Courting the "stupid vote".

[GomiBoy]

Damn, I agree with Bricker, ExTank, Diogenes the Cynic, Rjung, and Brain Glutton, all in one thread.

Maybe all that **Razorsharp ** is trying to do with his ranting paranoia is get the rest of us to all agree and live happily ever after in blissful harmony?

Dirty tricks abound in every election, just as electoral math is flawed in most Presidential elections. People all over are disenfranchised, or ignored, or supressed. No one side has a lock on virtue, or on smart, or even on stupid. Every catch phrase by every candidate is loaded with inaccuracies and half-truths and not a few outright lies. Some states, the small non-battleground ones, don’t even get any campaign information through local media sources such as papers and news TV, as the outcome for that state is a given and never subject to any doubt therefore not worth the money for either campaign to make even a token attempt at seducing the electorate there.

The only reason any of this matters is because this election is so polarized, so nasty, and so close, that the little things that always happen when idiots group together with a single shared political thought might just influence who the next leader of the US is. And that’s pretty damn scary.

Idiots will always do what pleases them, but when those idiots are given power that far outweighs their intellect, bad things are sure to happen.

[Monocracy]

@Razorsharp

Just recently, on Oprah Winfrey’s “Voting Party” Show, Cameron Diaz stated, “If you think rape should be legal, then don’t vote.” Insinuating, of course, should President Bush be re-elected, women will be more subject to the likelyhood of being raped. (This lunacy was somehow extrapolated from the theory that another Bush presidency could be the end of “freedom of choice” for women.)

I heard Laura Ingraham, conservative radio talk idiot, give the same spiel about Cameron’s comment. After hearing the tape of Cameron, what she said and what Ingraham inferred from it were two totally different things.

Cameron was saying that if you don’t vote, you are letting others decide what rules are being made. If you vote, you have some input on the rule-making. She used rape as the most extreme example possible.

I thought what she said was intelligent and a very simple concept, but the conservative talking points have to twist it into some evil liberal agenda.

[Razorsharp]

@Fear Itself

That is a very loose use of the term. Do you feel the same way about all government regulations of private enterprise (workplace safety, anti-trust, environmental, etc.)? If so, I prefer your brand of fascism to the tyranny of corpocracy.

No, there is a big difference in minimum wage laws and the laws you mentioned.

Regulations on workplace safety, anit-trust and the enviornment are regulations that are designed to protect the innocent and the whole of society. Whereas, minimum wage laws infringe on the free exchange of labor and wages between consenting parties.

[Razorsharp]

@Monocracy

I heard Laura Ingraham, conservative radio talk idiot, give the same spiel about Cameron’s comment. After hearing the tape of Cameron, what she said and what Ingraham inferred from it were two totally different things.

Cameron was saying that if you don’t vote, you are letting others decide what rules are being made. If you vote, you have some input on the rule-making. She used rape as the most extreme example possible.

I thought what she said was intelligent and a very simple concept, but the conservative talking points have to twist it into some evil liberal agenda.

If you didn’t actually see Cameron Diaz make her comment, you are wrong. If you did actually see her make the comment, you are being decietful.

Cameron Diaz did just as I related. She extrapolated the end of “freedom of choice” with making rape legal, and if you thought that was an intelligent comment, you’ve got problems.

[Razorsharp]

@Bricker

Er… no. It would be a tenet of socialism.

You are mistaken.

Here you will find the tenets of Mussolini’s vision of a fascist Italy.
www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/f/fa/fascist_manifesto.html

One of those tenets is a eight-hour workday and a minimum wage.

Also listed are:

Sufferage for eighteen year olds. (speaking of the “stupid vote”)

The involvement of workers’ representatives in industry. (trade unions)

A heavy progressive tax on capital. (a liberal favorite)

Expropriation of the property of religious congregations (that fits)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Did you know that in Nazi Germany people had to stop at red lights and go at green?

I guess that makes traffic lights a part of Nazi ideology.

[sqweels]

At its core, fascism is nationalistic in motivation whereas socialism is motived by elevating the lower classes at the expense of the upper. Impugning the patriotism of those who oppose the foreign policy, wrapping everything in the flag, keeping those who support his opponent away from the president’s visits, intimidating voters, and yes, stealing laws signs are (mild, perhaps) examples of fascism.

Fascism is more a cultural attitude, socialism is more an economic agenda. They’re not polar opposites, but one is not part of the definition of the other. They may intermingle, such as when a fascist regime implements socialist reforms (as Razorsharp cited) or when communist revolutionaries use violent intimidation to get people to support their cause. Its socialist/communist to say, “Let’s transform society so that everyone is equal”; it’s fascist to say, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”.

[BrainGlutton]

The relationship between fascism and socialism is – like most important questions in politics – far from simple. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism:

Fascism versus socialism

Fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism, although some early Fascists were themselves former Marxists. In 1923, Mussolini declared in The Doctrine of Fascism:

… Fascism [is] the complete opposite of… Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society…

… “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans… If classical liberalism spells individualism,” Mussolini continued, “Fascism spells government.”

–Benito Mussolini, public domain, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)

While certain types of socialism may superficially appear to be similar to fascism, it should be noted that the two ideologies clash violently on many issues. The role of the state, for example: socialism considers the state to be merely a “tool of the people,” sometimes calling it a “necessary evil,” which exists to serve the interests of the people and to protect the common good. (Certain forms of libertarian socialism reject the state altogether.) Meanwhile, fascism holds the state to be an end in of itself, which the people should obey and serve, rather than the other way around.

Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production.

A fascist government is usually characterized as “extreme right-wing,” and a socialist government as “left-wing”. Others such as Hannah Arendt and Friedrich Hayek argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed “socialist” governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles. Many socialists and communists also reject those totalitarian governments, seeing them as fascism with a socialist mask. (See political spectrum and political model for more on these ideas.)

Socialists and other critics of Arendt and Hayek maintain that there is no ideological overlap between Fascism and Marxism; they regard the two as utterly distinct. Since Marxism is the ideological basis of Communism, they argue that the comparisons drawn by Arendt and others are invalid.

Mussolini completely rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle or the Marxist thesis that the working class must expropriate the means of production.

Mussolini wrote in his 1932 treatise, The Doctrine of Fascism (ghostwritten by Giovanni Gentile): “Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State.” 1 (http://www.constitution.org/tyr/mussolini.htm)

Italian fascist leader Mussolini’s own origin on the left, as a former leader of the more radical wing of the Italian Socialist Party, has frequently been noted. After his turn to the right, Mussolini continued to employ much of the rhetoric of socialism, substituting the nation for social class as the basis of political loyalty. These rhetorical devices seem to have been the last remnants of Mussolini’s non-fascist past.

It is also frequently noted that Fascist Italy did not nationalize any industries or capitalist entities. Rather, it established a corporatist structure influenced by the model for class relations put forward by the Catholic Church. Indeed, there is a lot of literature on the influence of Catholicism on fascism and the links between the clergy and fascist parties in Europe before and during World War II.

Although Italian fascism proclaimed its antithesis to socialism, Mussolini’s own history in the socialist movement had some influence on him. Elements of the practice of socialist movements he retained were:

the need for a mass party;

the importance of building support among the working class; and

techniques relating to the dissemination of ideas, such as the use of propaganda.

The original Fascist Manifesto contained within it a number of proposals for reforms that were also common among socialist and democratic movements and were designed to appeal to the working class. These promises were generally disregarded once the fascists took power.

Critics point out that Marxists and trade unionists were the first targets, and the first victims, of both Mussolini and Adolf Hitler once they came to power. They also note the antagonistic relationship which resulted in street fights between fascists and socialists, including:

the 1936 Battle of Cable Street in London of Trotskyists and members of the Communist Party of Great Britain against Mosely’s supporters, and

street fights in Germany prior to Hitler’s coming to power.

A more serious manifestation of the conflict between fascism and socialism was the Spanish Civil War, mentioned earlier in this article.

[GomiBoy]

Wow, Razorsharp - this is dumb even for you.

So needless to say, you have yet again strayed from your bully pulpit. Let’s take a moment and re-examine that, shall we?

@Razorsharp

Just recently, on Oprah Winfrey’s “Voting Party” Show, Cameron Diaz stated, “If you think rape should be legal, then don’t vote.” Insinuating, of course, should President Bush be re-elected, women will be more subject to the likelyhood of being raped. (This lunacy was somehow extrapolated from the theory that another Bush presidency could be the end of “freedom of choice” for women.)

I don’t understand how this comment insinuates anything. Burden of proof is on you as OP - care to defend this one?

@Razorsharp

If you didn’t actually see Cameron Diaz make her comment, you are wrong. If you did actually see her make the comment, you are being decietful.

Cameron Diaz did just as I related. She extrapolated the end of “freedom of choice” with making rape legal, and if you thought that was an intelligent comment, you’ve got problems.

Oh, I forgot - you don’t have to defend your OP, you just insult the person who tries to point out the obvious glaring holes in it.

Care to prove any of this? Can you come up with even one non-partisan cite to back any of this up? I saw her make the comment, on replay, and to my mind she said nothing that drew any parallels between freedom of choice and rape, and simply used the rape analogy to bring home the possible cost of allowing someone to make rules without your input.

Of course, another Bush term would likely mean more rapes, and I am serious - rape of pension plans, rape of the environment, rape of what little political goodwill America has left in the world - and all of them would be legal.

@Razorsharp

Whenever Hollywood stars and starlets crawl out of the woodwork to “get out the vote” by uttering their own self-perceived “words of wisdom”, such as Julia Roberts, speaking of President Bush, proclaiming, “He’s embarrassing. He’s not my President, he will never be my President”.

So she has no legitimate reason to feel that the President maybe isn’t the one she likes, voted for, or supports? Damn her - off to the camps with her for daring to be political! Isn’t she just supposed to look pretty? How dare she actually speak up about something she cares about!

@Razorsharp

Or Alec Baldwin comparing the 2000 election with the 9-11 tragedy, when he said, “I believe that what happened in 2000 did as much damage to the pillars of democracy as terrorists did to the pillars of commerce in New York City.”

You attempt to slam Alec Baldwin because he dares to voice his opinion, which as I understand it is his right, and his point is invalid simply because he is a celebrity. Care to try to refute his point with a cite that says something different?

@Razorsharp

Or Leonardo DiCaprio lamenting “Corporate America” raping the enviornment.

Aren’t they? You say they are not, but offer absolutely no proof to validate your argument. Again, why is this point automatically moot because a celebrity makes it?

What the entertainment industry is doing, is not just “getting out the vote”, but getting out the vote for the liberal ideology by courting the vote of those who do not possess the faculties to recognize outright fallacies and those who find it fashionable to associate themselves with the so-called “beautiful people”.

And how is this any better than the half-truths and prevarications invariably dished out by the right? How is this any different than the Fox news bloodhounds who relish in the blood of Liberals spread across their news desks? Or for that matter, the lying incumbents twisting the truth into talking points and soundbites that sound worse than they could possibly be and bear no relevance to the truth of the matter.

You’re saying the Right has a lock on smart? Explain Rush Limbaugh to me, then. Explain O’reilly to me. How could these ‘smart’ pundits be so monumentally stupid as to do the things they have done - the sexual harassment and the drug abuse and the frauds?

Now on to your further brain spasms…

@Razorsharp

Here you will find the tenets of Mussolini’s vision of a fascist Italy.
http://www.campusprogram.com/refere…_manifesto.html

Did you ever stop to think that this was Mussolini’s vision of a fascist Italy, not necessarily something that even adhered to the tenets of fascism, but perhaps plucked at will from the tenets of socialism, communism, etc? Or do you not read your own posts?

@Razorsharp

One of those tenets is a eight-hour workday and a minimum wage.

Well that is just terrible - imagine the nerve of factory workers actually getting time off to spend with their families. Except that it isn’t terrible, really, as both of these things protect the innocent and society as a whole from abuse from employers - y’know, just like you said?

Such abuse has always happened historically without government exerting some limited control over wages, just like environmental, anti-trust, and workplace safety abuses. If no one forces them to, companies don’t do anything about any of the above that even vaguely resembles fair play. And you know it, or at least you should, if you know anything of the history of the coalfields of Va.

@Razorsharp

Sufferage for eighteen year olds. (speaking of the “stupid vote”)

Ah yes, not too stupid to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic, but apparently too stupid to be legally allowed to vote. Whom will you next disenfranchise? Women, because they are slaves to hormones and not rational enough to choose what is best for their own bodies? Blacks, because they traditionally vote Democrat or even Liberal?

@Razorsharp

The involvement of workers’ representatives in industry. (trade unions)

Of course, when one is negotiating for one’s living wage and workplace benefits, one should have no voice and should simply take what is on offer. You’re right - simply because Mussolini believed something we should chuck it out and go the other way.

@Razorsharp

A heavy progressive tax on capital. (a liberal favorite)

Do you think maybe he was using this to keep his enemies poor and make himself rich? Of course not - it’s all part of a Liberal plot to rule the world, cause all of us Liberals are of course truly Fascists at heart, just like Mussolini.

@Razorsharp

Expropriation of the property of religious congregations (that fits)

Fits what, exactly, your tinfoil hat? Maybe Mussolini was trying to take power away from the Church and bolster his own? And dare I ask how you are attempting to draw this into your OP?

Oh, and BTW - there is still a pit thread with your name on it. Have you the guts to even check it out?

[Razorsharp]

@GomiBoy

Wow, Razorsharp - this is dumb even for you.

Nah, evidently it’s just above your level of comprehension.

I don’t understand how this comment insinuates anything. Burden of proof is on you as OP - care to defend this one?

What’s to defend? Her comments speak for themselves.

Oh, I forgot - you don’t have to defend your OP, you just insult the person who tries to point out the obvious glaring holes in it.

There were absolutely no holes in stating that Daiz compared overturning “Roe v Wade” with making rape legal.

Care to prove any of this? Can you come up with even one non-partisan cite to back any of this up? I saw her make the comment, on replay, and to my mind she said nothing that drew any parallels between freedom of choice and rape, and simply used the rape analogy to bring home the possible cost of allowing someone to make rules without your input.

Again your level of comprehension is revealed. See, a teary-eyed Diaz was lamenting the possible overturning of Roe, with the re-election of Bush. Let’s go straight to the horses mouth:

@Cameron Daiz

We have a voice now, and we’re not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies…if you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote…

Comprende?

Of course, another Bush term would likely mean more rapes, and I am serious - rape of pension plans,

You do realize that ENRON, Global Crossing and the inflating of the so-called “dot-coms” occured before Bush became President, don’t you? And who was President prior to Bush?

rape of the environment, rape of what little political goodwill America has left in the world - and all of them would be legal.

More rhetoric, a la Diaz.

So she has no legitimate reason to feel that the President maybe isn’t the one she likes, voted for, or supports? Damn her - off to the camps with her for daring to be political! Isn’t she just supposed to look pretty? How dare she actually speak up about something she cares about!

This is one of those examples of courting the vote of those who find it fashionable to associate themselves with the so-called “beautiful people”. Her comments were sponsored by the entertainment industry, she doesn’t get air-time on her own.

You attempt to slam Alec Baldwin because he dares to voice his opinion, which as I understand it is his right, and his point is invalid simply because he is a celebrity. Care to try to refute his point with a cite that says something different?

His point is invalid because he is propagandizing. There are no “pillars of democracy” within the foundations of American government. The Constitution clearly lays it out, that the United States is a republic. That is why we have the electoral college. That is why, despite losing the popular vote, Bush was elected President. Alec Baldwin’s ranting and raving about destroying the pillars of democracy was directed at those ignorant of the true pillars of American government. In otherwords, the stupid.

You are boring me, so I am skipping some portions of your inane rebuttal.

And you know it, or at least you should, if you know anything of the history of the coalfields of Va.

I am quite familiar with the coal industry, in fact, my family made quite a bit of money from coal mining operations. Non-union operations, which were always more efficient than union operated mines. Under the laws of economics, businesses that are more efficient, allow lower costs to be passed on to the consumer, and that’s good for society as a whole.

Ah yes, not too stupid to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic, but apparently too stupid to be legally allowed to vote.

That’s the same argument that was used to lower the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen. How’d that work out?

Oh, and BTW - there is still a pit thread with your name on it. Have you the guts to even check it out?

I’ve seen it. What am I supposed to be, impressed with your ability to use the word “fuck”? Yeah that’s quite eloquent.

See, Gomi, my objective here is to gore liberal sacred cows. And the louder I get limp-dick liberals to squealin’, the more I realize that I am right on target. Thanks.

[PatriotX]

@Razorsharp

And the louder I get limp-dick liberals to squealin’, the more I realize that I am right on target. Thanks.

Too bad you don’t appear capable enough to do so within the bounds of civil discourse. Maybe if you take a few deep breaths before you post you’ll calm down and won’t be so emotional sounding.

Good luck.

[GomiBoy]

Nope, I comprehend you just fine - it’s easy to do with the simplistic points you’re making, just like it’s easy to bat your slow low pitches right out of the park.

It occurs to me you object to anyone having a voice that can say something you disagree with, and you especially hate that person if they dare to be famous and have a brain at the same time, even more so if they are female. It occurs to me that you don’t want to debate anything, merely shout your views from the rooftops and sit back and smugly declare yourself the winner simply on the merits of your views.

BTW - us ‘limp dick liberals’ aren’t squealing; I for one am laughing. Shaking my head and laughing. At you.

[MEBuckner]

@Razorsharp

See, Gomi, my objective here is to gore liberal sacred cows. And the louder I get limp-dick liberals to squealin’, the more I realize that I am right on target. Thanks.

Moderator’s Note: Razorsharp, Great Debates is for debates. The BBQ Pit is for rants and flames and insulting people.

You have been warned before about this distinction. If you can’t keep straight which posts are appropriate for which forum, you won’t be posting in any of them.