Hitler & Rush: a reply to James Glass
Richard Clark
And how do (right-wing radio demogogues) maintain their audience?
Perhaps the audience -AGREES- with the positions being advanced.
Leaving aside the question of their correctness, if a large majority agrees
with these positions, they will find listeners.
MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
or not fund? The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Patrick R. Collins
: j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
: And how do (right-wing radio demogogues) maintain their audience?
: Perhaps the audience -AGREES- with the positions being advanced.
: Leaving aside the question of their correctness, if a large majority agrees
: with these positions, they will find listeners.
: MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
: in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
: is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
: or not fund? The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
Two points:
1) Did you hear about the UseNet posted that postulated that the first
person to bring up Hitler in a discussion should be counted the loser
automatically??
2) the airwaves issue is one of technology. In the early 20's, radio
bandwidth was wide, because the frequency could not be controlled very
well. Currently, the freq. can be controlled much more tightly, allowing
many more radio and TV stations on the air. So, one could see in the near
future your argument being completely negated by the ability to put a
station on the air, as long as you can fund it.
: Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
: stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
: and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
: minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
: like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
: bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
One could also say the RL is countering all the BS put on by PBS, CBS,
NBC, and ABC for many years.
If PBS had been better balanced, we would not be having this discussion now.
The Chicago Trib had a funny cartoon this weekend.
A guy is at the car shop. he says" My car has a mechanical problem. It
will suddenly swerve to the left."
The mechanic says, "No, it's an electrical problem."
"What do you mean??"
"Your radio dial is set to PBS."
--
Regards, Pat
It's true, I have fired weapons in support of the PLA.
Scott Wilhelm
>j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
Well, currently the liberals control the four major stations most of the FM
stattions and CPB. Hee we conservatives have to pay for the ilk
of that liar Nina Totenburg. How bout we have the govt pay Rush
to balance out Nina, wouldn't that be fair???
Ifm you want a liberal radio show, go find an investor. Then go ahead
and start your show. That is balance...Course people probably won't
listen to you, cauz if they want the liberal viewpoint they have so
many ohter sources to turn to...
--
Scott Wilhelm
Internet: ph2...@prism.gatech.edu
Lance Visser
>j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
+>MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
+>in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
+>is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
+>or not fund?
The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
+>The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
+>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
+>stations the right to use the airwaves.
And the alternative is to have government-censorship of the airwaves
based on the politics of the program. The government built the
transportation system over which newspapers and magazines reach the people.
I suppose by your logic the taxpayers are funding newspapers and magazines
and thus should have the right to control their content as well.
+>By way of balance and fairness,
+>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
+>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
+>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
+>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
I dont think the government has any business establishing speach
to counteract other speech.
Lamont Granquist
>Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
>stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
The problem is that Limbaugh + Cronies can get financial support from
businesses, while the views that Nader, Chomsky, etc present do not
get financial support. The error that the previous poster was making was
that the "information consumers" control the content of the airwaves, when
in fact it is the advertisers that control the veto over content and
set the bounds of allowable expression.
--
Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
James Glass
No. Popularity of a 'demogogue' is not the only criterion for what taxpayers and their
government should fund. Government has no business funding broadcasting, period. Popularity
*IS* the only criterion for what CONSUMERS should fund; how could it ever be otherwise?
The right to free speech is -NOT- the right to an audience, a fact liberals seem unable to
grasp.
Failure to subsidize is -NOT- censorship, another fact libs have trouble with.
Want to rant liberal slogans? Get yerself a soapbox. Hot air is free.
Want to be Rush Limbaugh? (i.e., enormously successful and popular)? Get yerself a soapbox
and promote a popular message. By and by you will be on hundreds of stations with an audience
of 20 million. Automatic, see?
And with respect to fairness, as Rush himself points out, he and the other conservative talk-
show hosts *ARE* the balance against PBS, NPR, and the major media, all of which are blatantly
leftist in orientation, bias, and preference.
Jim Glass
Gordon Fitch
| The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
| airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
| are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
I was unaware that broadcasters paid for the frequencies
they use; I thought they got them for nothing (outside of
some kind of pledge to operate in the public interest, as
judged mostly by themselves). FAIR suggested that instead
of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
and the money given to communities to fund local non-
commercial broadcasting; these could form a large national
organization if they wished, or go it alone. I assumed that
no money was now being derived from this possible source.
Could you clarify? What are broadcasters now paying for the
frequencies?
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Robert Reay
: The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
: Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
: stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
: and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
: minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
: like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
: bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Why can't they do it themselves? Why do I need to pay taxes to put these
people on the air? You'd think that if a evil liar like Rush can get
enough people excited about his show to put up money, these other folks
could too.
Michael J. Edelman
: vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser):
: | The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
: | airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
: | are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
: | ...
: I was unaware that broadcasters paid for the frequencies
: they use; I thought they got them for nothing
And why not? Is the government doing regular maintainance to repair
the ether? Are they doing electron replenishment? Maintaining
the ionosphere?
: judged mostly by themselves). FAIR suggested that instead
: of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
: broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
: and the money given to communities to fund local non-
: commercial broadcasting...
..in which resources would be allocated on political grounds. I.e., friends
of the government get frequencies, right?
How about this: Let's say we acution off the airwaves, and then lower everyone
else's taxes. If people want to start community broadcasting stations, let
them.
--mike
Michael J. Edelman
: The problem is that Limbaugh + Cronies can get financial support from
: businesses, while the views that Nader, Chomsky, etc present do not
: get financial support.
Excuse me? Did I hear that properly?
Nader rakes in millions from trial lawyers via his various 'foundations'.
In fact, Nader *is* essentially the trial lawyer's PAC in America. And
all the donations are tax free. Nader will never, ever criticize lawyers.
Nader's money comes out of money awarded from lawsuits.
Limbaugh is not a tax-free foundation, last I heard. I imagine he makes
a salary and that money comes from advertising revenue and other
business ventures. His money comes from people who choose to buy his
newsletter and books and those who patronize his sponsors.
--mike
Patrick R. Collins
: In article <3jg087$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
: Patrick R. Collins <pcol...@prairienet.org> wrote:
: >The Chicago Trib had a funny cartoon this weekend.
: >
: >A guy is at the car shop. he says" My car has a mechanical problem. It
: >will suddenly swerve to the left."
: >
: >The mechanic says, "No, it's an electrical problem."
: >
: >"What do you mean??"
: >
: >"Your radio dial is set to PBS."
: >
: The idiocy of this cartoon is demonstrated not only by the fact that
: PBS/NPR are not nearly as liberal as conservatives love to claim, but by
: the fact that PBS does *television* and NPR does *radio*. If the cartoon
: was correct and the poster is wrong, the idiocy is his alone.
Yes, the mistake is indeed mine. However, the fact that a cartoon (and I
don't think this is a poltical cartoon at all, just daily life stuff) can
make fun of it means the impressions is indeed widespread.
Peter R Cook
people and completely destroys the credibility of the accuser.
Thou should me ashamed of thyself.
--
Peter R. Cook p...@world.std.com PRC Records Owner.
PRC Records pc...@tdh.qntm.com System Software Engineer.
Marlborough, MA USA Up The Irons! Drummer.
Timothy Kordas
aside from a nominal fee for each entry into the frequency "lottery"
there is no charge (and there are a number of companies which will
prepare the paperwork for you - again for a nominal fee)...
the FCC frequency lottery is something which, I believe, has received a
lot of attention by Public Choice Economists (especially those interested
in "rent seeking" behavior) - the concern is that instead of stimulating
the economy with new activity all of the gains from the frequency grants
are consumed by the process (and associated industry) of applying for the
grants. (I can *try* to come up with some references here).
so basically by selling off the frequencies the FCC could produce a significant
amount of revenue...instead of giving licenses away to people who turn
around and sell anyway.
-Tim
--
Timothy J. Kordas
http://bambi.eeap.cwru.edu/tjk/tim.html
Gordon Fitch
| : | The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
| : | airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
| : | are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
| : | ...
Gordon Fitch (g...@panix.com) wrote:
| : I was unaware that broadcasters paid for the frequencies
| : they use; I thought they got them for nothing
m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman):
| And why not? Is the government doing regular maintainance to repair
| the ether? Are they doing electron replenishment? Maintaining
| the ionosphere?
What the government does is create property on the
electromagnetic spectrum, just as it created property on the
land, by drawing boundaries and constructing a system of
regulation to maintain them. So there's a kind of
primordial seizure or acquisition of the resource by the
government on behalf, theoretically, of all the people,
after which the resource is parceled out to individuals or
groups in exchange for something (if only development the
government believes may be beneficial). In the case of
land, the U.S. government chose to retain some of the land
for direct administration, e.g. national parks and the like.
Other interests in land property were sometimes assigned to
communal purposes, e.g. the land-grant colleges.
You may find all this repugnant. Many anarchists would like
to simply abolish government and corporate control of
electromagnetic communications. But I can assure you the
businesses actually involved in broadcasting are most
solicitous of the health of the regulatory system, because
they do not want the frequencies they control impinged upon.
Therefore -- since the government provides the service of
forcing possible impingers off the air -- it seems that it
could exact a considerable fee for this valuable service,
and we could see to it that these funds were channeled into
local non-commercial services.
gcf:
| : judged mostly by themselves). FAIR suggested that instead
| : of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
| : broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
| : and the money given to communities to fund local non-
| : commercial broadcasting...
m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman):
| ..in which resources would be allocated on political grounds. I.e., friends
| of the government get frequencies, right?
This is already the case, although it's somewhat the other
way around: the class of people who get the frequencies
pretty much determine who the government is and what the
government does. Consider the close association between Mr.
Limbaugh and Mr. Gingrich.
However, one might specify that the money had to be turned
over to local cooperatives, or some other publicly
accountable local agency.
m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman):
|How about this: Let's say we acution off the airwaves, and then lower everyone
|else's taxes. If people want to start community broadcasting stations, let
|them.
I tend to think the plutocratic solution for everything may
not be optimal for my interests. However, a variation on
this might be run, where some frequencies were reserved for
non-commercial broadcasting and auctioned to people who
agreed not to use them for commercial purposes. In theory
they would command a much lower price, which might put them
in the range of community groups.
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Patryk Silver
a reply .. by Patrick R. Collins@prair
> One could also say the RL is countering all the BS put on by PBS, CBS,
> NBC, and ABC for many years.
>
> If PBS had been better balanced, we would not be having this discussion now.
>
Putting aside your dubious notion of "balance," what's all this blather
about PBS being titled toward the so-called "liberal left"? A cursory
glance at the week-in/week-out schedule of PBS shows a rather tepid,
uncontroversial hodgepodge of cooking programs, exercise shows,
kiddie-fare, masterpiece theatre, business news reports, nature
programs, aged documentaries and biographies, and yuppie home-repair
shows. Where exactly is this outrageous "liberal-left" propoganda the
rightwing/centrist press keeps whining about? Take out your _TV Guides_
and do an itemized survey of all the programming appearing on PBS
stations in your area covering a one week period, then post your
findings. Show us where all this dangerous, subversive,
countercultural, marxist, feminist, lesbian programming is to be found.
In the hundreds of hours of PBS programming appearing each month, does
the inocuous appearance of a single program on, say, Argentinian
Campesinos--airing at 11:30 Tuesday evening--thereby constitute some
egregious violation of the the lofty principles of "balance"?
To anyone the least familiar with what actually passes as progressive
positions, the charge that PBS and ABCNNBCBS are anything other than
wholley centrist forums for noncontroversial infotainment deserves
little in the way of serious consideration. That folks like Rush
Limbaugh have managed to convince people like PCollins to the contrary
is no mean achievment.
Brian Siano
: Excerpts from netnews.alt.fan.noam-chomsky: 6-Mar-95 Re: Hitler & Rush:
: a reply .. by Patrick R. Collins@prair
: >
: > One could also say the RL is countering all the BS put on by PBS, CBS,
: > NBC, and ABC for many years.
: >
: > If PBS had been better balanced, we would not be having this discussion now.
: Putting aside your dubious notion of "balance," what's all this blather
: about PBS being titled toward the so-called "liberal left"? A cursory
: glance at the week-in/week-out schedule of PBS shows a rather tepid,
: uncontroversial hodgepodge of cooking programs, exercise shows,
: kiddie-fare, masterpiece theatre, business news reports, nature
: programs, aged documentaries and biographies, and yuppie home-repair
: shows. Where exactly is this outrageous "liberal-left" propoganda the
: rightwing/centrist press keeps whining about?
Precisely. Consider the political discussion programs we get
through PBS. A show like _South Africa Now_ and _Human Rights and
Wrongs_ were mainly supported by small grants and viewer support
pledge drives. These shows were continually under attack from
right-wing ideologues.
On the other hand, look at shows like _The McLaughlin Group_
or _Firing Line_. These shows are almost entirely supported through
conservative foundations like Olin, or-- in the case of the
_McLaughlin Group_-- funded entirely by General Electric. Few people
complain that these shows are on the air (an indication that liberals
and leftists are far more tolerant of diverse opinion), and combined
with corporate-oriented shows such as _Tony Brown's Journal_ or _Wall
street Week in Review_, or the centrist-to-conservative
_MacNeil-Lehrer report_ (or whatever it's called now) and Reagan
speechwriter Peggy Noonan's show "on values," and you'll find
that the alleged "left liberal" bias of PBS is, mainly, a myth.
Much of the support for this left-liberal-PBS claim seems to
rest upon a set of cultural associations; shows about opera, dance,
artists, and the like are associated with affluent intellectuals, and
the right has usually capitalized on stereotypes of intellectuals as
the enemy. And, occasionally, one sees a show that really does present
a view that's not part of the American Right-- the _Frontline_ series,
occasional documentaries on gays and lesbians, and the _Tales of the
City_ miniseries. But these are clearly exceptions to the rule at
PBS-- in fact, despite the high ratings garnered by _Tales_, PBS has
decided not to produce a sequel, very likely because of the attacks
from the Right.
john elfrank-dana
>
> : The problem is that Limbaugh + Cronies can get financial support from
> : businesses, while the views that Nader, Chomsky, etc present do not
> : get financial support.
>
> Excuse me? Did I hear that properly?
>
> Nader rakes in millions from trial lawyers via his various 'foundations'.
> In fact, Nader *is* essentially the trial lawyer's PAC in America. And
> all the donations are tax free. Nader will never, ever criticize lawyers.
> Nader's money comes out of money awarded from lawsuits.
You're right as ususal, Lamont. Also note the life-style Nader has
compared to our beloved fat one. Nader lives a Ghandian existence, I
wonder how Rush lives.
>
> Limbaugh is not a tax-free foundation, last I heard. I imagine he makes
> a salary and that money comes from advertising revenue and other
> business ventures. His money comes from people who choose to buy his
> newsletter and books and those who patronize his sponsors.
>
> --mike
But who gives a fuck about Rush? It's those whose interests he serves.
I suggest that people read last week's _Village Voice_. The cover
story is on "Whiny White Boys". It gives a pretty good analysis about
the new white boy voting block and how their existence as a block
means that there time is through. You see, they (whiny white boys)
used to run everything. Now, with the changes in society and greater
opportunitys for minorities and women, they are reduced to a voting
block.
The last election was a tawdry demonstration of their wieght. It only
had an impact because women, in general, chose to stay away from the
polls.
What's also interesting about the article is that it points out how
the whiny white boys like Rush and Newt dupe the middle-class white
boys into thinking they have their interests at heart. The same
class that is getting screwed by the very interests Newt and Rush
serve.
elf
Sergey Shimkevich
: You're right as ususal, Lamont. Also note the life-style Nader has
: compared to our beloved fat one. Nader lives a Ghandian existence, I
: wonder how Rush lives.
Last time I heard in a small (one-bedroom) apartment in Manhattan.
-S.S.
Ira Woodhead
I thought he still lived with his mother... Or maybe I'm thinking of
some other reactionary sexist egotistical bigot crybaby...
--
P Marks
heard of A.B.C., C.B.S. and N.B.C.
A handfull of "shockjocks" hardly redresses that balance - and there ARE
"liberal" (i.e. statist) talk show hosts but fewer people want to listen
to them.
As for the F.C.C. it should not exist. Even if one is an empiricist (and
has no ideological opposition to statism) then one should still oppose
the F.C.C. - it has a terrible record of bias (for example see the way
Alf Landon's broadcasts were treated compared to F.D.R.s in the 1936
election) and financial corruption - for example see how L.B.J. (as a New
Deal administrator made his fortune through the F.C.C.
Lastly your claim that Rush L. is a demagogue. Well if you look at
Ancient Greek history (where this concept comes from) you will find that
a demagogue was someone who attempted to stir people up with a message of
envy against anyone who was better off than themsleves - if the hopes
that, either through election or revolt, the masses would put them in
power. This definition is accepted by Plato (in the "Republic") and he
was hardly a libertarian or a friend of private traders.
Demanding more government spending and attacking anyone with more money
than averige is hardly what people like Rush L. are about.
I will not comment on your attempt to compare people like Rush L. to envy
filled statists like Adolf Hitler - it deserves no comment.
Paul Marks.
Richard Clark
Nader lives a Ghandian existence, I
>: wonder how Rush lives.
>
>Last time I heard in a small (one-bedroom) apartment in Manhattan.
Rush is now pulling in something like $20 million each year now, and has
gone through at least two new wives.
Richard Clark
>Lastly your claim that Rush L. is a demagogue. Well if you look at
>Ancient Greek history (where this concept comes from) you will find that
>a demagogue was someone who attempted to stir people up with a message of
>envy against anyone who was better off than themsleves - if the hopes
>that, either through election or revolt, the masses would put them in
>power. This definition is accepted by Plato (in the "Republic") and he
>was hardly a libertarian or a friend of private traders.
My dictionary is not written in Greek. I use words according to the meaning
I get from their dictionary definition. It might help the discussion
if you did the same. The meanings of words evolve and change as history
progresses.
>I will not comment on your attempt to compare people like Rush L. to envy
>filled statists like Adolf Hitler - it deserves no comment.
>
Hitler and Rush share these things: The verbal attack of minority groups.
The unwillingness to permit open debate in which they participate. Unswerving
support for the large financial interests which support them.
Actually the similarities deserve plenty of comment.
Scott Wilhelm
>pm...@unix.york.ac.uk (P Marks) writes:
NAme a time that Rush has attacked a minority group, cauz he hasn't...
Rush allows people to call in and debate him, does the leftist
evening news? He even gives his opponents more time
than those that agree with him...I also remember when he
wanted to debate Hillary on health care, and she refused
Finally, what do you mean by Rush supporting the fin. interests
supporting him? Do you mean the fact his show has commercials?
Now, I wouldn't call Clinton a NAZI, but if we are talking comparisons
here, Clinton fits the bill to a tee, not Rush.
Clinton wants to take everyone's guns away, just like Hitler.
He is denying Freedom of Speech and actually attacking
pro-lifers and members of the religiou Right thru
things like FOCA. I think Billy uses the words
conservative religious extremists at least 10 tmes a speech.
Clinton has some ties to the eugenics movement thru the likes of ex-
PP director Foster and the rest.
Clinton wants a new agreement between business and govt, a type
of socialism basically, similar to what the NAZIs had.
He wants the govt to be able to take your property without
compensation thru the EPA...
The paralles are just frightening... :-)
Front Desk
john elfrank-dana <elf...@dorsai.dorsai.org> wrote:
>What's also interesting about the article is that it points out how
>the whiny white boys like Rush and Newt dupe the middle-class white
>boys into thinking they have their interests at heart. The same
>class that is getting screwed by the very interests Newt and Rush
>serve.
This is nothing new. The dominant white power structure in America has been
convincing underprivileged whites that it represents them, usually through
religious/moral arguments and racist propaganda, since before the Civil
War. This includes both poor whites and women. Particularly in this area
of the country, poor whites favor big business over unions, trickle down
economics, and the cutting of social programs which often would benefit
them. The Rush Limbaugh's of the world feed off of the willingness of
under educated whites to accept catch phrases and overly simplified
explanations for their living conditions.
******************************************************************************
"The worker is the slave of capitalist society;
Jessica Goldstein the female worker is the slave of that slave."
(James Connolly)
******************************************************************************
Smiley
>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
>stations the right to use the airwaves.
No, no, no. The airwaves, like any other natural resource, belong to whoever finds them
or uses them first. That the government steps in and uses force to arbitrate usage
according to government whim is certainly not something to be confused with justice.
While we're discussing Hitler, let's connect Hitler with state control of the media.
By way of balance and fairness,
>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Since when is it fair for the government to simply allow Rush & Bob to provide a desired
service to consumers (who have the voluntary option to listen or not) and on the other
hand use my money to pay the others to put something on the air. Rush stands the test
of the market; public broadcasting is foisted upon us whether we like it or not.
Free market media is beholden to the suppliers of the revenue to keep broadcasting,
namely the consumers who buy the sponsors' products. Public radio is also very much
beholden to the suppliers of their revenue, but those suppliers are not you and I. The
supplier of the revenue to keep public broadcasting on the air is the state, and it's only
natural for public radio to cater to the state's agenda. Public radio is not impartial, and
they're not even on my side.
Bottom line for measuring any tax-provided service. If I really wanted the service at the
price the government is charging me for it, the government wouldn't have to force me to
buy it under the threat of imprisonment. That's exactly what the taxation system is. You
have to pay for these services whether you like it or not, and if you don't pay, you are
jailed.
Smiley
Advertisers are far more responsive to the desires of the populace than are legislators.
Advertisers are constantly in search of ratings, to know how well their programming is
received. It's not the advertisers that decide what we're "allowed" to watch, it's
consumer demand that decides what the advertisers are going to present to us. If an
advertiser doesn't satisfy their public, they lose money and go out of business.
Government has no such automatic quality control. If the government doesn't satisfy the
public, they can simply ignore us (to an alarming degree, anyway -- your opinion doesn't
count nearly as much as that large campaign contribution from R.J. Reynolds...). The
government doesn't need our consent to extract revenue from us. They take tax money
from us by force.
When talking about Private Sector vs. Government, you have it backwards as to which
one is forcing things on us.
Smiley
>of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
>broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
>and the money given to communities to fund local non-
>commercial broadcasting; these could form a large national
>organization if they wished, or go it alone.
What gives the government the right to auction off airwaves? Natural resources should
be allocated on the basis of whoever utilizes them first.
Smiley
Public broadcasters know which side their bread is buttered on.
By that I mean they know where their funding comes from and they will quite naturally
think twice before they offend the source of their revenue.
Smiley
>...in which resources would be allocated on political grounds. I.e., friends
>of the government get frequencies, right?
>
>How about this: Let's say we acution off the airwaves, and then lower everyone
>else's taxes. If people want to start community broadcasting stations, let
>them.
>
>--mike
I agree completely. If some people want public radio so badly, let them fund it through
their own voluntary contributions. This discussion is not about whether there should be
public radio, it's about whether those who like public radio should be able to pay for it
with other peoples' money, against the will of those other people.
Why force me to buy something I don't want? If you want it, you pay for it, dammit!
Norman Nithman
Thomas Clarke <cla...@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>In article <3k1fgk$8...@rigel.pixi.com> fr...@midearth.gov (Smiley) writes:
>
>> What gives the government the right to auction off airwaves? Natural
>>resources should be allocated on the basis of whoever
>>utilizes them first.
>Oh good. If you were running the world, then I could
>jam Rush's broadcasts.
>
I think what he meant was that the descendants of Marconi should have
dominion over the electromagnetic spectrum.
Norm
Thomas Clarke
> What gives the government the right to auction off airwaves? Natural
resources should
> be allocated on the basis of whoever utilizes them first.
Oh good. If you were running the world, then I could
jam Rush's broadcasts.
Tom Clarke
Richard Bachert
>
>In article <3k1ehk$8...@rigel.pixi.com>, Smiley <fr...@midearth.gov>
wrote:
>
>>No, no, no. The airwaves, like any other natural resource,
>>belong to whoever finds them
>>or uses them first.
>
>First, the stupid version:
> "Sez who?"
>
>Now, the smarter version:
> "Airwaves" are not a finite, tangible resource like land: It is
rather
> telling that we (as a culture) persist in forcing this paradigm into
our
> arguments regarding "bandwidth". Forced scarcity.
>
>
>It is quite possible to abandon the fixed-frequency model altogether
and move
>to a spread-spectrum approach, which would (in theory) allow far more
stations
>to coexist within the same market.
>
>In other words, instead of merely parceling out transmission
frequencies (i.e.
>"Joe, Inc. may transmit at 3Khz; Sue, Ltd. may transmit at 3.2Khz",
etc.), you
>"share" the available bandwidth by parceling out frequency-hopping
algorithms.
>
>If we were REALLY bold, we could even convert the whole radio system to
>digital and apply bitstream compression algorithms to the signals...
allowing
>an even greater amount of stations to co-exist.
>
>Unfortunately, given the cozy relationship between the FCC and mass
media, as
>well as general "market inertia", I do not expect to see any such
conversion
>during my lifetime.
>
>:Michael
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael LeBlanc / Attention FBI Grep Cats: I'm too busy trafficking
> m...@netcom.com / in Scientology Trade Secrets to download any
> WWW en route / Child Pornography.
>
Mike, Don't give up hope that the technology you suggest will never be
applied. Who'd have thought the income tax and the IRS would be
considered for their well-deserved places in the ashbin of history?
It's probably gonna' happen some time in '96-'97! If you'd like to know
more about "HOW" that's going to happen, call CATS at 1-800-767-7577!
Russell Stewart
said...
>
>No, no, no. The airwaves, like any other natural resource, belong to whoever
>finds them or uses them first. That the government steps in and uses force to
>arbitrate usage according to government whim is certainly not something to be
>confused with justice.
This sounds like a confusion between a truly democratic medium and one run by
private power (i.e., a small, priveleged group of individuals). One reflects the
opinions and ideas of the populace. One doesn't.
>While we're discussing Hitler, let's connect Hitler with state control of the me
>dia.
State-sanctioned tyranny is not the only kind of tyranny that can exist.
--
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/|
/_____________________________________________________________/ |
| Russell Stewart | Albuquerque | What? | |
| dia...@rt66.com | New Mexico | Is it my hair? | /
|__________________|___________________|______________________|/
"Tel Aviv- An Israeli housewife's fight with a stubborn cockroach
put her husband in the hospital with burns, a broken pelvis and
broken ribs, the Jerusalem Post newspaper reported yesterday."
Chris BeHanna
:>j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
:>And how do (right-wing radio demogogues) maintain their audience?
:>Perhaps the audience -AGREES- with the positions being advanced.
:>Leaving aside the question of their correctness, if a large majority agrees
:>with these positions, they will find listeners.
:>MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
:>in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
:>is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
:>or not fund? The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
:>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
:>stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
:>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
:>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
:>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
:>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
SOCIALIST".
You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark: I have yet
to hear him espouse a single Socialist viewpoint.
Cuomo, OTOH....
Now, as to fairness and public funding: Limbaugh PAYS for *his*
airtime. Why should we, the taxpayers *pay* for Cuomo's airtime?
C'mon, admit it: you're just bent 'cause Rush is a *LOT* more popular
than your favorite liberal demagogue, whomever that may be.
--
Chris BeHanna Secretary, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.
Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? PGP 2.6.1 public key available
L...@mdli.com
>
> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
> SOCIALIST".
This type of lack of historical understanding is appalling. While the word
socialist was in the Nazi title, there was no socialism at ALL in their
program. There was no nationalization of industry, no government control of
the economy (other than the huge military buidup)
The left gave us Stalin, the right gave us Hitler. Note how when you go to far
to either side, you end up pretty close to the same place.
The trend these days is to call anyone you disagree with a Nazi. This is
dangerous in that it does nothing to further the debate. There are serious
issues we should be dealing with.
>
> You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
> thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
> with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark: I have yet
> to hear him espouse a single Socialist viewpoint.
>
> Cuomo, OTOH....
>
> Now, as to fairness and public funding: Limbaugh PAYS for *his*
> airtime. Why should we, the taxpayers *pay* for Cuomo's airtime?
>
> C'mon, admit it: you're just bent 'cause Rush is a *LOT* more popular
> than your favorite liberal demagogue, whomever that may be.
Personally, I'm bent because Rush uses exagerations and lies to appeal to the
worst instincts in people. He gets his popularity by playing on racism,
homophobia, and xenophobia, and other fears. I think Rush is dangerous, and I
find his popularity scary.
steven r kleinedler
Richard Patrick Larimore <r...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>In article <4jNF0ba00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Patryk Silver <ps...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>
>>Absolutely true. That explains why PBS has consistantly refused to air
>>the academy-award winning documentary, _The Panama Deception_ and films
>>like _Manufacturing Consent_ (the most popular documentary film in
>>Canadian history, and receiver of numerous international awards).
>
> ...and one we can't get in America. I saw it at the local alternative cinema
>when it came out, and mentioned it favorably to my father (a die-hard Chomsky
>fan). He's been looking for it for about a year and a half now, with no
>success. It doesn't seem to be in any video storee or library in the New York
>metropolitan area, and that fact makes him mad.
>
Manufacturing Consent plays at least once a year at the Music Box in
CHicago, and is on their schedule for the spring season. I know it
was shown at the University of Chicago last year too.
> Anyone know where we can get a copy? If I send someone a blank videotape will
>you consider *shudder* violating copyright laws and copying it for me, seeing
>as how there doesn't seem to be any alternative way of seeing this magnificent
>movie?
I don't have their number on me, but I'm sure Facets Multimedia
in Chicago carry these films and many like them. Perhaps another
Chicagoan can provide more info? At any rate, you can dial directory
assistance at 1-312-555-1212 and ask for Facets Multimedia and
then call them and ask for a catalog.
--
**Steve Kleinedler** /// See Steve in Shattered Globe's premiere
of *Harvestide*, a mystical thriller about love and witches, opening
Wednesday March 22, at Shattered Globe Theatre, 2856 N Halsted,
Chicago IL 60657. Phone 312/404-1237 for reservations!!!!!
Richard Clark
writes:
>
>Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>SOCIALIST".
Hitler got most of his money from wealthy industrialists. In fact George
Bush's grandfather formed the Union Bank in order to launder the money so that
it couldn't be traced to these industrialists. Among other places this was
revealed in a book written by one of the industrialists, after the war.
If you seriously believe that Hitler thought he was a socialist, you would
probably have believed that he planned to observe the various pacts and
treaties for peace that he made, prior to taking over most of Europe.
>You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
>thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
>with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark:
Rush's stock and trade is lies, slanders, sexist remarks, and distortions.
This has a lot in common with the radio style of Hitler.
Richard Clark
Right Said Fred
On 21 Mar 1995, Richard Clark wrote:
> Rush's stock and trade is lies, slanders, sexist remarks, and distortions.
> This has a lot in common with the radio style of Hitler.
>
As well as Slick Willy's and other democrats'.
Russell Stewart
BeHanna(beh...@syl.nj.nec.com) said...
>
> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>SOCIALIST".
"National Socialism" has about as much in common with socialism as the
People's Republic of China has to do with the Republican Party in the U.S.
--
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/|
/_____________________________________________________________/ |
| Russell Stewart | Albuquerque | What? | |
| dia...@rt66.com | New Mexico | Is it my hair? | /
|__________________|___________________|______________________|/
"After you've heard two eyewitness accounts of a motor accident,
you begin to worry about history." - J. McNab
DeWayne Filppi
You could substitute virtually any politicians name for Rush's in the
above sentence and not affect the validity.
--
DeWayne Filppi finger d...@kaiwan.com for PGP public key
d...@kaiwan.com
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <3kl502$9...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>, <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> writes:
>> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>> SOCIALIST".
>This type of lack of historical understanding is appalling.
In this case you are looking rather round and soot-covered.
>While the word
>socialist was in the Nazi title, there was no socialism at ALL in their
>program.
That is the absolutely false. The Nazis were a totalitarian party, and they
demanded total ontrol over all economic production (though they left the
title to property in the hands of private individuals and companies for the
most part so they would have someone to squeeze when they needed money or
materials) and they established a very thorough welfare program including
old age pensions, payments for the poor, youth groups, and so on.
If you don't belkieve me, have a look at the program described in the 1924
Nazi Party Platform. If you would like to read the whole thing I can post it,
but the relevant parts are...
** Begin Nazi Propaganda **
WE THEREFORE DEMAND:
11. Abolition of income unearned by labor or effort;
BREAKING THE BONDAGE OF INTEREST.
12. Considering the enormous sacrifices of property and blood which every
war demands from a people, personal enrichment because of war has to be
seen as a crime against the people. We therefore demand complete
confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand nationalization of all (previously) incorporated companies
(trusts).
*14. We demand profit sharing in big business.
*15. We demand a generous extension of old-age insurance.
*16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class;
immediate communalization of the great department stores and their leasing
to small businessmen at low rents; most favorable consideration to small
businessmen in all government purchasing and contracting, whether
national, state, or local.
*17. We demand land reform suited to our national needs, creation of a
law providing for expropriation without compensation of land for common
purposes, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation.
18. We demand a ruthless fight against those whose activities harm the
common good. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, and so forth, are to be
punished with death, regardless of church and race.
19. We demand the substitution of a German Common Law for Roman Law. Roman Law serves a materialistic world order.
*20. In order to make it possible for every able and industrious German
to obtain a higher education, and thereby to achieve a leading position,
the state must take charge of a thorough extension of our entire national
educational system. The curricula of all schools must be adapted to the
demands of practical life. The school must impress an understanding of the
state (civics) very early, at the very beginning of rational thought for the
child. We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents at the
cost of the state, regardless of the parents' status or profession.
*21. The state must improve public health through protection of mother
and child, prevention of child labor; by imposing a physical fitness
program by means of establishing legal obligations in gymnastics and sports,
and by supporting all organizations concerned with the physical training of
youth.
22. We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the creation of a
popular army.
23. We demand legal measures against the conscious political lie and its
propagation through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a
German press, we demand that:
a. All editors and contributors of German language newspapers be folk comrades;
b. Non-German newspapers must have the express permission of the state to
appear. They may not be printed in the German language.
c. Every non-German investment in or influence on German newspapers be legally
forbidden and be punished by the closing of the publishing house and the
immediate expulsion of the non-Germans involved.
Newspapers which conflict with the common good are to be forbidden. We
demand legal measures against any tendency in art and literature which has
a subversive influence on the life of our people, and the closing down of any
meetings or organizations which do not conform to those demands.
The party as such subscribes to a positive Christianity without binding
itself to a specific denomination. It opposes the Jewish materialistic spirit
within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery can only come
about from within based on the principle:
THE COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.
25. In order to carry out these policies we demand: creation of a
strong central authority in the Reich. The central parliament must have
unlimited authority over the entire Reich and all of its organizations.
The formation of chambers according to occupation and profession, to
carry out in the individual states the basic law enacted by the Reich.
The leaders of the party pledge that they will relentlessly seek the
implementation of these points, if necessary at the cost of their lives.
** End Nazi Propaganda **
>There was no nationalization of industry, no government control of
>the economy (other than the huge military buidup)
What utter nonsense. Where in the world did you get the idea that the Nazis
were free-market types? I know that there are lots of leftists who
fantasize that the Nazis were the epitome of free market politics, but
quite to the contrary, they were as much in the control of the economy
of Germany as any other country (which is one reason why they were ultimately
defeated by the freer economies of the west). For more detaied information
on this I recommend Hans Reimann's on the scene account of how the Nazi
economy worked in "The Vampire Economy" as well as Leonard Peikoff's
20/20 hindsight analysis of it in "Ominous Parallels". Do you have
even a shred of ecidence to back up your absurd claim?
>The left gave us Stalin, the right gave us Hitler.
It was indeed the case that Hitler used nationalism as the justification
for his own brand of socialism, and by many accounts (which i am not
necessarily opposed to) this makes him a "rightist", but such rightists
aren't advocates of free economics or free anything else. They are
not much different from leftists in that respect.
>Note how when you go to far
>to either side, you end up pretty close to the same place.
Just what do you think the two sides are? Free economics vs. Slave economics?
If so then Hitler wasn't on the "other side". If you mean slavery in the
name of nationalism vs. slavery in the name of the proletariat then yeah,
you are right.
>The trend these days is to call anyone you disagree with a Nazi. This is
>dangerous in that it does nothing to further the debate. There are serious
>issues we should be dealing with.
I quite agree. Neither does revising history in order to pose the Nazis as
pro-capitalist. They were as anti-capitalist as the Bolsheviks were (read
their own propaganda and look at what they did if you doubt me).
--Brian
--
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human |
| byo...@netcom.com| freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the |
| US Networx, Inc. | creed of slaves." -- William Pitt |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
Latka
DeWayne Filppi <d...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com> wrote:
>In article <3kmtch$c...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Richard Clark <car...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <3kl502$9...@newsserver.nj.nec.com> beh...@syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna)
>>writes:
>>
>>>Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>>>SOCIALIST".
Yep..that was the *name*. So?
>>>You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
>>>thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
>>>with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark:
>>
>>Rush's stock and trade is lies, slanders, sexist remarks, and distortions.
>>This has a lot in common with the radio style of Hitler.
>
>You could substitute virtually any politicians name for Rush's in the
>above sentence and not affect the validity.
I disagree. Most respectable politicians (dems, repubs, or otherwise)
do not deal in slander and out right hate. But, then <sigh>, they are not
as popular as rush, either.
-t
--
"Nothing is True. Everything is permitted." -- Naked Lunch
Raoul Golan
>In article <3klhb6$8...@colossus.holonet.net> L...@mdli.com writes:
>>In article <3kl502$9...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>, <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> writes:
>>> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>>> SOCIALIST".
>>This type of lack of historical understanding is appalling.
>In this case you are looking rather round and soot-covered.
>>While the word
>>socialist was in the Nazi title, there was no socialism at ALL in their
>>program.
>That is the absolutely false. The Nazis were a totalitarian party, and they
>demanded total ontrol over all economic production (though they left the
>title to property in the hands of private individuals and companies for the
>most part so they would have someone to squeeze when they needed money or
>materials) and they established a very thorough welfare program including
>old age pensions, payments for the poor, youth groups, and so on.
Total control? Bullshit. What they did do is contract out private
enterprise to rebuild their military. The profits remained with
the owners of these enterprises.
It seems that you associate government intervention with both Nazism and
Socialism. By this criteria, every Social Democratic government is
Nazi and Socialist too. You've just got your definitions all wrong.
To make it clear, the Nazi policy was based on the following:
1. The smashing of trade union militancy
2. The use of the market to build up a national economy, and the
subcontracting to private capital for public works
3. The use of Keynesian government spending to boost aggregate demand
through arms buildup
4. The glorification of the state
5. Fervent nationalism
6. Racism, and the belief in a master race
7. Firmly rooted in the middle class
Whereas Marxist Socialists (NOT Stalinists) support the following:
1. The fostering of trade union militancy
2. The abolition of capital
3. Production for need, not armaments
4. The ultimate abolition of the state and authority
5. Internationalism
6. Equality of workers of all races
7. Firmly rooted in the working class
Which explains the Nazi persecution of those on the left, including
Marxists, Trotskyists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, etc, etc. A Nazi
catch-phrase was "When I see a Marxist, I reach for my revolver".
None of this has anything to do with one's political bias. This
is all factual - even scholars who disagree with Marx recognise
the difference.
You really don't need to take my word for it, you can look all
this up in an encyclopedia if you wish. To make it even easier
for you, look under "Nazism" and "Marxism", under "N" and "M",
it won't hurt.
The two systems are the polar opposites of each other. Like
the earlier poster said, associating Nazism and Socialism shows
an appalling lack of historical understanding.
--
Raoul Golan, Consultant for Object Oriented P/L, at ="Those who have put out
Intelligent Networks Development, Telecom Australia = the eyes of the people
Also student at Macquarie Univ. School of History, = reproach them for their
Philosophy and Politics. EMAIL:ra...@ind.tansu.com.au = blindness." - Milton
ho...@hongkong.robadome.com
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> writes:
>> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>> SOCIALIST".
>> thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
>> with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark: I have yet
>> to hear him espouse a single Socialist viewpoint.
Point #1
Rush IS arrogant. Rush IS thickheaded. Rush DOES belittle dissenters. There
is no need to accuse him of this behavior, because these ARE FACTS!
Point #2
>This type of lack of historical understanding is appalling. While the word
>socialist was in the Nazi title, there was no socialism at ALL in their
I agree with Lee here, before one starts "thinking" that Nazis are
Socialists perhaps one should pull out that old history book again.
Which brings me to a sidepoint, just what exactly IS wrong with
socialism? As if America's capitalism/democracy is truly the
greatest system ever...
>The left gave us Stalin, the right gave us Hitler. Note how when you go to far
>to either side, you end up pretty close to the same place.
Well I must say I am finally pleased that someone DOES understand the
political spectrum. Rush is so far to the right, it's downright scary too.
One of my professors likened him to Truman and the Red scare/
Cold War hysteria. Instead of those damn "commies" it's
now those damn "liberals".
>Personally, I'm bent because Rush uses exagerations and lies to appeal to the
>worst instincts in people. He gets his popularity by playing on racism,
>homophobia, and xenophobia, and other fears. I think Rush is dangerous, and I
>find his popularity scary.
I don't find his popularity scary at all, what I do find scary is the fact
that people listen to his rhetoric as the truth. And when held to
be accountable for his statements, he shirks responsibility
by saying things like "Hey, I am not a political activist. I don't want to
change anyone's minds [yeah right]" "I am just a harmless
little fuzzball, I don't want to hurt anybody [yeah right]"
"I am just an entertainer."
Normally IMHO, but for Rush IMNSHO...
- Jeffrey
jho...@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu | Forget the turbos, blowers, and NOS!
jho...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu | Increase looks, torque, & hp by stickers!
ho...@minerva.robadome.com | Get your "Powered by stickers" sticker 2day!
Chris BeHanna
:>In article <3kl502$9...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>, <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> writes:
:>>
:>> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
:>> SOCIALIST".
:>This type of lack of historical understanding is appalling.
Excuse me?
:> While the word
:>socialist was in the Nazi title, there was no socialism at ALL in their
:>program.
Did I claim that there was? I don't believe I did.
:>There was no nationalization of industry, no government control of
:>the economy (other than the huge military buidup)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How much was left over after you account for this?
:>The trend these days is to call anyone you disagree with a Nazi. This is
:>dangerous in that it does nothing to further the debate. There are serious
:>issues we should be dealing with.
Agreed. I was responding to someone who compared Rush Limbaugh to
Adolf Hitler, in effect calling Limbaugh a Nazi.
I find it amusing that the left, traditionally aligned with things
socialist, would compare someone from the right with a Nazi, when the term
"Nazi" is derived from "National Socialist."
And, by the way, you can claim Hitler was far right all you want, but
that does not necessarily make it true. Hitler was a propagandist who said
whatever he thought was necessary to achieve his ends, much like our own
William Jefferson Clinton.
:>> C'mon, admit it: you're just bent 'cause Rush is a *LOT* more popular
:>> than your favorite liberal demagogue, whomever that may be.
:>Personally, I'm bent because Rush uses exagerations and lies to appeal to the
:>worst instincts in people.
Please, tell us about some of these exaggerations and lies. The only
untrue thing I've heard him say to date is that the WoD is a good thing.
:>He gets his popularity by playing on racism,
You're lying.
:>homophobia,
The only grain of truth in this accusation is Limbaugh's opposition to
gays in the military, a position that I do not share with him.
:> and xenophobia,
And again, you're lying.
Have you ever even once listened to his show, or read any of his
writings? Or are you instead just relying upon what other liberals are
saying about him?
And, of course, we *all* know that liberals *never* lie, exaggerate,
stretch the truth, or play on people's fears. (cough)
:> and other fears. I think Rush is dangerous, and I
:>find his popularity scary.
I think Peter Jennings is dangerous, and I find his popularity scary.
--
Chris BeHanna Secretary, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.
Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? PGP 2.6.1 public key available
Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
dodger sleeps in the White House.
Chris BeHanna
:>
:>>You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
:>>thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
:>>with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark:
:>Rush's stock and trade is lies, slanders, sexist remarks, and distortions.
:>This has a lot in common with the radio style of Hitler.
Which lies?
Which distortions?
Please be more specific.
--
Chris BeHanna Secretary, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.
Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? PGP 2.6.1 public key available
Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
L...@mdli.com
>
> :>The trend these days is to call anyone you disagree with a Nazi. This is
> :>dangerous in that it does nothing to further the debate. There are serious
> :>issues we should be dealing with.
>
> Agreed. I was responding to someone who compared Rush Limbaugh to
> Adolf Hitler, in effect calling Limbaugh a Nazi.
>
> And, by the way, you can claim Hitler was far right all you want, but
> that does not necessarily make it true. Hitler was a propagandist who said
> whatever he thought was necessary to achieve his ends, much like our own
> William Jefferson Clinton.
Great tactic, agree that comparing people to Hitler is wrong, and oh by the
way notice this comparison of Hitler and Clinton.
>
> :>He gets his popularity by playing on racism,
>
> You're lying.
No I am not
>
> :>homophobia,
>
> The only grain of truth in this accusation is Limbaugh's opposition to
> gays in the military, a position that I do not share with him.
>
> :> and xenophobia,
>
> And again, you're lying.
Wrong again
>
> Have you ever even once listened to his show, or read any of his
> writings? Or are you instead just relying upon what other liberals are
> saying about him?
Yes, I have listened to his show, and watched his TV show. I have also read
several articles he has written. No, I have never read a book of his.
He is very clever to hide racism, etc. but listen carefully. There is a great
deal of talk about people who are "different".
>
> And, of course, we *all* know that liberals *never* lie, exaggerate,
> stretch the truth, or play on people's fears. (cough)
Never said they didn't, and I never said I thought it was OK when they did. .
Are you saying that it is OK when Rush does it? Kind of like your objection to
comparing Rush to Hitler and then comparing Clinton to Hitler.
Well both Clinton and Hitler piss me off, but they are a lot more like each
other than either is like Hitler.
BTW there are intelligent, thoughtful, conservatives out there. Try reading
William Safire, George Will, even Irving Kristol. I don't agree with
everything they say, but at least they attempt to raise the level of debate.
Unlike Rush
(Oh well, what can you expect from people who call themselves ditto heads?)
L...@mdli.com
In article <3kvajb$k...@colossus.holonet.net>, <L...@mdli.com> writes:
>
>
> Well both Clinton and Hitler piss me off, but they are a lot more like each
>
> other than either is like Hitler.
>
OOPS, I meant to say that Clinton and RUSH are more like each other than either
to Hitler. Oh well, anyone wanting to point out a Freudian slip....
Soren F. Petersen
Chris BeHanna <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> wrote:
> I find it amusing that the left, traditionally aligned with things
>socialist, would compare someone from the right with a Nazi, when the term
>"Nazi" is derived from "National Socialist."
Yeah, and I find it amusing that Republicans would call the government
of China leftwing, when it's official name has the word "Republic" in
it.
Your point?
> And, by the way, you can claim Hitler was far right all you want, but
>that does not necessarily make it true. Hitler was a propagandist who said
>whatever he thought was necessary to achieve his ends, much like our own
>William Jefferson Clinton.
But not, presumably, anything at all like politician you agree with.
>Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
>dodger sleeps in the White House.
Yeah, well the veteran obviously chose to live in the cardboard box. We
all know that homelessness is entirely caused by the unwillingness of
the homeless to do honest work--at least that's what Rush says.
--
Goethe wasn't necessarily thinking of you...
so...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
bernard bunner
In article <3kmtch$c...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, car...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Clark) writes:
> In <3kl502$9...@newsserver.nj.nec.com> beh...@syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna)
> writes:
>
>
> >
> >Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
> >SOCIALIST".
>
> Hitler got most of his money from wealthy industrialists. In fact George
> Bush's grandfather formed the Union Bank in order to launder the money so that
> it couldn't be traced to these industrialists. Among other places this was
> revealed in a book written by one of the industrialists, after the war.
These wealthy industrialists supported him because, more than anything else,
they were afraid of chaos and instability. Chaos was what socialists and
communists had brought at the end of WWI and were bringing after the recession
of 1929. One of the strategies of the nazis was to amplify these fears by
generating more chaos and pushing things to the edges. Machiavellian but clever
in a sense.
> If you seriously believe that Hitler thought he was a socialist, you would
> probably have believed that he planned to observe the various pacts and
> treaties for peace that he made, prior to taking over most of Europe.
Your logic seems to be: "Since socialists are good guys and breaking
a treaty is wrong, and since Hitler broke treaties, he could not have
been a socialist". This is evidently flawed.
> >You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
> >thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
> >with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark:
>
> Rush's stock and trade is lies, slanders, sexist remarks, and distortions.
> This has a lot in common with the radio style of Hitler.
And you're the incarnated truth, aren't you ? Limbaugh backs his assertions
and although he sometimes pushes his point a little too far, a lot of what
he says makes sense, whether you like it or not (this being more important
to you than the facts).
Hitler never thought of himself as a socialist, he hated socialists/communists
because they were internationalists whereas he considered the whole array
of human activities through the notion of people and race (the nation being
merely a geographic entity). But there was definitely a socialist component
to his ideology; this component was very strong in the early history of
the nazi party, it shrunk a little in the course of the 20s because Hitler
realized that, one, he hated the reds more than the capitalists, and two, that
he could fool the capitalists into supporting him financially and politically.
And fool them he did. In fact, Hitler hated capitalism because it divided
his people along lines of class (as did the socialist doctrines) and wealth.
Remember that for him the determining factor was race, not class. The formula
"ein Volk" meant above all "one united people", where belonging to the people
mattered much more than social or financial status. He (or one of his
propagandists) once said: "A German janitor should be prouder than a foreign
millionaire because he is German".
By reaffirming the right of the Germans to be proud of themselves as one people
(remember that the humiliation of the Versailles treaty was still vivid), Hitler
earned himself the gratitude and the support of overwhelming majority of the
German population (even though only a minority had voted for him in 1933). And it
wasn't only about sentimental feelings and symbolism. The nazis put back to work
millions of people that the (capitalist) financial crash of 1929 had left jobless.
Some very progressive and popular social policies were implemented: help to
families, a more sport- and less intellectual-oriented education system, youth
organizations, etc... How was this paid for ? Through heavier taxes.
Another sign of the anti-industrialist attitude of the nazis: the freedom of the
companies to operate under free market laws was seriously impeded, under the
assumption that the interests of corporations were subordinate to those of the
German people. Lots of corporations were brought under state control, most others
had to accept a certain degree of state intervention in their private affairs.
That's why the term "national-socialist" is more appropriate than simply
"nationalist" when it comes to Hitler & co.
Bernard
Christopher Morton
> > C'mon, admit it: you're just bent 'cause Rush is a *LOT* more popular
> > than your favorite liberal demagogue, whomever that may be.
>
>
> Personally, I'm bent because Rush uses exagerations and lies to appeal to the
> worst instincts in people. He gets his popularity by playing on racism,
And in what way does this differ from National Public Radio which in it's
"All Things Considered" program attempted to suggest that David Koresh and
the Branch Davidians could have NUCLEAR weapons, and which accepted the most
pathetic of BATF lies without question.
And once again, regardless of Limbaughs inaccuracies, he:
1) Portrays himself as an ENTERTAINER. (Something that NPR commentators would
be well advised to do... or perhaps that should be WOULD-BE entertainers.)
2) He does not espouse his "bigotry" using the tax dollars of those whom he
allegedly maligns. The same cannot be said for NPR, which regularly uses
my tax dollars to demean me, in terms racist and otherwise.
> homophobia, and xenophobia, and other fears. I think Rush is dangerous, and I
> find his popularity scary.
>
It's a good thing that NPR is so marginal, lest they be similarly pernicious.
>
People who are considered "dangerous" are traditionally dealt with in certain
ways. How do you plan to deal with Limbaugh? The Kolyma? Dachau?
>
>
--
===================================================================
| BATF - NAMBLA with Guns |
===================================================================
alan wertsching
The claim has been made that Rush is racist. With
the reply prove it. Well I was watching one of
his shows and he was picking on Robert Reich.
I didn't think much about it besides how teasing
one's height was mean spirted. Well after talking
to others the point was made on exactly who and how
the attack was done. First Reich is jewish and second
his face was placed on an animal. My good friend
pointed out that the NAZIs did the exact same thing.
The attack was meant in the past and present to dehumanize
jews and liberals. If this were an isolated event I would
write it off but each show the same dehumanization occurs
he must know where the inspiration comes from... Hitler.
Alan...
Jay Marvin
writes:
>
>L...@mdli.com writes:
>beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> writes:
>>> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>>> SOCIALIST".
>>> You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
>>> thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who
disagree
>>> with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark: I
have yet
>>> to hear him espouse a single Socialist viewpoint.
>
I have! Socialism for fat cats!
Jay Marvin
Richard Clark
writes:
>
>:>Rush's stock and trade is lies, slanders, sexist remarks, and distortions.
>:>This has a lot in common with the radio style of Hitler.
>
> Which lies?
>
> Which distortions?
>
> Please be more specific.
>
To find plenty of answers to those questions, other than those that have
already been presented in this discussion, pick up a book by Charles Kelly
called The Great Limbaugh Con.
For online rebuttals to Limbaugh:
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~mernst/fair/rejoind.lim
Peter Dubuque
>Well I must say I am finally pleased that someone DOES understand the
>political spectrum. Rush is so far to the right, it's downright scary too.
>One of my professors likened him to Truman and the Red scare/
>Cold War hysteria. Instead of those damn "commies" it's
>now those damn "liberals".
Give it another few years...once they've killed off (figuratively or
otherwise) all the liberals, you'll probably see them bashing those damn
moderates for over-intellectualizing problems that they know the answer
to as a matter of gut instinct.
--
Peter F. Dubuque - dub...@max.tiac.net - Enemy of Reason(TM)
Richard Clark
1. One way or another they both recieved big bucks from major financial
players in their societies, which players were eager to see the
propaganda spread, which R & A were putting out.
2. Both were eager to avoid any real intellectual confrontation,
especially in public, with any competent spokesperson from the other
side of the ideological fence.
3. Both relied on slanderous remarks on the individuals who represent
what they hated and by this means appealed to the masses of people whose
intellectual grasp of social, political and economic dynamics is so
shallow that their anxiety and hatred must be directed at certain types
or classes of people, i.e. scapegoats.
Re: Rush and racism. Rush has said some pretty God-awful things about
the NAACP and Jesse Jackson too.
Rush's attack on the looks Clinton's daughter was unforgivable and
marked him, indelibly, as a mean-spirited piece of s__t.
James Glass
>
<sniP>
>Give it another few years...once they've killed off (figuratively or
>otherwise) all the liberals, you'll probably see them bashing those damn
>moderates for over-intellectualizing problems that they know the answer
>to as a matter of gut instinct.
>--
>Peter F. Dubuque - dub...@max.tiac.net - Enemy of Reason(TM)
Nah; after we've "killed off" all the liberals, we start on the LAWYERS.
See, we're gonna take the enemies of humanity and of freedom ONE AT A
TIME UNTIL THERE ARE NONE LEFT.
A big job--but it has to be done.
Jim Glass
Richard Patrick Larimore
>
>In article <3kl502$9...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>, <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
>> SOCIALIST".
>
>This type of lack of historical understanding is appalling. While the word
>socialist was in the Nazi title, there was no socialism at ALL in their
>program.
Exactamundo. Hitler called his goons "National Socialists" for the same reason
communist countries like to refer to themselves as "The People's Democratic
Republic of" wherever. Repressive governments of any stripe depend on
butchering all logic (including messing around with the meanings of political
words to dilute the power of the soapbox) to keep the populace off center and
thus keep power for themselves.
Read your Orwell.
Says Piglet!
Chris BeHanna
:>In article <3kv3ua$i...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>,
:>Chris BeHanna <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> wrote:
:>> I find it amusing that the left, traditionally aligned with things
:>>socialist, would compare someone from the right with a Nazi, when the term
:>>"Nazi" is derived from "National Socialist."
:>Yeah, and I find it amusing that Republicans would call the government
:>of China leftwing, when it's official name has the word "Republic" in
:>it.
:>Your point?
Can the feigned attempt at being ingenuous, please. You know very
well what my point was.
For the record, I am appalled by many of the things Republicans do.
I am also appalled at many of the things Democrats do.
That said, members of either party can span the political spectrum
from "neo-Liberal" to "Conservative". IMHO, what is today called
"conservative" bears more resemblance to true Jeffersonian Liberalism than
what is today called "liberal".
A Texas Democrat may well be to the right of a New Jersey Republican.
:>> And, by the way, you can claim Hitler was far right all you want, but
:>>that does not necessarily make it true. Hitler was a propagandist who said
:>>whatever he thought was necessary to achieve his ends, much like our own
:>>William Jefferson Clinton.
:>But not, presumably, anything at all like politician you agree with.
Put words in my mouth, why don'cha?
:>>Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
:>>dodger sleeps in the White House.
:>Yeah, well the veteran obviously chose to live in the cardboard box. We
:>all know that homelessness is entirely caused by the unwillingness of
:>the homeless to do honest work--at least that's what Rush says.
I never claimed to be completely aligned with what Rush says. I
believe, already, in this thread, I have acknowledged differing with him
severely on several issues.
However, I do agree with him in the sense that, generally, government
is the *cause of* rather than the *solution to* many, if not most, of
society's ills today.
--
Chris BeHanna Secretary, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.
Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? PGP 2.6.1 public key available
Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
Chris BeHanna
:>Things that Rush and Adolph have in common:
:>1. One way or another they both recieved big bucks from major financial
:>players in their societies, which players were eager to see the
:>propaganda spread, which R & A were putting out.
:>2. Both were eager to avoid any real intellectual confrontation,
:>especially in public, with any competent spokesperson from the other
:>side of the ideological fence.
:>3. Both relied on slanderous remarks on the individuals who represent
:>what they hated and by this means appealed to the masses of people whose
:>intellectual grasp of social, political and economic dynamics is so
:>shallow that their anxiety and hatred must be directed at certain types
:>or classes of people, i.e. scapegoats.
Hitler and Clinton have all of these in common as well.
As do Hitler and Josh Sugarmann.
As do Hitler and Sarah Brady.
As do Hitler and Dianne Feinstein.
:>Re: Rush and racism. Rush has said some pretty God-awful things about
:>the NAACP and Jesse Jackson too.
Many of those things are well-deserved. Criticizing someone who
happens to be black is not the same thing as being racist. Criticizing someone
who attempts to gain political mileage from screaming "racism" all the time
is also not the same thing as being racist.
:>Rush's attack on the looks Clinton's daughter was unforgivable and
:>marked him, indelibly, as a mean-spirited piece of s__t.
Have you ever said anything nasty about someone in your lifetime?
If yes, then you are a mean-spirited piece of shit.
People in glass houses....
Soren F. Petersen
Chris BeHanna <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> wrote:
>In article <3l3u6g$q...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> Richard Clark (car...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:>Rush's attack on the looks Clinton's daughter was unforgivable and
>:>marked him, indelibly, as a mean-spirited piece of s__t.
> Have you ever said anything nasty about someone in your lifetime?
> If yes, then you are a mean-spirited piece of shit.
Firstly, thank you for spelling 'shit' correctly.
Secondly, have you, as an adult, ever said anything nasty about a child, on
national television, for the sole purpose of attacking that child`s father;
when that child has done nothing to harm you, herself? Something that
was clearly thought up ahead of time by a scriptwriter?
THAT is inforgivable. Saying something nasty about an innocent is
nothing to be proud of, but it is forgivable when it is said in the heat
of the moment. Rush had plenty of time to think about what he was going
to say. The fact that he didn't reveals a telling lack of moral
principle. As does the fact that so many people are willing to
prostitute their morals by defending him.
"Mean-spirited piece of shit" is far too kind.
Soren F. Petersen
Chris BeHanna <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> wrote:
>In article <3kvg5g$n...@kelly.teleport.com> Soren F. Petersen (so...@teleport.com) wrote:
>:>In article <3kv3ua$i...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>,
>:>Chris BeHanna <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> wrote:
>:>> I find it amusing that the left, traditionally aligned with things
>:>>socialist, would compare someone from the right with a Nazi, when the term
>:>>"Nazi" is derived from "National Socialist."
>:>Yeah, and I find it amusing that Republicans would call the government
>:>of China leftwing, when it's official name has the word "Republic" in
>:>it.
>:>Your point?
> Can the feigned attempt at being ingenuous, please. You know very
>well what my point was.
Actually, I don't know what your point was. Are you saying that you
really believe that the "national socialism" = "socialism" argument has
any validity?
And all this while I thought you were feigning ingenuousness.
--
Scott Wilhelm
>Things that Rush and Adolph have in common:
>1. One way or another they both recieved big bucks from major financial
>players in their societies, which players were eager to see the
>propaganda spread, which R & A were putting out.
ANd Clinton too...
>2. Both were eager to avoid any real intellectual confrontation,
>especially in public, with any competent spokesperson from the other
>side of the ideological fence.
Hey the Prez does the same thing...
>3. Both relied on slanderous remarks on the individuals who represent
>what they hated and by this means appealed to the masses of people whose
>intellectual grasp of social, political and economic dynamics is so
>shallow that their anxiety and hatred must be directed at certain types
>or classes of people, i.e. scapegoats.
You mean like when the Globe called Bush supports a bunch
of Southern rednecks with a beer in one hand and a flag in the
other?
Or how about the current media stereotypes of the pro-life movement?
>Re: Rush and racism. Rush has said some pretty God-awful things about
>the NAACP and Jesse Jackson too.
So if I say that I think the NAACp is a bunch of sell outs to the
leftists establish ment and has helped sell blacks down
the welfare river, I'm a racist? And i guess the fact that
you are saying some pretty bad stuff about Limbaugh makes
you a racist too- anti-white, and a male basher...
Do you also think that the dems that attacked Clarence Thomas
were a bunch of racists?
Just because a person is black doesn't mean that disagreeing
with that person makes you a racist...
>Rush's attack on the looks Clinton's daughter was unforgivable and
>marked him, indelibly, as a mean-spirited piece of s__t.
Yeah, he does occasionally make comments he shouldn't, like the ones
he has made about Chelsea, but that hardly makes him a NAZi either...
Now lets really look at the basis of NAZISM and see if Rush holds similar
viewpoints:
1) Whites and specifically blond blue eyed whites are superior to
others due to genetics.
Rush has never made a statement like this, though many a rich white
affirmative action supporter has made statements about how
minorities need "help" hinting at a view of inferiority of
minorities...
2) The people can't be trusted and need a strong leader to tell them
what to do...
Rush refuses to seek political power and wants a weak fed govt.
Many liberals think that the govt should be made more powerful because
it can manage decisions much better than individuals. Especially
after seeing the leftist spins on the last election we can see that
the Left in the US has no trust in the people.
Additionally, many on the Left continue to herald situations in
totalitarian countries-like Cuba or China
3) Religious beliefs are foolish and just misguide.
Rush in general supports the freedom of religion
Most of the Left views religion in the same way as Hitler and thge NAzis
4) We need a world govt, and a dictatorial one at that
Rush is completely against the idea of a world govt...
Many leftrists are for it
5) Industry should be left in the hands of the private sector-but
tightly controlled by the govt and should produce what the govt
tells it too.
Rush is largely Lassie FAire.
Clinton keeps talking about similar "alliences" between business and
the govt.
6) Eugenics
Rush is a moderate pro-lifer
Most on the left are pro-abortion, and many think that there should
be firm restrictions on who should be allowed to have children
and how many they should be allowed to have...
So at least on these six basic points that sum up at least most
of the NAzi viewpoint, Rush has completely opposite views, while
most of his critics share views with the NAZIs
--
Scott Wilhelm
Internet: ph2...@prism.gatech.edu
bernard bunner
Maybe it is that lots of people don't understand the nature of nazism and it
political, economical, and social ideology. The fact is that the word "socialist"
is almost as meaningful as the word "national" in "national-socialist". What
Hitler envisioned was not the same brand of socialism you are thinking or dreaming of,
it was socialism restricted to one people or nation. But whether you define socialism
by opposing it to capitalism or as some kind of emphasis on social bonds and
duties and commune property of means of production, nazism had definitely a
socialist component.
Bernard Bunner
Dr. Zaius
Edited for brevity's sake is the bit that set me off:
> >> Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
> >> SOCIALIST".
> >
> >This type of lack of historical understanding is appalling. While the word
> >socialist was in the Nazi title, there was no socialism at ALL in their
> >program.
>
> Exactamundo. Hitler called his goons "National Socialists" for the same reason
> communist countries like to refer to themselves as "The People's Democratic
> Republic of" wherever
I would like to drop down out of space and disagree with this. National
Socialism was not Fascism. There are clear differences. Much of Hitler's
rhetoric sounds downright progressive and I am certain that this allowed
many people to acquiesce in the setting up of a regime that *was*
essentially a fascistic one.
Hitler said: "The State does not order us; we order the State!" Sounds
wonderful to me, but like all the progressive sounding things the Nazis
spouted off to gain working class support, it was tossed in the dumper
once Hitler's Messiah complex took full control.
The Nazis had a wonderful and very progressive social welfare system that
was just fine as long as you were an "Aryan" and did what you were told.
Read Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism" and compare it to "Mein Kampf"
There are essential differences at the haert of these people's thinking.
Scott Wilhelm
> Alan...
Rush does the same thing with Clinton, does that make him
anti-Southerner?
He does the same kind of thing with Eleanor Smeal, does that
make him anti-woman?
Attacking a political opponent who happens to be jewish or
black, or whatever doesn't mean that you hate whatever group they belong
to. He disagrees with these people's policies. Why should he make
fun of them? It may not be nice, but politics isn't supposed to be.
For instance. you are attacking Limbaugh calling him
anti-jewish. The NAZIS attacked Jews calling them ant-German.
Therefore you are a NAZI too. It just doesn't work.
You should know better than this...
RAG...@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna) writes:
>In article <3kvg5g$n...@kelly.teleport.com> Soren F. Petersen (so...@teleport.com) wrote:
>:>In article <3kv3ua$i...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>,
>:>Chris BeHanna <beh...@syl.nj.nec.com> wrote:
> That said, members of either party can span the political spectrum
>from "neo-Liberal" to "Conservative". IMHO, what is today called
>"conservative" bears more resemblance to true Jeffersonian Liberalism than
>what is today called "liberal".
libertarianism. The current Conservatives who are pro big business and whose
attempts to regulate both the freedom of speech on the internet as well as
protect corporations from liability are well articulated are nothing like
Jeffersonian libertarians.
> However, I do agree with him in the sense that, generally, government
>is the *cause of* rather than the *solution to* many, if not most, of
>society's ills today.
thus unsustainable (apart from being naive, simplistic etc. etc.).
>Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
>dodger sleeps in the White House.
country the people in power are almost always scoundrels and there are always
plenty of "deserving poor" to go around.
Ravi
Right Said Fred
On 25 Mar 1995, alan wertsching wrote:
> I didn't think much about it besides how teasing
> one's height was mean spirted. Well after talking
Your beloved Bill Clinton made fun of Reich's height as well. Does it
make him a Nazi?
> to others the point was made on exactly who and how
> the attack was done. First Reich is jewish and second
> his face was placed on an animal. My good friend
> pointed out that the NAZIs did the exact same thing.
>
> The attack was meant in the past and present to dehumanize
> jews and liberals. If this were an isolated event I would
> write it off but each show the same dehumanization occurs
> he must know where the inspiration comes from... Hitler.
Oh, Boy! Isn't it tough to lose argument, Alan? First, how did Rush
dehumanize Jews. Being a Jew I'd sure like to know whether a guy I respect
is anti-Semite. Although I don't think you'll respond...
Also, may I remind you that NAZIs are not known for just for putting
people's faces on the animals.
D J Barnsdale
in the meantime I recomend the following for folks kill files
/Newsgroups:.*,*,*,/h:j
--
es...@eng.warwick.ac.uk or es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk
web page: "Was Stalinism implicit in October?"
http://www.csv.warwick.ac.uk/~esrhi/oct.html/
Jonathan Maddox
-awer...@unlinfo.unl.edu (alan wertsching) writes:
-> The claim has been made that Rush is racist. With
-> the reply prove it. Well I was watching one of
-> his shows and he was picking on Robert Reich.
-> I didn't think much about it besides how teasing
-> one's height was mean spirted. Well after talking
-> to others the point was made on exactly who and how
-> the attack was done. First Reich is jewish and second
-> his face was placed on an animal. My good friend
-> pointed out that the NAZIs did the exact same thing.
-> The attack was meant in the past and present to dehumanize
-> jews and liberals. If this were an isolated event I would
-> write it off but each show the same dehumanization occurs
-> he must know where the inspiration comes from... Hitler.
-> Alan...
-Rush does the same thing with Clinton, does that make him
-anti-Southerner?
No, because I am sure there are Southerners he wouldn't use that
accusation on -- ones he liked.
-He does the same kind of thing with Eleanor Smeal, does that
-make him anti-woman?
No, I'm sure he likes his wife.
-Attacking a political opponent who happens to be jewish or
-black, or whatever doesn't mean that you hate whatever group they belong
-to. He disagrees with these people's policies. Why should he make
-fun of them? It may not be nice, but politics isn't supposed to be.
If he disagrees with policies, he should attack policies. I have
no idea what Robert Reich's policies are, but to describe him as
a jew or an animal has nothing to do weith policy. It does label
Limbaugh as a racist, though -- not because he consistently
degrades any particular group, but because he uses racial insults
where they are not only false, but irrelevant.
-For instance. you are attacking Limbaugh calling him
-anti-jewish. The NAZIS attacked Jews calling them ant-German.
-Therefore you are a NAZI too. It just doesn't work.
Hitler killed Jews, I kill flies. Therefore I am a little
Hitler.
--
xoddam. (Jonathan Maddox, jma...@neumann.une.edu.au)