With all of the problems facing America today, the Democrats in Congress got their panties all in a bunch to attack Rush Limbaugh for something he didn't even say in the first place.

Then, the San Fransisco Supervisors voted to condemn Michael Savage for what he says. Nobody is saying Savage said anything untrue, they just want to shut him up.

In that the Democrats have no ideas, nothing to offer, their only recourse is to try to shut up those who spread the truth.

Sad position we're in here in the land of the free.

This is actually a good thing for the Republicans. Let the world see how much the Democrats only want to hide the truth from the American people. Should help the Republicans chances in the next election quite a bit.

Has anyone heard a single idea from the Democrats other than election pandering?

Hide the truth?

Since when do Limbaugh and Savage spend time on that? Seriously, neither of them has a whole lot of credence in that regard.

Ideas? Absolutely. I see lots of them. Before anything real happens, we've got to complete the cycle. That means the GOP shrinking by another third or so.

Only a little while to go. Be patient.

What didn't Rush say, Deane?

Nope. Well, probably, I could think of one. But I'd have to think WAY too long for it to come. And that's a bad thing.

And attacking Rush Limbaugh IN CONGRESS is utter bullshit.

I don't know what the topic is they are claiming caused such a hissy-fit. I KIND of care, but not enough to warrant f'n CONGRESS to get involved in any manner.

So what " truth " did Limbaugh say...that he didn't even say...(?).

Sorry, but Rush deserves it.

HE may deserve it. I don't. I deserve MUCH better.

But your point is not lost on me, Missing.

Boy, what short memories the conservatives have. Didn't we just debate the Moveon.org ad last week? Seriously Deane, I respect my elders, but memory lapses like that are an indication of trouble.

I love the Flaming Lips!

Oh, wait, you said libs.

The singular arguments may seem petty, but as long as our troops have to listen to that portly bigot without any counterpoint, I will forever detest Limbaugh.

I love Rush.

Rush is a band.

Who the heck are the San Francisco Supervisors? A bowling team?

Rush is a band.

"Attention all planets of the Solar Confederation - We have assumed control."

It's time for a real change, and a real choice. Vote for real 3rd party candidates next time (Not the 'such and such used to be a R/D...,' like the Independent Party, or the people that run in every election).

Who the heck are the San Francisco Supervisors? A bowling team?
I think it's similar to saying the Portland City Council (insert web search here)... yep, that's exactly who they are:
http://sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp

"It's time for a real change, and a real choice. Vote for real 3rd party candidates next time..."

Run Ralph, Run!

Herb

Run, Ralph, Run!

Otherwise known as stomach flu.

>>>"What didn't Rush say, Deane?"

He picked up a story run by Brian Ross on ABC two days earlier about a soldier, or soldiers, who had lied about being in combat or wounded as they said they were and stated they they were against the war. Both ABC and Rush referred to them as phoney soldiers or, in other words, not who they represented they were. Nobody said a word about ABC or the story, then thought they had a way to get at Rush. It has backfired.

Basically, Reid and Polosi are trying to get the public's attention off their own ineffectiveness.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html


>>>"Sorry, but Rush deserves it."

Once again Missing, what has he ever said that was wrong or incorrect? Don't we have a case here of "you can't handle the truth".

And once again, that particular character went to jail. (as Rush should have) Great movie though! I watched it the other day. Gonna really miss Jack when he goes. There really is nobody like him.

Rush is a buffoon. Rush has been discussed here many times. He has no credence.

The only reason people like him, O'reilly, et al... don't get canned over their BS, is there is just nothing that could cause their bosses to reconsider. They need their brand of crap on the air, so nothing short of a very serious and quite obvious transgression will impact them in the least.

Rush contributes to helping scum make money at peoples own expense. Manupulates the news such that his listeners consistently vote against their own interests. He is a great entertainer and does high quality radio too boot.

It's a potent mix, but not one that has credence.

Rush continues to have a following because he is necessary, period.

>>>"Rush is a buffoon"

In your view since he is the opposite of your socialist viewpoint. A buffoon he is not. You and I should be so smart.

Once again, you can't dispute what he says, only call him a name. Don't feel bad. The other Dems are no better at this than you.

Deane,

I've gone to the ABC website and seen the news story (9/24/07) about "Phony Heroes". I've also listened to the clip of Rush's show. And, I have to give Rush the benefit of the doubt on this one. It seems to me that when he first refers to "phony soldiers" he was likely referring to Jesse MacBeth, the man who was trying to pass himself off as an Iraqi veteran. But, Rush didn't clarify this until two minutes later in the broadcast. I can see the potential for misinterpretation here.

So I think it's time for everyone who's statements have been taken out of context to be able to rectify the record: Al Gore never said he invented the internet; MoveOn never *stated* that Pertraeus betrayed us, but rather only posed the question; Kerry never slammed the troops, but rather told a "bad joke"; etc, etc.

Should we go by what the speaker says, or what he meant to say? What Rush said about "phony soldiers" was, on the surface, offensive. What he meant to say (or said badly) was not a big deal.

Kerry did slam the troops. What Rush said, was very clear, he was talking about phony soldiers, IE people with no right to call themselves soldiers.

"Should we go by what the speaker says, or what he meant to say?"

Answer the question

>>>"MoveOn never *stated* that Pertraeus betrayed us,"

Ed, I'll have to call you on this one. MoveOn.Org bought an expensive ad in the NY Times and called him General Betray Us in huge headlines. This one is pretty clear. It doesn't compare in any way with the Rush issue.

It think Fred Thompson's response to the Limbaugh issue on his web site pretty much puts this in perspective:

http://fredfile.fred08.com/2007/fred-thompson-on-harry-reid%e2%80%99s-attacks-on -rush-limbaugh/
.

Fred says: "Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh."

I say: "Congressional Republicans are trying to divert attention from the Iraq War by insulting those Americans who oppose the war and pandering to the looney right by attacking Moveon.org."

Attacking Moveon.org is probably the safest activity in America. You can't lose.

Attacking Moveon.org is a waste of time and a diversion from realty, and trust me, YOU will lose in 2008. Mark my words.

>>>"YOU will lose in 2008."

We can agree on that, not because the Democrats have anything to offer, but because the Republicans have done one stupid thing after another and didn't deliver on their watch. The Democrats will not take it with better ideas, the Republicans have given it to them.

The Democrats have plenty to offer, and the voters know this, which is why more Democrats will be elected to move forward with an agenda that more people agree with. If the Democrats truly had nothing to offer, they wouldn't win as voters would do the conservative thing and stick with status quo.

Like what to offer. Oh, yes, I remember, plenty of new taxes, starting with getting rid of the capital gains tax rate and moving it to 40%.

Earth to Deane, how many Democratic ideas have been filibusterd or vetoed by the GOP???

Hint, we just saw one that occured today.

Thank god the Republicans are still guarding the gate.

More like digging their own graves.

Deane said - " The Democrats will not take it with better ideas, the Republicans have given it to them."

I think a pretty decent case could be made to support the idea that EVERY election of this magnatude has been decided by this very criteria. You say it like it's some sort of new phenomenon or strategy. Each side looks for the other to fail when it comes to reasons to not vote the other team. It's not new, Deane. I think that the reason(s) it's brought up now are because #1). There is no denying it because it is SO obvious. Previous elections it has been less obvious. This time it's going to make people sick to HAVE to vote Republican purely because of party affiliation. My guess is many of them won't take that risk this next time around. And #2). It's a situation that was caused by Republicans doing it to themselves - as opposed to say, Democrats having the power to cause it to happen. And THAT is a DIRECT cause and effect of having Bush in office. Republicans felt too much allegiance to Bush. They trusted in a false prophet and are getting smited left AND right.

As it should be.

"Ed, I'll have to call you on this one. MoveOn.Org bought an expensive ad in the NY Times and called him General Betray Us in huge headlines. This one is pretty clear."

Since it was phrased in the form of a question, it was not any different than the strongly-implied-but-not-stated-falsehood "questions" that are displayed on the Faux News Chyron every day.

"Thank god the Republicans are still guarding the gate."

Careful, Deane. Remember you're talking to the leftist party of the ACLU, NARAL, NAMBLA and NOW.
Better leave God out of it or they'll sue you.

Herb

Do you have an infatuation with NAMBLA?

The only ones who have an unhealthy infatuation are those like the ACLU and its defenders who support NAMBLA.

Those who seek to normalize criminal behaviour should be called on it. Don't make those who point out their evil doings the bad guys. The ACLU and its supporters are the bad guys on this one.

Herb

Nope, the ACLU is as American as apple pie. The ACLU does not support NAMBLA, they support civil liberties of ALL Americans, regardless of what group they belong to, even you nutcase bible thumpers!

"The ACLU does not support NAMBLA..."

Nice try.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm

Better change the subject. You will only lose on this one.

Herb

>>>"Nope, the ACLU is as American as apple pie."

Ya, right Vitalogy, the ACLU was formed to protect the Communist Party in America. It would have been more accurate to say the ACLU is as American as borsch.

You've already been proven wrong on this subject.

"Under the First Amendment, there are no illegal ideas. Those who commit illegal acts can be punished for wrongful conduct, but the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by our Constitution."

Clearly, those that rail against the ACLU must have a problem with the Constitution.

Maybe one of these days you'll find yourself behind bars because of your crazy religious beliefs? Don't think it can't happen??

Deane, so what? Don't communist Americans deserve the same rights? How un-American of you.

To Herb: "Do you have an infatuation with NAMBLA?"

He does mention it often...perhaps he belongs to the NAMBLALA. (figure it out)

Vitology, here's some light reading for your evening pleasure:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751
http://deadrepublicanpresidents.blogspot.com/2005/01/aclu-and-communism.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092102.html
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/12/american-communist-lawyers-union/
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AlanSears/2007/06/16/the_aclu_never_forgets_i ts_pro-communist_roots
http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/165855.php
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/aclu-should-stay-true-to-its-radical-communis t-roots
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/stokjok/Founders.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489406/posts
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/the_aclu_campaign_to_advance_c.html

So Deane, you think that there is a Communist agenda being implemeted in America with the goal to make us, you know, Communist?

Do you one single person who wants America to be Communist?

CJ, the libs are getting dangerously close. The first thing they must do is remove religion. When people, like the libs, have nothing to believe in, they are much more ripe for believing in something. Communism moves in to fill the gap.

Notice anything going on among the libs in recent years. Say, maybe godlessness, socialized medicine to name a couple of things.

How is socialized medicine akin to godlessness? Isn't providing medical help to all, no matter who they are, at the height of Christian values?

"Clearly, those that rail against the ACLU must have a problem with the Constitution."

No. Those who rail against the ACLU have a problem with organisations like the ACLU who defend groups promoting child molestation.

And you leftists are using the commie playbook by trying to re-frame the issue to make those who oppose child molesters look intolerant. Marx, Lenin & Engels would be proud of you, as would Kim Il Sung, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Josef Stalin, Nikita Kruschev and Fidel Castro.

And for you constitutional Einsteins: The above black-hearts all achieved their means through violence. The last time I checked, the violent overthrow of the US government is illegal and not allowed under the constitution. So try your abysmal attempt to cloak yourselves with the constitution on someone else.

Herb

Do Communists believe in free speech? Ask a Chinese person whether an outfit that defends free speech should be categorized as "communist".

Bringing out the Communist card is proof positive that you have no argument.

I am not convinced that we are in any way getting dangerously close to Communism. The examples cited around here are nothing but " slippery slope " arguments that have zero chance of actually coming to frution.

I believe in God for all kinds of reasons. But it's NOT because of anything our country does or doesn't do. A Government couldn't convince me either way. Communist or not.

So I have no fear that we will become Communist. In fact, I think it's full-on rediculous to trot it out as a realistic fear.

"Bringing out the Communist card is proof positive that you have no argument."

Wrong again:

"Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

The ACLU shares an unsavoury background, not unlike the founder of so-called 'planned parenthood.' Margaret Sanger's devious background includes promoting eugenics and sterilizing African-Americans, deeming them inferior.

Herb

If you believe that the goal of the ACLU is communism, I'm afraid you have been propagandized by those looking to control you.

I don't think the goal of the ACLU is communism, socialism maybe. And to have the constitution intrepreted the way they want it to read, not the way it is written.

"If you believe that the goal of the ACLU is communism, I'm afraid you have been propagandized by those looking to control you."

Wait a minute. The FOUNDER of the aclu HIMSELF said: COMMUNISM IS THE GOAL.

And you're taking issue?

Herb

The constitution is pretty clear about free speech, and that is what the ACLU defends.

The ACLU is involved in many more areas than free speech.

I don't care what the founder said in 1920. It's meaningless today. The ACLU as it stands today does not advocate communism in any way, shape, or form. Otherwise, I'm sure they'd be pretty big over in China or in the former USSR.

Deane_johnson:
In your view since he is the opposite of your socialist viewpoint. A buffoon he is not. You and I should be so smart.


OH, GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!

Rush Bigmouth smart? I'll bet you drive around with a "Rush is Right" bumpersticker too.

If he's so goddamn smart, why does he weigh so much? Another thing since you think he's so great, why exactly should I listen to a man who's in his mid 50's, a drug addict (not to smart either), never father a child and had many divorces lecture me about family values. Let me know when you see Elvis.

Aok, you post speaks for itself. No need to comment on your station in life.

!?!

This is nuts! We've got ACLU, NAMBLA, COMMIES, GODLESS, and who knows what other booga booga marked trump cards on deck today.

The only reason Rush is on the air is to validate the non-rational among us. Really, without his hot air blaring on a fricking ton of stations, along with others doing the same thing, reality would begin to take a deeper hold.

As it is, so long as there are people on the air, continuing the mess, those head in the sand folks, who might feel really bad about what they have supported over the years, have an easy excuse not to.

Like I said, he's necessary, but that has absolutely nothing to do with him being right, or even trustworthy. Only necessary.

It's just like going to one of those hate filled, anti-gay, churches. The bigots love 'em!

Why?

Because there is enough support to not feel bad about being a bigot. Bob does it, Joe does it, so it's all ok.

This is what Rush Limbaugh and friends are all about.

I think Ed has a point here, but I frankly am not really concerned about it. The greater point is to just not engage these kinds of gas bags and think about the issues themselves, YOUR SELF INTEREST, and what the impact of things might be.

And this whole side discussion serves to reinforce my point nicely. Instead of some rational discussion about how BETRAYUS didn't do what he was supposed to; namely, deliver a rational assessment of Iraq, we get to talk about who is more patriotic than who.

Big fucking deal.

Mark this episode people. Anytime you see the whole, "who is the bigger American" discussion happening, it's a side show, full of freaks, aimed square at getting your mind off the big prize.

That's all this is, nothing more.

I'm sure Herb's elders warned against things that they knew as an enemy growing up - ( I could go for an easy joke about being old here, but I won't ) - as does Herb or Deane rail against Communism. It's the enemy they know, soundly defeated and relive as some sort of High School quarterback reliving his glory days. But to say that fear of Communism is a motivating factor in making policy decisions TODAY is more than troubling. I mean, why spend so much time railing against it today? It's a complete non-issue. You may as well be vocal about The Boston Tea party being a threat again.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - " Those who forget history..." blah blah blah.

Those who are stuck in history are doomed to ruin our future.

Republicans love a good bumper sticker. They always have. The " Betray Us " pun was childish and smacked of all things dumb. You guys get so hung up on a sound bite that you can't look at the text. It's all about surface fears. Scrath it, and it just goes away. Which is part of the reason why I hate politics so much. Between Gulianni raising donations $9.11 at a time or Thompson being able to say he drives a pick-up truck ( And Vitalogy, Thompson is going to make him and his party look like SUCH a fool as long as he stays in the race. We agree. The act is so thin and transparent it's nauseating ) the tried and true ways to get someone's attention are all going away. They've GOT our attention - now let's see who can hold it.

I agree with those who think that Congress has better things to do than policing our airwaves, but like it or not, sending a letter on behalf of our troops is noble. Before anyone continues to think this was merely a partisan vendetta, here is a reality check:

Dear David,

I normally ignore Rush Limbaugh, but his comments last Wednesday went too far for me to remain silent. It's one thing to call me "Dingy Harry" -- it's another to insult our men and women in uniform, calling those who oppose the war "phony soldiers" as Rush did during his September 26th broadcast.

Of course, Rush continued his tirade Monday by denying he had said anything wrong and attacking John Murtha, who served 37 years in the Marines.

This week, 41 Democrats signed a letter to Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays, demanding that Rush apologize.

In December 2006, a poll run by the Military Times found that only 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. Would Rush consider every other Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine to be phony? What about General John Batiste who retired from active duty in order to speak out against this war?

Rush has the courage to sit behind a microphone and lash out at those who oppose George Bush's misadventure in Iraq -- yet when it was his time to serve, he received a deferment and has never worn a uniform.

Limbaugh's show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and therefore service members around the world heard his insults. It's time for Clear Channel to make Rush apologize.

Demand that Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays take action by visiting:

http://giveemhellharry.com/rush

Rush certainly has the right to say whatever he wants -- but we have an obligation to speak out when he goes too far.

Thank you,

Harry Reid

This winter will be very cold for those cowards who wrap themselves in the flag, while at the same time rationalizing which soldiers to support. Our Armed Forces sacrifice every day for our nation and their opinions ought to count. In fact, they ought to count more than a hundred Mr. Limbaughs.

Considering how the liberal hero Kerry, libeled the military, they dont really have a leg to stand on.

And that military times poll was discredited long ago.

Rush thinks that these two proud Americans were cowards. Do you agree with him?

Two of Seven Soldiers Who Wrote 'NYT' Op-Ed Die in Iraq

By Greg Mitchell

Published: September 12, 2007 7:25 AM ET

NEW YORK The Op-Ed by seven active duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq questioning the war drew international attention just three weeks ago. Now two of the seven are dead.

Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray died Monday in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, two of seven U.S. troops killed in the incident which was reported just as Gen. David Petraeus was about to report to Congress on progress in the "surge." The names have just been released.

Gen. Petraeus was questioned about the message of the op-ed in testimony before a Senate committee yesterday.

The controversial Times column on Aug. 19 was called "The War As We Saw It," and expressed skepticism about American gains in Iraq. “To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched,” the group wrote.

It closed: "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003638726

"I'm sure Herb's elders warned against things that they knew as an enemy growing up.."

Correct.

"It's the enemy they know, soundly defeated and relive as some sort of High School quarterback reliving his glory days."

Maybe.

"But to say that fear of Communism is a motivating factor in making policy decisions TODAY is more than troubling. I mean, why spend so much time railing against it today? It's a complete non-issue. You may as well be vocal about The Boston Tea party being a threat again."

That's where you lose me. When communist states, with their diametric opposition to our democratic values, link arms with radical Islam, they greatly multiply both of their threats.

Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, along with the presidents of Venezuala and Iran pose a real threat...particularly when allied with China. Right now, communist nations are already helping to arm our enemies.

9/11 is one thing. Add China or a determined communist country into the mix and it's far worse.

Besides, Russia was recently sited flying off our Alaskan border.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S0Q7E00&show_article=1&cat=0

As Mr. Reagan wisely said, 'Trust, but verify.'

Herb

DJ said>>
Aok, you post speaks for itself. No need to comment on your station in life.

You post??? WTF!!!

Just can't stop making fun of people.... You and Herb are cut from the same cloth. Sad, Oh very sad... Your an ASSet to your EXTREME RIGHT party. Your the reason Moderate Republicans like myself have washed our hands of YOUR EXTREME views and opinions.

Wait a minute.

First this ham-fisted accusation:
"Just can't stop making fun of people...."

Then this, in the very same post:
"Your an ASSet ..."

You can't make this stuff up.

Herb

Did you hear my question?

Check, check, a-one, a-two-a you know what to do-a, check, check, Czechoslovakia...

Or should I just assume that you all support our troops with a depth of conviction and compassion that is beyond question? I like you all and I do not like Rush Limbaugh. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Herb, CJ's point is a good one. Communism is no less dangerous than when Lenin first imposed it on Russia, but the threat of communism today is much, much less than it in it's heyday during the mid 20th century. The promises of the communist state have been revealed for the pipe dreams that they are, thanks to the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and the softening of it in China (Hong Kong and multinationalism has helped the PRC begin to see the light).

Communism by it's nature was simply fertile ground for totalitarianism, and the most oppressive leaders of the last century exploited communist governments, and the people living under the (unattainable) promises of communism, to gain power, pure and simple. But I don't believe communism in and of itself is dangerous, just like a nuclear bomb isn't in and of itself dangerous. But in both cases, it is too risky a thing to allow people to mess with unsupervised (bad analogy, I know).

When you list off all the evil leaders of the recent past, you are listing off totalitarian dictators, only some of which were communist. Totalitarianism is what you are really concerned about, and it is what you should be concerned about. Communism as a mechanism for imposing totalitarianism has just about run it's course. Marx was wrong, and we all clearly see that now. But what are the new mechanisms for imposting totalitarianism? - that's the question. Because men are men, the threat of despotism will always be here.

"Fidel Castro...pose(s) a real threat"

Does anyone here besides HerrB really believe that in this day and age?

Some fair points, Edselehr.

"But I don't believe communism in and of itself is dangerous, just like a nuclear bomb isn't in and of itself dangerous.."

I strongly disagree. Communism has proven to be dreadfully lethal, vile and inhumane. Hundreds of millions have suffered under its jackboot of oppression, deprivation of liberty, along with the freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

"When you list off all the evil leaders of the recent past, you are listing off totalitarian dictators, only some of which were communist."

Perhaps, but every single rotten one I listed was generally accepted as a communist. I would frame it this way: All were communist, all were totalitarian, not merely authoritarian. That's because communism cannot survive when citizens are given the choice of freedom. They have to be totalitarian or people flee. And look what happened at Tieneman Square. Those evil commies that ran over their own innocent civilians with tanks make me so angry I want to spit. There is hope. Look at what happened to East Germany. The yearning for freedom won out.

Herb

"Totalitarianism is what you are really concerned about, and it is what you should be concerned about."

Once again, Edselehr cuts right to it. It is something to watch for here as well.

Was Executive Order 9066 what kept us safe in Oregon during World War Two? Was the HUAC really stopping communism or merely thinning the herd of free thinkers? Is the Posse Comitatus Act irrelevant today? Which of our Bill of Rights is still healthy?

If you are dead set against communism and shop at Wal-Mart, you should be aware that you are providing aid and comfort to the enemy with every Chinese made product you buy.

Oh, and most products made in other countries were once made by your friends and neighbors. You know the ones you now criticize for being unemployed or poor? Yeah, that plurality of Americans was screwed by you, the cheapskate commie loving turncoats among us.

We are a nation of hypocrisy and contradictions, aren't we? I would love to see a manufacturing base and a Bill of Rights again. I guess I need to get some new vacuum tubes for the old time machine. Too bad I have to buy them from Russia, eh?

"I strongly disagree. Communism has proven to be dreadfully lethal, vile and inhumane. Hundreds of millions have suffered under its jackboot of oppression, deprivation of liberty, along with the freedoms of speech, assembly and worship."

Hundreds of millions suffered from the Communist LEADERS, yes. Lenin and Stalin and Mao weren't exactly warm and fuzzy guys. They used Marxism as the vehicle for their own personal agendas, in the guise of that one-class society, equality for all.

Karl Marx didn't think of totalitarian dictatorships when he penned the Communist Manifesto, Herb. He just thought that if we all lived IN PEACE and equally, with everything going into and out of the central government equally for the betterment of all, that all would be great. Noble idea ... as history has shown, it isn't practical though. The people don't want to work hard for something that they get nothing for in return. No ownership, no rights ... just a cog in a machine.

Maybe we should look at it in terms you would get. A conservative in the sense of Theodore Roosevelt, or Dwight Eisenhower, or even yes, your esteemed 37th POTUS. What did they stand for and believe in? Smaller government. Peace through might (but at the same time, real diplomacy). Conservation. Many other things that both Republicans and Democrats can embrace, get their arms around. Now look at the current administration and see how he matches up to the above listed. Smaller government? Nope, he has overseen the largest federal government in this nation's history, and it isn't even close. Peace through might and REAL diplomacy? Do I EVEN need to answer that one? Conservation? Why don't we ask the tens of thousands of fish in the Klamath River basin dead from a few years back on that one? Or the ANWR? Or the increased timber harvests, largely without regulation?

The idea of Communism was ruined by the folks who practiced it in their brutal ways, just like conservatism has been ruined by George W. Bush. Don't blame Communism for this, because nowhere did that kind of brutality enter the architect's mind.

Brianl is exactly right. Every type of governmental system can be executed properly, or executed poorly. Our democracy has certainly gone through periods where it has functioned properly, and others when those in power have attempted to hijack our democratic machinery for their own self-serving purposes (fortunately, the Founding Fathers created mechanisms to help squelch that kind of power grabbing). Communism is no different; executed as per Marx's original blueprint, it would be a pretty cool system to live under. Marx's fatal flaw was in having too good an opinion of human nature, assuming that people could be retrained over time to abandon selfishness and greed.

An interesting geneological study came out in the early 1980's that scared the Soviets shitless. It looked at identical twins seperated at birth, in order to test the "nature v. nurture" question. They found that these identical twins - with the exact same DNA - shared very many personality traits, likes and dislikes, etc. though many were raised in vastly different circumstances, sometimes even in different countries. This seemed to strongly indicate that "nature" wins over "nurture". Well, if Man's basic nature - particularly his self-serving nature - is essentially unchangable through conditions, then the ideals of Communism become unattainable. The Soviets disavowed the results of this study until the bitter end.

One last thought: has anyone else considered the idea that the political spectrum is actually a circle? That as you go further left (or right), you end up at the other end of the spectrum? For example, that Stalinism and Hitler's fascism, though on opposite ends of the spectrum, were essentially the same thing? Just something to chew on...here's a link:

http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com/2007/02/circular-political-spectrum.html

I like the circle idea.

Worth some thought. One dead simple thing hits me straight away:

There then must be no true fundamentalist positions. Instead of being bases from which to reason, they are constructs, contrived to ignore parts of the circle.

Hmmm....

"Every type of governmental system can be executed properly, or executed poorly."

Don't confuse that with thinking that with enough work, laws and enforcement they're equally desirable.

As pointed out on this thread, the clear inability to make communism work makes it inferior, if simply for the fact that it denies the human realities of incentive. Hugely problematic is a basic communist ideal of the denial of God. Atheism is at odds with a VAST majority of humanity.

Never mind the fact that communism requires inhuman and inefficient ham-fisted enforcement.
China has its hands full in their attempts to deprive the Chinese of freedom of thought via the Internet.

Herb

" As pointed out on this thread, the clear inability to make communism work makes it inferior..."

OK. Well you did what I usually get around to asking for by taking it to the end for me. Yes. You are right. It IS clear.

So why is there such energy spent on it by you around here? Plus, uh, nobody in America wants it.

Or are you saying that we are risking getting TRICKED into BECOMING Communist?

>>>"Or are you saying that we are risking getting TRICKED into BECOMING Communist?"

Exactly. The libs in this country are so hopeful of receiving freebies from the government, they'll walk right into the trap. America was founded on opportunity, enterprise and ambition, not exactly the liberals strong suit.

"...nobody in America wants it. Or are you saying that we are risking getting TRICKED into BECOMING Communist?"

PRECISELY. No one would want it. So it's dressed up in the guise of a different approach. Trojan horse. For Vitalogy to insist the ACLU founder's statements are meaningless shows HE'S the deluded one. Talk about a contortionist. Kruschev himself said 'We will bury you.' Mr. Nixon and Reagan took them seriously and we prevailed.

Herb

OK. I'm glad I got to the bottom of that.

Kind of.

I completely disagree that it is a realistic fear, but at least I know where your mind is at on this. You see way more things as a " slippery slope " than I do. I think many in your party, actually though not either Herb or Deane, use that argument as a crutch to scare people into remaining relatively scared and submissive. To keep us from questioning things that really need to be reviewed or overhauled. Bascially, to maintain a bit more power than I am comfortable just handing over without a fight.

Frankly, in another time in another place, that tactic would have been understandable and it would have worked.

I'm done with that tacttic now thogh. So your generation are going to have to get with it and understand that we will take your history lessons wiht a grain of salt when it comes to, yet ANOTHER thing, that you are fighting against.

America becoming Communist, today, in any significant level is just not going to happen. No matter how hard you try and label an attempt at genuine progress that you disagree with as Communist, it's just not going to happen that way.

So you fight against that. You, of course, are only trying to keep us in check. But too much of it is motivated by your party losing it's grip on power. And as weak as The Democrats are right now, they hold some higher ground, to me, in trying to make things better for as many people as possible.

Your party just wants to smash and grab for as much as they can to keep it all for themselves. People need, want and deserve help.

I will continue to support ways to do that. And I will also try and make sure it's not to our GREATER detriment.

And fear of becoming Communist doesn't motivate me to do anything being talked about in this century.

Thanks.

Listen pal, I'm far from deluded. What I'm saying is that the statements of an ACLU founder from 87 years ago means nothing today as far as what the organization stands for. If they are truly a communist organization, please show me the ACLU chapter than must be thriving over in China.

The sad thing is, I see conservatives like Herb standing for more of a communist type state than anyone else here. They want to limit freedom, stifle free speech, and have everyone conform to their beliefs "for their own good".

No.

I'm simply against the violent overthrow of our government. That's against the law and that's how communists typically take power.

Ballots, not bullets.

Herb

Hey Herb.....

Cheer up! Here is the perfect website for you to relieve a little stress....you'll love it!

http://hytaipan.home.comcast.net/media/serenity2.html

Herb, do you think the ALCU is currently motivated by the desire to violently overthrow the government and change it to Communism?

"Herb, do you think the ALCU is currently motivated by the desire to violently overthrow the government and change it to Communism?"

By any means necessary. Since they believe there's no God to ultimately hold them accountable for their dastardly deeds, atheistic communists oft have little regard for human life.

Herb

Yikes! Hold me.

So is that a " Yes " Herb?

Pretending the ACLU still has a communist agenda is silly. Should every organization or company be accountable for following the roots that made sense in historical context to the founders?

- UPS must deliver by bicycle and only to the Puget Sound.

- Coors must still murder labor organizers and host picnics for extremists in the mountains.

- Krups must continue to be the leading supplier of the tools of genocide to the German camps.

- Ford must exercise the philosophies of Henry, an avowed racist, anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer.

- Greyhound must only run buses in remote parts of Minnesota.

Of course, this is not true, and does not represent what these companies do today. They have evolved, and so has the ACLU. In the early days of the organization, they did advocate for communists who were being repressed in the United States and shot almost everywhere else. The nationalist movement of Hitler loved attacking commies and rose to power using the "Red Menace" as a barking point.

The worst part about totalitarianism is how seductive it is when it is defeated. Our nation swung far to the right in the 1950s. The HUAC destroyed careers on hearsay and squelched free speech. Americans dug bomb shelters, watched their neighbors with suspicion, and lived in fear. The United States had just defeated the most evil leader of his time and we were fearful? Didn't anyone still remember the words of Roosevelt about fear?

I believe that when the Eastern Bloc dissolved, there were those in America -- and elsewhere -- who saw it as an opportunity. Sick as it seems, there are always opportunists who will adopt the tools of a horrific regime in the vacuum afterward. The current administration knows that a whole generation doesn't even remember the Cold War and has exploited that fact.

Some very good points have been made here by Brianl, Chickenjuggler, Missing_KSKD and others. I think Edselehr's point about the circle is absolutely true. I have met extremists on both ends who have so much in common that the results of either gaining actual power would be the same. Freedom ought to be freedom without a whole lot of caveats, narrow definitions of eligibility or exceptions based on the whims of a fearful few.

Democracy is a messy process full of disagreement, dissent and compromise. Those who want things neat, tidy and ordered will always be in the way of the American ideal. It does not matter who they think they represent, if they do not represent the interests of Americans.

Add: The ACLU is not universally liked, but as long as they continue to advocate for the freedom of all Americans, they will serve an important role. This is an old and tired discussion. Not long ago, the ACLU advocated for Rush Limbaugh, Reverend Jerry Falwell, and Senator Larry Craig. They also kept Colonel Oliver North out of Leavenworth. It seems from their record that they are not too picky about the Americans they represent when preserving our liberties. Do I approve of all of their clients? Of course not. Do I approve of holding on to our freedoms and the checks and balances of our system? Absolutely.

Last time I checked, the ACLU defends the civil liberties of free Americans.

Like I said, please point me to the CCLU (Chinese Civil Liberties Union).

Well the point I am getting at is that one shouldn't have to go even THAT far to get to the truth.

If the ALCU is so openly and obviously pursuing a Communist agenda that involves violently overthrowing the Government of The United States - then I'm sure if we ask them about that, they will say " Yes. It's true. That's what we want around here."

But no - Herb and Deane feel it's a SECRET agenda that only THEY have insight about. It's not that they would accidentally cause Communism in America, it's the actual GOAL. Because once America is Communist, the ALCU will...get to...have...be....what again? What is the motive for becoming Communist again? Who is it that stands to benefit? The offices of The ALCU?

Why does The ALCU secretly want America to become a Communist State again?

Yeah - I know - this is the part where you will want to subtly try and start changing the subject. Because once the obvious questions get asked, like " WHY? ", your answers, when said out loud, start to make you sound pretty rediculous.

As usual, Herb's argument just got torn to shreds. Good job littlesongs.

"Democracy is a messy process full of disagreement, dissent and compromise."

Those who founded, and many who currently support the ACLU, are not about democracy. Would most of them come out and admit it? That's about as likely as an embezzler telling you he's robbing you. They're not out to make it harder for themselves.

The ACLU and fellow communists are in favour of bringing the United States to its knees for many reasons. Some of these reasons include because we stand for freedom, believe in God and support Israel.

Herb

Littlesongs said:

"Democracy is a messy process full of disagreement, dissent and compromise. Those who want things neat, tidy and ordered will always be in the way of the American ideal. It does not matter who they think they represent, if they do not represent the interests of Americans."

The making of our American democracy lines up with what LS wrote. And as you beautifully stated while our Bill of Rights, Constitution and Declaration of Independence still hold this great country to certain rules and ways of government, our growing pains have meant we've needed to adjust, change or flat out remove some of what our founding fathers initially designed for simply being outdated.

We have a wonderful process in making change happen, but it's not an easy process.

CJ, you may be a classic example of why the world does not look to the young for wisdom.

Herb, have you ever bothered to read your diatribes? You sound utterly ridiculous. You have no point. You fail to back up your non-points. Your facts are not facts. Your opinions are extreme. And worst of all, you're puposefully passing along misinformation to further your screwed up agenda. An agenda that is not American in any way, shape, or form.

I suppose based on your logic, the US supports slavery since some of our founding fathers owned slaves. Good logic there!!

"CJ, you may be a classic example of why the world does not look to the young for wisdom."

How old am I?

>>>"How old am I?"

Most kids know that by the time they are 5 or younger.

How old do YOU think I am?

12

What if I was over 50? Would that make my opinions valid?

It would be a start. Actualy, CJ, you have demonstrated more class and thinking ability than many libs on this forum. Lately, however, some have dragged you down just a little. I'm hoping you get a new grip soon.

Well I have trigger points that get to me and can let more emotion get into it than needed. But sometimes, not always, but sometimes the emotion of why I think the way I do feels important enough to express.

If you think I am at some sort of low point that makes me easier to dismiss, I can take my lumps. I'm ok with that for a while.

It's usually a temporary thing anyway.

Probably nothing a draught Stella Artois wouldn't help.

Herb

YEAH, man.

You know, this day of discussion, of all days, has made me EXTRA hopeful of sharing a beer with you Herb.

Don't decide about the get-together. Just keep it open for now.

Gosh, it's fun to watch DJ back-peddle.

CJ, you don't look a minute older than me! Hunk-a Hunk-a!

Dj said>>>
It would be a start. Actualy, CJ, you have demonstrated more class and thinking ability than many libs on this forum. Lately, however, some have dragged you down just a little. I'm hoping you get a new grip soon.

So.... That's put's you where??? above all the rest of us??? Give it to an EXTREMEIE to lower himself even lower than that of what HE calls lower class.
Some have dragged you down??? WOW! DJ your the expert here..... WOW! GD!
DJ's the man! DJ's the man...
What the F ever....
Better than all of us.....
There are plenty of messageboards out there on EXTREME RIGHT Bible thumpin'... Maybe just maybe you might find those more to your liking. There you can close your NARROW mind think about how life revolves around just YOUR views and nobody else's.

"There are plenty of messageboards out there on EXTREME RIGHT Bible thumpin'"

No one said anything about the Bible.
Yet you bring it up only in a pathetic attempt to belittle those of faith who take God's Word seriously.

Since you refer to the Bible, better look this one up: Galatians 6:7.

Herb

"Probably nothing a draught..."

I know that Habakkuk 2:15 tells me it might be a bad idea, but Chickenjuggler, Herb and Trix, the first round is on me.

My pals the French would agree with I Timothy 5:23, where wine is deemed OK:

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." KJV

Jesus turned water into wine for a wedding celebration, so it must be ok to imbibe a tad, at least in moderation.

Herb 'Frenchie' Nixon

Littlesongs-
So rarely does the book of Habakkuk get any real press. Small little OT book that it is. Habakkuk in many ways was a whiner with a heart for God. One of the prophets who cried out during oppressive times. Prophets do that a lot.

And Herb...gotta love when the bible states wine for medicinal purposes. Or shall we thank Paul?

Blessings to you both.

Yet another case that shows how much the ACLU hates religion.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20071003&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr =71003048&Ref=AR&imw=Y

Herb said>>>
Yet you bring it up only in a pathetic attempt to belittle those of faith who take God's Word seriously.

Yet you bring up the French, the ACLU and abrotion all the Fin time! HYPOCRITE!
Next!!!!!!!!