Could 80 dem. congressman secretly belong to the communist party ?

[Ian McColgin]

The lie to which I refer is the congressman's lie in the OP. Fantasy, invented "meanings" and hallucinations are not really lies.

[Flying Orca]

For funzies and to see what reaction I would get, I did "play" with the definitions of socialist and communist. I think some of my pejorative definitions were obviously designed to elicit protests. However, I do not think they rose to the level of lie. If you think they did, please provide specifics.

JAFT... and a dimwitted, ill-informed, boring one, at that. Go play somewhere else.

[Meli]

I wonder what would have happened if the Commo's hadn't worn out the Germans before the USA got troops on the ground in Europe.

We have a lot to thank Russia for despite Stalins brutality.

[TANSTAF1]

JAFT... and a dimwitted, ill-informed, boring one, at that. Go play somewhere else.

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a civilized, respectful and truthful manner.

[wardd]

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a civilized, respectful and truthful manner.

truthful?

[TANSTAF1]

truthful?

Well to the extent they are able to do so. I will make allowances for forthright attempts.

[Flying Orca]

He is! He's spamming every thread! Whaddamaroon.

[TANSTAF1]

He is! He's spamming every thread! Whaddamaroon.

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the
comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a
civilized, respectful and truthful manner. President Obama has said that it is "time to “pause for a moment, and to make
sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds" and " the second way to keep our
democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate."

[Flying Orca]

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the
comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a
civilized, respectful and truthful manner. President Obama has said that it is "time to “pause for a moment, and to make
sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds" and " the second way to keep our
democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate."

Only when you earn it, baby!

[TANSTAF1]

Only when you earn it, baby!

The decent respect for the opinion of mankind deserves it, not me alone.

[bobbys]

Beer summit!

[Meli]

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a civilized, respectful and truthful manner.

The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA
Always the last refuge of extreme right when loosing or unable to respond to reason.

"I find your response disrespectful"

Bah

[Flying Orca]

The decent respect for the opinion of mankind deserves it, not me alone.

Hadn't we best first establish that the opinion of mankind deserves respect, sweetie? I'm not convinced.

[TANSTAF1]

The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA
Always the last refuge of extreme right when loosing or unable to respond to reason.

"I find your response disrespectful"

Bah

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a civilized, respectful and truthful manner. President Obama has said that it is "time to “pause for a moment, and to make sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds" and " the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate."

[Meli]

http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL213.../368720116.jpg

[johnw]

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a civilized, respectful and truthful manner. President Obama has said that it is "time to “pause for a moment, and to make sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds" and " the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate."

Well, if you're going to do this on every thread, I may as well respond the same way every time.

I'm sorry you are of such a delicate constitution that you can't stand having a mirror held up to your behavior, but that's really not my problem. The only thing that will change my opinion of your behavior is if you begin to behave differently. To edit my remarks into something that would serve your vanity, I would not be able to be truthful, which is also among your demands, so I'll go with truthful and leave my remarks as they are.

[Garret]

I'm all for more civility in the Bilge. I realize I can get snippy at times, but will generally respond in kind. So - if you are going for increased politeness, I'll do my best to keep it that way on my end.

[Ian McColgin]

Good. Now that all the polite back patting is out of the way, is there anyone who actually believes there is a shred of truth to the congressman's claim?

[wardd]

I think there is no truth to their being secret members of the communist party. West mis-spoke and instead of correcting himself, apparently he has only slightly backed off.

As to whether they are communists or communist sympathizers, I think there is a shred of truth although I rather think they are much more socialists than communists. The Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America. The Progressive Caucus advocates for government control over industries, redistribution of wealth, reduced individual economic freedom, and the destruction of free markets. Members of the Caucus praise Fidel Castro. They have introduced a constitutional amendment to redistribute wealth.

I don't know enough about their views to be able to differentiate their views from those of the communists.

you mean those that gave us the 40 hour work week, paid vacation and all the other good things in life?

[Canoeyawl]

In 1926, auto maker Henry Ford voluntarily instituted the eight-hours-a-day, five-days-a-week work schedule for his factory workers. Three months later, he instituted this for his office workers.

That was just to simplify bookeeping and payroll, otherwise the work shifts would overlap in a 24 hour day. Hank was no fool.
example A 24÷3 = 8

[ccmanuals]

Is there anyone here that doesn't believe that Allan West is a total nut job and the people of Florida seriously dropped the ball when they casted a vote for him. He is a rude, ignorant and hatefull person.

[ccmanuals]

I don't. He is just a neophyte politically and has much to learn about how to handle off the wall/gotcha questions. I think it's too early to consider him as a VP candidate, but hopefully someday.

I would suggest you do a little more home work on this guy. He is an embarrassment to the republican party.

[ccmanuals]

He may be embarrassing the Republican party, but we tea partiers love him.

I agree with his thoughts/comments on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. He should just not have allowed them to become public

Tea partiers don't endorse professionalism and gentlemenly conduct?

[Donn]

I would suggest you do a little more home work on this guy. He is an embarrassment to the republican party.

I can't speak for the Republican Party (and I'm surprised you think you can), but as a Conservative, I like West.

[ccmanuals]

I can't speak for the Republican Party (and I'm surprised you think you can), but as a Conservative, I like West.

says alot about you

[Ian McColgin]

I now see TANStAF1's problem. Assuming he's not just fabricating stuff for fun, then when in #129 he wrote:

"The Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America." he was confusing his various progressives. None of the six founding Representatives was a member of DSA. Then Rep Bernie Sanders was and is a socialist but not DSA member, so far as I recall. The other five were not socialists in any form.

Further, it is flat out untrue that " The Progressive Caucus advocates for government control over industries, redistribution of wealth, reduced individual economic freedom, and the destruction of free markets. Members of the Caucus praise Fidel Castro. They have introduced a constitutional amendment to redistribute wealth." Those interested can google up the Congressional Progressive Caucus to find out what they do support.

The Democratic Socialists of America grew out of several new and old left strands but one thing that they all had in common was a total disgust with all anti-democratic movements whether they called themselves socialist, communist, or some form of fascist. The DSA does believe in supporting the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and cooperates with them at the local level. I am not aware of any DSA members even running for an elective office, much less gaining one. Mostly DSA is too dispersed to function as a vote getting political operation and is in reality more like a support group for progressives, place to trade ideas and refine an analysis.

[wardd]

I would suggest you do a little more home work on this guy. He is an embarrassment to the republican party.

he is an embarrassment to his species whatever that is

[TANSTAF1]

he is an embarrassment to his species whatever that is

That would be the human species, correct?

[Peerie Maa]

I agree with his thoughts/comments on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. He should just not have allowed them to become public.

Isn't that a tad hypocritical? If you agree with his comments, then surely you do want them out in the public domain?

[wardd]

That would be the human species, correct?

if you say so, i'm not sure

[wardd]

You didn't "ask" anything. You got snotty and then got pimpslapped for it.

Toughen up and accept responsibility for your own actions.

he doesn't have too, as a member of the right he is a professional victim

[TANSTAF1]

You didn't "ask" anything. You got snotty and then got pimpslapped for it.

Toughen up and accept responsibility for your own actions.

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the
comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a
civilized, respectful and truthful manner. President Obama has said that it is "time to “pause for a moment, and to make
sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds" and " the second way to keep our
democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate."

[Flying Orca]

"Not a Lady"?! From what planet, or maybe century, does this turkey hail?

[wardd]

Please go back and quote what I wrote and tell me how it is not a question.

Then explain why I should accept assertions that I did not ask a question.

Finally please explain how I am a not a victim of rude and offensive comments. Please take each post to which I have provided a standardized reply and tell me how it is not rude or offensive.

i get insulted too but i don't whine adnauseum about it

man up and shrug it off as just the way the net is

[TANSTAF1]

"Not a Lady"?! From what planet, or maybe century, does this turkey hail?

I agree with you!!!!!! Sarah Palin is quite the lady. As is Laura Ingraham. To use the c or s or w word against them is very inappropriate, ungentlemenly and classless. Obama should really return Maher's $1 million, don't you agree?

[Ian McColgin]

TANSTAF1, thank you for posting your sources. May I suggest checking the purported "facts" against an open source like the actual Wikipedia? I can see that if KeyWiki is to be your gold standard, we will have no basis for discussion.

[wardd]

Tell me again why I got pimpslapped.

Let's take it one at a time.

Did I ask a question or not? If not, why not?

quit yer whinein and move on

[wardd]

I'm ready to move on as I conclude you are unable to say why I did not ask a question. Are you?

sorry, haven't been following that close

[johnw]

I understand you to say that you are going to have standard response to my standard response, so here is my standard response (subject to further amplification and refinement) to your standard response.

I can easily withstand rude, offensive, disrespectful, condescending and snide remarks. I just get tired of them and the need to respond to them. I would like a discussion on the topic and each other’s arguments, rather than a shoot the messenger or you disagree with me therefore you’re stupid approach.

Many here are friends and friends can and do needle each other and each may enjoy it. I am not friends with anyone here, save a couple and would not trust most others with my personal information and so will not become “friends.”

I can appreciate that people here do not like a mirror held up to their behavior. Previously I and most simply reciprocated in kind. They have been behaving like this for such a long time perhaps until now they did not realize they were doing it as they were smug in their assurance that their views were shared with most here and that they would be cheered on.

It would be far more concise if you stuck with "I'm rubber, you're glue." More mature language, if not accompanied by more mature behavior, won't change anything.

You've now admitted that what West said was untrue, although you've couched it in language that obscures this. You say he misspoke, but he has not acknowledged any error, so he may well believe something that we agree is untrue.

You are using a tactic I've seen before. You've lost the argument, so you attack the way people have addressed you while showing it to be untrue. I've not noticed that the right is any more polite than the left in debate, even though they are quicker to take offense. The ploy is transparent and unpersuasive.

[Peerie Maa]

The email comments I had in mind when I wrote that were:



West should have realized this would become public. Emails are dangerous. If they were to become public he should have rephrased them to be a little more PC. The media only allows Libs to speak this way about conservative women, not the other way around. Some of it could have been done by his actions (such as defending himself in the future rather than announcing his intentions.

I checked to see what the comments were before posting. I was suggesting that you either agree with his comments, in which case you have no issue with them becoming public, or you don't agree with them. If you have a middle ground, you did not say so. As you have stated, any email is capable of going viral, where a hard copy is unlikely to, he will have known this unless he is a fool and should have understood the consequences, perhaps he deliberately used that language with his eyes wide open. He certainly should/could have used more statesman like language, the fact that he did not bears thinking about.

[Ian McColgin]

The tepid defense of West rests on continuing the inability to distinguish US progressives from socialists or to distinguish either from communists. That sort of extremism of language was perfected in the '30s and is a major tool the wealthy right uses to manipulate and control their loyal followers. The US version of rightwing populism has been through many incarnations but with us pretty much from our founding. Other cultures have other variants.

I am not certain how to carry out the education of people who fancy positions held by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and on down through Reagan are communist.

[Flying Orca]

I agree with you!!!!!! Sarah Palin is quite the lady. As is Laura Ingraham. To use the c or s or w word against them is very inappropriate, ungentlemenly and classless. Obama should really return Maher's $1 million, don't you agree?

Apparently you've completely missed the point; I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

News flash: there's no such thing as a "lady". The term is an artificial distinction, invented by men for the purpose of keeping uppity women down. You're perpetuating it. Similarly, there's no such thing as a "gentleman", or at least no useful definition on which everyone can agree. The sooner you let go of such harmful stereotypes and start thinking about real people, the less delusional your thinking will be.

What are these mysterious words you refer to by letters, anyway? I should hate to think my vocabulary is deficient, but unless you're more specific, I can't tell what it is you think you're talking about...

[johnw]

I said I think they are not actual members although they may think like them or socialists. I did say West mis-spoke but upon further reflection he may know more than I or he may believe differently than I, which may be why he has not fully retracted. I do not know any politician with whom I agree 100%. I was responding to Ian's question about what I thought.

If someone responds to my points with out being rude, condescending or offensive or attacking the message rather than the messenger or without using ad hominems, then I respond to them as best I can. When they do this my view is that they have nothing left to argue and have lost the argument and therefore there is nothing that needs to be rebutted, but I am going to call them on their bad behavior rather than reciprocating in kind. I agree I was impolite in the past. I am now trying to be polite. I hope not to be quick to take offense.

I hope my new approach IS transparent. I am not expecting it to be persuasive for everyone, but it seems to have been persuasive for some.

So, do you actually believe that about half the Democrats in the House are Communists? Do you instead believe that they are socialists?

Either belief would be at variance with the facts. The problem is that modern conservatism has deliberately obscured the difference between liberals and socialists.

Socialists, properly speaking, believe in the social (i.e. public) ownership of the means of production. Liberals believe in capitalism, but think it needs the moderating effect of social insurance to continue to be viable. Many modern conservatives seem to be offended by the notion that capitalism needs fixing, and want to take us back to the Gilded Age, having had plenty of time to forget the social upheaval that resulted in the social safety net.

F.A. Hayek, for example, considered himself a liberal, although he did participate in the demonization of most modern liberals. He thought, for example, that social safety nets were needed, and anti-trust legislation needed to be enforced. A modern liberal who takes these stands risks being called a socialist. That's how far the conservative movement has come.

The disturbing thing to me is that West will probably get a fundraising boost from his false, fear-mongering statement. A society that rewards such behavior will see more of it.

[bobbys]

Apparently you've completely missed the point; I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

News flash: there's no such thing as a "lady". The term is an artificial distinction, invented by men for the purpose of keeping uppity women down. You're perpetuating it. Similarly, there's no such thing as a "gentleman", or at least no useful definition on which everyone can agree. The sooner you let go of such harmful stereotypes and start thinking about real people, the less delusional your thinking will be.

What are these mysterious words you refer to by letters, anyway? I should hate to think my vocabulary is deficient, but unless you're more specific, I can't tell what it is you think you're talking about...

.

You had to have known this was coming!LOL.

[Garret]

I think before we can continue we need to agree on a definition of socialism and communism. We probably should do that with respect to conservative and liberal as they have changed such that black is white and white is black. I do not agree that modern liberals believe in capitialism. But that's another topic for another day.

Here is a link to an answers.com wiki which has a fairly good non-technical explanation of socialism and communism with several different views. Let me know with which view you agree with the most. If you have a better link or definition, post it. Once we agree on the definitions and distinctions I will then be able to answer your question.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._and_communism

I think you are painting - not with a broad brush - but with a high powered spray gun.

"I do not agree that modern liberals believe in capitalism"

Holy cow. I live in arguably one of the bluest states in the US. I have friends who have red stains about chest level on all their shirts. Every single one of them believes in capitalism. For example - Ben Cohen (the Ben in Ben & Jerry's). Long hair (when he had hair), never voted Republican (well - maybe Jim Jeffords), one of the founders of Businesses for Social Responsibility in VT, spent 6 months driving around the country with a trailer with a GW Bush mannequin that had loudspeakers playing statements of his & after each one the mannequin's pants would light on fire. Absolutely radical "liberal". He's worth many millions from the business he founded & grew. IOW - classic capitalist.

Many who identify as Liberals also take their duty to others very seriously. That's not to say that many conservatives don't!!! It is to say that there are all kinds of views in this country & in today's politics, the left (IMO) holds the more humane viewpoint. I also think it (in many ways) holds closer to the constitution than much of the right. What business is it of the Feds to control women's health? What business is it of theirs to tell me what religion I should practice? What business is it of theirs to tell me who I should marry? The left's answer to all 3 is "NONE!"

The far right (Tea Party if you will) from what I read/hear has an Ayn Rand "I've got mine, so screw you & if you don't believe what I believe you are evil" outlook that I find reprehensible. This country was not built on selfishness & greed, but on people working together.

[Keith Wilson]

Could 80 dem. congressman secretly belong to the communist party ?

No.

[wardd]

No.

right, or some republican would have exposed it

[Ian McColgin]

The wiki.answers is certainly a more honest reference than KeyWiki. It also helps to go to the main wikipedia articles on communism and socialism.

There really are no communists. The whole human race (with very few exceptions) gets it that markets happen, that the complexities of human motivation include gain and greed as well as altruism, the pure joy of creation, reverence for life or any of the other important motivations that, like the motivation of gain, are not by themselves an explanation for human behavior and certainly are not by themselves adequate for social organization. But whatever . . . no one is looking for a final classless society any more.

So we are left with degrees of socialism. I used to love commuting time with a locally prominent Republican. When I was a community organizer on Cape and he was a right wing radio personality, I often appeared on his show. Boosted his ratings and we had great fun arguing. So some years later we still talked. If he was going off all too free markets solve everything, I'd gently get him to reminisce about how when he was a selectman he got the town to take the street lights over from ComElectric, saving money and all that. And every time he'd have to admit after I'd sprung my trap that it was indeed a perfect example of "village socialism." Other examples include town shellfish propagation programs, town harbor facilities, and on and on way past the usual schools, streets and sewers.

American socialists differ from the far more numerous American liberals in that most socialists see key core economic activities as best owned and operated by public and democratically governed entities. These can range from the ubiquitous public utility districts that provide most of the electricity west of the Mississippi, to public-private finance of private provision of services as Medicare does. A liberal will accept public ownership of something if private ownership is a clear failure while for many things a socialist will view public ownership as intrinsically better and accepts private ownership where public ownership just does not flourish.

Both liberals and socialists look at the economy from an ecological model where some parts are best left alone while other parts are, like farmland, managed and cultivated. In this analogy, rightwing capitalists are rather like people who start a garden but don't manage it and then announce that the dominance of the weeds is what they wanted.

More later, perhaps.

[elf]

Interesting how the regressives like to pick fights and then take umbrage when someone tries to point out to them that that's what they've just done.

[johnw]

I think before we can continue we need to agree on a definition of socialism and communism. We probably should do that with respect to conservative and liberal as they have changed such that black is white and white is black. I do not agree that modern liberals believe in capitialism. But that's another topic for another day.

Here is a link to an answers.com wiki which has a fairly good non-technical explanation of socialism and communism with several different views. Let me know with which view you agree with the most. If you have a better link or definition, post it. Once we agree on the definitions and distinctions I will then be able to answer your question.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._and_communism

If you do not believe that modern liberals believe in capitalism, your delusions make further discussion impossible. I think you regard me as liberal, but I not only believe in capitalism, as a business owner for more than 20 years, I am a capitalist. If the people to whom you apply the label don't fit your definition of the label, there's something wrong with your definition or with your perception of those to whom you apply the label.

By the way, I have to take issue with this statement:

At its heart, Socialism stands for a belief in government for the benefit of the whole of society. It stands, therefore, opposite Liberalism, which is a belief in government (or lack thereof) for the benefit of the individual.

The basis for liberal thought is the social contract. Thus, Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, first paragraph:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The "general welfare" would not be a coherent concept under your definition of liberalism. The idea that Hobbes, Locke, and others talked about was that by understanding man, we could design a society in which people cooperate to achieve the common goal of a free and just society.

The liberal thinkers insisted that the social contract was needed to ensure the rights of the individual. But once a social contract has been formed, there is such a thing as society, therefore there is such a thing as the general welfare.

In addition, the notion that socialism consists of people who want social insurance flies in the face of history. Bismark and Churchill, both conservatives, were advocates of "socialized" medicine. They saw it as necessary to ensure the stability of their societies.

We must also, by the way, define conservatism. In William F. Buckley's formulation, they are those who stand at the crossroads of history shouting "stop!" That is, they wish to keep society as it is. Therefore, conservatism takes its form based on the form of the social order it wishes to conserve. A Chinese conservative would be a Communist, and Iranian conservative would be a theocrat, an American conservative would believe in both capitalism and the social safety net that's been part of our society for so long. Thus, a conservative American would be a liberal, because America is a liberal democracy, that is, a capitalist society moderated by the rule of democratically elected representatives.

Conservative, of late, has however been applied to some fairly radical folks who want to see America become a libertarian society such as has never existed before here. The constitution, for example, says the government should establish a post office and post roads, yet I've heard modern "conservatives" claim that the post office should either function as a business or shut down. I grew up in a community where the old post road had contributed mightily to the viability of the town, but in the 1980s we started to see "conservatives" who insisted that such infrastructure should be privatized. So I'd say the definition of "conservative" is actually among the most malleable of the terms we are discussing.