardless, Nazi Germany was not socialist. Facism is compatible with any beliefs, i never denied this. Facism is extreme nationalism fuelled by hatred and racial bigotry, and for arguments sake it COULD be practised by 'leftists.' What im saying is, it wasnt. Hitler and Mussolini (when in power) were both right wing. 'Fascism and socialism are like a hand in glove.' How ridiculous. Non of the Fascist countries, Spain, Italy or Germany practised Socialism. They ALL practised self contained Capitalism. The quote from Mussolini, what does that prove? He praises putting the state first - so what? Meaningless. 'Are there any facsist states that do not or did not claim to be socialist or to have socialist ideals?' Many hard line Communist countries CLAIMED to be democratic? Does this make it true? Of course not. Facism had no 'ideals of socialism. As a Socialist i think i can argue this point pretty well, as you clearly dont know the 'ideals' socialism is laid on. A crucial principle of Socialism is the turned of private property into public property, which didnt happen under Fascism. If thats your best argument, then i feel sorry for you. :) 'It may be fun to read but it will lead to no good in the far run.' Sure. I think ive sufficiently proved my point, trash talker. 'I may see some of this diffently than you based on background. ' What the hell is that supposed to mean? Firstly, you know nothing about my 'background' and second, why does yours entitle you to have a more valid argument on the subject? ‘capatilism to remain so long as it is owned by party members ‘

Do you have proof of this? Of course you dont. Hitler knew he needed big companies on his side, and so he went about doing this. Indoctrinated party members were very rarely just given ownership of a company, just as Indoctrinated party members were rarely given high ranking army positions. I really dont think you understand economic politics too well. Regardless, Nazi Germany was not socialist.

Facism is compatible with any beliefs, i never denied this. Facism is extreme nationalism fuelled by hatred and racial bigotry, and for arguments sake it COULD be practised by ‘leftists.’ What im saying is, it wasnt. Hitler and Mussolini (when in power) were both right wing.

‘Fascism and socialism are like a hand in glove.’

How ridiculous. Non of the Fascist countries, Spain, Italy or Germany practised Socialism. They ALL practised self contained Capitalism. The quote from Mussolini, what does that prove? He praises putting the state first – so what? Meaningless.

‘Are there any facsist states that do not or did not claim to be socialist or to have socialist ideals?’

Many hard line Communist countries CLAIMED to be democratic? Does this make it true? Of course not. Facism had no ‘ideals of socialism. As a Socialist i think i can argue this point pretty well, as you clearly dont know the ‘ideals’ socialism is laid on. A crucial principle of Socialism is the turned of private property into public property, which didnt happen under Fascism. If thats your best argument, then i feel sorry for you. :)

‘It may be fun to read but it will lead to no good in the far run.’

Sure. I think ive sufficiently proved my point, trash talker.

‘I may see some of this diffently than you based on background. ‘

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Firstly, you know nothing about my ‘background’ and second, why does yours entitle you to have a more valid argument on the subject?

]]> By: 5thSister http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1249 5thSister Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:16:37 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1249 Flithy, I wouldn't say you've proved anything. Allowing some private enterprise and capatilism to remain so long as it is owned by party members who do as they are told while nationalizing others is harldy proof that Hitler was not a socialist. You haven't shown how fascism as you've defined it is not compatable with being a leftist. Mussolini dissilusioned with solcialisms lack of progress and succes as a movement moved on to creat fascism. in his own words: "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State...." How is this incompatible with socialism? Fascism and socialism are like a hand in glove. Are there any facsist states that do not or did not claim to be socialist or to have socialist ideals? Aside from Mussolini's Italy which clearly had socialist elements but by gaining power by denouncing socialist agitators, could hardly put socialism in their like the Nazi's or Soviets did. My point however was that SCSI should stop leading you down the path and setting you up. It may be fun to read but it will lead to no good in the far run. I may see some of this diffently than you based on background. Flithy,
I wouldn’t say you’ve proved anything. Allowing some private enterprise and capatilism to remain so long as it is owned by party members who do as they are told while nationalizing others is harldy proof that Hitler was not a socialist. You haven’t shown how fascism as you’ve defined it is not compatable with being a leftist.
Mussolini dissilusioned with solcialisms lack of progress and succes as a movement moved on to creat fascism. in his own words:
“The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….”
How is this incompatible with socialism? Fascism and socialism are like a hand in glove. Are there any facsist states that do not or did not claim to be socialist or to have socialist ideals? Aside from Mussolini’s Italy which clearly had socialist elements but by gaining power by denouncing socialist agitators, could hardly put socialism in their like the Nazi’s or Soviets did.

My point however was that SCSI should stop leading you down the path and setting you up. It may be fun to read but it will lead to no good in the far run.
I may see some of this diffently than you based on background.

]]> By: FilthyCommie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1247 FilthyCommie Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:24:01 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1247 5thSister..... Stop talking smack without making any point. It does get old. Ive noted my beliefs, and proven Hitler and Mussolini were not leftists. 5thSister…..

Stop talking smack without making any point. It does get old. Ive noted my beliefs, and proven Hitler and Mussolini were not leftists.

]]> By: 5thSister http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1245 5thSister Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:06:54 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1245 SCSI... Stop playing rope - a - dope with the lefty. SCSI…
Stop playing rope – a – dope with the lefty.

]]> By: FilthyCommie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1242 FilthyCommie Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:18:59 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1242 Note: I correct myself on Saddam, i meant to say autocratic. i think allying him with Western liberal thinking is like allying Hitler with Modern right wing conservative thinking. Note: I correct myself on Saddam, i meant to say autocratic. i think allying him with Western liberal thinking is like allying Hitler with Modern right wing conservative thinking.

]]> By: FilthyCommie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1241 FilthyCommie Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:13:10 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1241 'They were socialist. ' Hitler's domestic and economic policies werent Socialist. Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy....it was just self contained. Its important to note Businesses were still privately owned. You are probably aware of the fact that socialism requires the turning of private property into public property. This is something neither Hitler, or Mussolini did. 'he was also a socialist, and an adherant to Marx. ' I disgaree. Mussolini was a Marxist only in his youth. Mussolini DID work for a Socialist newspaper, and once could be discribed as a leftist, this was before he came to power. He changed his views enormously. Heres a quote from Il Duce himself, at a later date: "After the war, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred". 'Neo-liberalism is a ‘rightist’ mindset' Yes - I'd describe it as the policies of Thatcher and Reagan. Different to Facism, Communism, and traditional liberalism. 'you did say Hussein was' I called him right wing, which he was. I didnt suggest he was akin to any modern conservatives in the West. ‘They were socialist. ‘

Hitler’s domestic and economic policies werent Socialist. Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy….it was just self contained. Its important to note Businesses were still privately owned. You are probably aware of the fact that socialism requires the turning of private property into public property. This is something neither Hitler, or Mussolini did.

‘he was also a socialist, and an adherant to Marx. ‘

I disgaree. Mussolini was a Marxist only in his youth. Mussolini DID work for a Socialist newspaper, and once could be discribed as a leftist, this was before he came to power. He changed his views enormously. Heres a quote from Il Duce himself, at a later date:

“After the war, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred”.

‘Neo-liberalism is a ‘rightist’ mindset’

Yes – I’d describe it as the policies of Thatcher and Reagan. Different to Facism, Communism, and traditional liberalism.

‘you did say Hussein was’

I called him right wing, which he was. I didnt suggest he was akin to any modern conservatives in the West.

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1237 SCSIwuzzy Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:17:33 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1237 History, eh? Maybe by revisonist standards I don't know my history :) Hitler opposed the comunists and expelled some of the further left socialist because they were political rivals. In 1933, most Germans were in favor of the National Socialist or the Communist parties. Look at Hitler's economic and domestic policies. They were socialist. Socialism and Fascism are not mutually incompatible, by the way. And nationalism goes beyond left and right, liberal and conservative. Il Duce, on the other hand... he was also a socialist, and an adherant to Marx. After getting out of jail for protesting Italy's invasion of Libya, the Socialist part gave him the editorial desk at the Avanti, their notoriously socialist newspaper. To sieze power, he played the socialist off the middle class, landowner and the industrialists, getting them to buy into the notion that only he and his nationalist party (that many bought into Italian/Roman superiority with little prompting anyway) was all that stood between them and an outright revolution. And while facism may be the polar opposite of neo-liberalism, republican conservatism has more in common with neo-liberalism than modern liberalism in America. Just look at their views on taxes, trade and limited government. Neo-liberalism is a 'rightist' mindset, btw. And I'm sorry, you never said Hitler was right of center (though you've implied that since he was anti-commie he can't be leftist) you did say Hussein was. Though the Ba'ath party is a socialist party... History, eh? Maybe by revisonist standards I don’t know my history :)
Hitler opposed the comunists and expelled some of the further left socialist because they were political rivals. In 1933, most Germans were in favor of the National Socialist or the Communist parties.
Look at Hitler’s economic and domestic policies. They were socialist. Socialism and Fascism are not mutually incompatible, by the way. And nationalism goes beyond left and right, liberal and conservative.
Il Duce, on the other hand… he was also a socialist, and an adherant to Marx. After getting out of jail for protesting Italy’s invasion of Libya, the Socialist part gave him the editorial desk at the Avanti, their notoriously socialist newspaper.
To sieze power, he played the socialist off the middle class, landowner and the industrialists, getting them to buy into the notion that only he and his nationalist party (that many bought into Italian/Roman superiority with little prompting anyway) was all that stood between them and an outright revolution.
And while facism may be the polar opposite of neo-liberalism, republican conservatism has more in common with neo-liberalism than modern liberalism in America. Just look at their views on taxes, trade and limited government. Neo-liberalism is a ‘rightist’ mindset, btw.
And I’m sorry, you never said Hitler was right of center (though you’ve implied that since he was anti-commie he can’t be leftist) you did say Hussein was. Though the Ba’ath party is a socialist party…

]]> By: FilthyCommie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1230 FilthyCommie Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:36:58 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1230 'Hitler wasn’t a socialist?' Yep, you are ignorant on history. While Hitler called his party ''National Socialists'' - they werent at all. Hitler dispelled many left wing democratic socialists from Germany, and also had a RAGING hatred of Communism. Facism = Extreme nationalism. There is nothing leftwing about this, and comparing him to modern liberals is laughable. The polar opposite of Facism is probably Neo-Liberalism. For your benefit - http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html 'As for audacity, you’ve made it clear that you compare Hitler, Huusein et al to modern rightist conservatives' When did i do that? Dont put words in my mouth. I never made any such claim. ‘Hitler wasn’t a socialist?’

Yep, you are ignorant on history. While Hitler called his party ”National Socialists” – they werent at all. Hitler dispelled many left wing democratic socialists from Germany, and also had a RAGING hatred of Communism. Facism = Extreme nationalism. There is nothing leftwing about this, and comparing him to modern liberals is laughable. The polar opposite of Facism is probably Neo-Liberalism.

For your benefit –

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html

‘As for audacity, you’ve made it clear that you compare Hitler, Huusein et al to modern rightist conservatives’

When did i do that? Dont put words in my mouth. I never made any such claim.

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1229 SCSIwuzzy Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:25:55 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1229 Hitler wasn't a socialist? Hussein wasn't Hitler's biggest fan? The Ba'ath party isn't socialist? I think we need to hear your definition of right wing and left wing. But the examples I gave are ones where leftists went unchecked, and allowed to run things. And they were organised :) As for audacity, you've made it clear that you compare Hitler, Huusein et al to modern rightist conservatives, so I would imagine that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. -SCSIwuzzy Hitler wasn’t a socialist?
Hussein wasn’t Hitler’s biggest fan? The Ba’ath party isn’t socialist?

I think we need to hear your definition of right wing and left wing.

But the examples I gave are ones where leftists went unchecked, and allowed to run things. And they were organised :)

As for audacity, you’ve made it clear that you compare Hitler, Huusein et al to modern rightist conservatives, so I would imagine that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
-SCSIwuzzy

]]> By: FilthyCommie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1227 FilthyCommie Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:16:03 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1227 Hitler and the Nazi party Benito Mussolini and his fascist party And you make the claim i know nothing about history? Hitler and Mussolini were fascists. Im not sure if you are aware of a political scale, but they arnt 'leftists.' Facism is extreme right wing nationalism. Saddam Hussein, Inc On the scale of things, he is right wing also. 'Historicly, its when leftists get organized that they get dangerous And ignoring them until they are dangerous is a recipe for disaster…' Do you have the audacity to compare modern liberals, with these listed examples? Give me a break. Hitler and the Nazi party
Benito Mussolini and his fascist party

And you make the claim i know nothing about history? Hitler and Mussolini were fascists. Im not sure if you are aware of a political scale, but they arnt ‘leftists.’ Facism is extreme right wing nationalism.

Saddam Hussein, Inc

On the scale of things, he is right wing also.

‘Historicly, its when leftists get organized that they get dangerous
And ignoring them until they are dangerous is a recipe for disaster…’

Do you have the audacity to compare modern liberals, with these listed examples? Give me a break.

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1226 SCSIwuzzy Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:08:34 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1226 Expatlse , I can think of a few organized leftists who have enjoyed some succes over the years: Hitler and the Nazi party Benito Mussolini and his fascist party Lennin, Stalin and the rest of the Soviet Regime Chairman Mao (whose revolution is still going strong) Kim Jong Il and his daddy Fidel Castro and his merry band Saddam Hussein, Inc and many, many more. Historicly, its when leftists get organized that they get dangerous :) And ignoring them until they are dangerous is a recipe for disaster... just ask Winston's predecessor. As for the republican monolith... if that were true, every bill in the legislature would pass according their dominance in both houses, and there would be no backlog of judges waiting for appointment approvals. -SCSIwuzzy Expatlse ,
I can think of a few organized leftists who have enjoyed some succes over the years:
Hitler and the Nazi party
Benito Mussolini and his fascist party
Lennin, Stalin and the rest of the Soviet Regime
Chairman Mao (whose revolution is still going strong)
Kim Jong Il and his daddy
Fidel Castro and his merry band
Saddam Hussein, Inc
and many, many more.

Historicly, its when leftists get organized that they get dangerous :)
And ignoring them until they are dangerous is a recipe for disaster… just ask Winston’s predecessor.

As for the republican monolith… if that were true, every bill in the legislature would pass according their dominance in both houses, and there would be no backlog of judges waiting for appointment approvals.
-SCSIwuzzy

]]> By: refugee http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/comment-page-1/#comment-1217 refugee Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:17:42 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/11/joel-mowbray-on-foreign-observers/#comment-1217 The thing that I love about this, the thing that just makes my belly shake like a bowlful of jelly, is that this proposal was raised by U.S. Representatives. That's right, these fools are claiming that the very process that put them in office is corrupt or incompetent. Shouldn't they all resign in protest? The thing that I love about this, the thing that just makes my belly shake like a bowlful of jelly, is that this proposal was raised by U.S. Representatives.

That’s right, these fools are claiming that the very process that put them in office is corrupt or incompetent.

Shouldn’t they all resign in protest?

]]>