60s radical speaks on the new "peace" movement

Post #82,846 by bepatient 2/20/03 7:50:19 AM Reply	60s radical speaks on the new "peace" movement [link\|http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6007\|http://www.frontpage...ticle.asp?ID=6007] Horowitz: As I have said, while there are some Americans who are sceptical about our war with Iraq for legitimate reasons (which remain obscure to me), there can be no legitimate peace movement when our country has been attacked. This is an anti-American movement by the destructive left which has never given up its belief that America is a world-oppressor or its agenda of revolution to destroy the American institutional framework of democratic capitalism and liberal individualism. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #82,848 by dmarker 2/20/03 8:16:06 AM Reply	I see, Mr perception, so the protests did not include any rational, concerned, average citizens who know s*** when they see it and have the guts to say so with their presence. It is all just (per your implication via your post) "This is an anti-American movement by the destructive left" What a pathetic case for diminishing legitimate protesters expressions of concern. You are sickening. Doug Marker
Post #82,867 by Brandioch 2/20/03 9:39:30 AM Reply	Vietnam was a GOOD thing. Stupid anti-American protestors. Didn't understand Vietnam. They wanted the COMMUNISTS to win. They'd probably be HAPPY if the COMMUNISTS took over AMERICA! They'd probably even HELP them! Those people on the LEFT! They want to take away YOUR HOUSE! They want to ENSLAVE your CHILDREN! "Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left" Remember, THEY are out there. They contol Hollywood. They're better off dead than Red. ------ Okay, is there ANYONE with "both oars in the water" that believes that there is still a COMMUNIST threat to the USofA?
Post #82,870 by boxley 2/20/03 9:42:52 AM Reply	Define communist, then tell me what Bush is up to will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #82,876 by Brandioch 2/20/03 9:47:51 AM Reply	I have to explain "communism" to you? What the fuck ever . What is Bush doing? #1. Fucking up the economy. #2. Fucking up the civil rights of the citizens of the US. #3. Trying to "justify" a war to control Iraq's oil fields. #4. Losing popularity. Or did you mean to attempt to somehow imply that Saddam is a "communist" and Bush is right in going to war against him? hahahahahahhahahahahaaha I was right when I posted that you have anti-clues. You don't even know what "communism" is.
Post #82,880 by boxley 2/20/03 9:51:13 AM Reply	communism is where the state owns the people where individual righta are subordinate to the collective. Do I think communism is a threat to America? Getting dam close right now to being a communist state. If it looks like a duck and quacks etc calling it republicanism is just a label. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #82,913 by mmoffitt 2/20/03 11:25:40 AM Reply	Now cut that out! In a communist society, there IS NO STATE! The people collectively own everything. You're confusing Communist State with Socialist State. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #83,218 by marlowe 2/21/03 3:47:26 PM Reply	You've just defined Communism into complete nonexistence. If only definitions were reality. No oil for TotalFinaElf! CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere! Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #83,305 by Ashton 2/21/03 9:12:31 PM Reply	You OTOH imagine that the USSR was 'communist'.. Shame.
Post #83,546 by marlowe 2/23/03 4:37:42 PM Reply	I suppose I do. After all, they were. In the only meaningful sense there is. And that's the real shame. No oil for TotalFinaElf! CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere! Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #83,728 by mmoffitt 2/24/03 11:22:55 AM Reply	Clue: They weren't and never claimed to be. Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics. Got it now? bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #83,810 by marlowe 2/24/03 3:35:15 PM Reply	It's a shame about Osama's brother. But I wouldn't let someone like like you pilot a plane without background check, psych profile, IQ test and breathalyzer. No oil for TotalFinaElf! CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere! Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #83,834 by mmoffitt 2/24/03 5:04:29 PM Reply	Damn, and I was hoping to take you for a ride. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #83,879 by Silverlock 2/24/03 9:05:58 PM Reply	Don't waste your time on him/it. There are plenty of other, more productive arguments to be had. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #82,944 by Brandioch 2/20/03 1:34:18 PM Reply	That sounds like Fascism, to me. communism is where the state owns the people Or a monarchy. where individual righta are subordinate to the collective. Now that sounds like just about every state (except anarchy). Do I think communism is a threat to America? Getting dam close right now to being a communist state. "Communist" as the old USSR? I don't see that. Our government isn't owning the factories. And it definately isn't heading towards the political definition of "communism". We have MORE government now, not less. BTW: The old USSR was not "Communism". It was a totalitarian socialistic state. Totatitarian: Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: Socialistic: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. and finally.... Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. If it looks like a duck and quacks etc calling it republicanism is just a label. That's why I keep insisting that definitions be given. The USSR called itself "Communism" because it was attempting to portray itself as an idealized worker's paradise. It wasn't. But people who were to stupid to understand that an entire government can LIE took to calling that particular implementation of the totalitarian socialistic state "communism".
Post #82,957 by boxley 2/20/03 2:17:06 PM Reply	so name any practicing communist state past or present so we can define what we are speaking about. I asked you to define it earlier but you declined. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #82,960 by Brandioch 2/20/03 2:31:03 PM Reply	Do you mean like a nation, with an army and such? If so, then there haven't been any. Communism does not seem to operate well above the commune level. My previous point was that, if I needed to explain what "Communism" was, then there really wasn't any point in discussing this with you. The USSR was a Totalitarian Socialist state. I've even posted the definitions of those terms for you. The USSR CLAIMED to be "Communistic". I've posted the definition for "Communism" for you. The USSR was not "Communistic". Despite their claims. But stupid people believed they were. Now, from your previous postings, you seem to believe that the US is in danger from some enemy you claim is "Communist". Well, there aren't any "Communist" nations according to the definition. And the nation that is "Communistic" if you accept the USSR's usage of such would be China. So, China. It seems that we have "Most Favoured" trading relations with China. But you seem to think that China is at war with the US? Or a threat to the US? What the fuck ever
Post #82,974 by boxley 2/20/03 3:29:15 PM Reply	you have posted whose definition of communism? So all the people who claim to be communists arnt, according to you. Very good. Well the opinion I expressed was that there is a move towards communism as defined by all the countries that claim they are/were here in this country. You seem to think that there never was a communist state (except for the first french revolution, there wasnt) However we here in the United states are heading directly to a police state that will mirror the abuses of the Soviet system except with worse health care and welfare. The groups who are organising the peace marches want the same thing as the Bush administration. A totilitarian state if you wish except that they want to run it, not the republicans. Your original question is that there is no reason to fear the brand of communism they espouse. Maybe not fear their ownership of the ship of state but the aims they wish to acheive is being moved forward by the US government. what the fuck ever thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #83,022 by Brandioch 2/20/03 7:04:43 PM Reply	The "dictionary's" definition. So all the people who claim to be communists arnt, according to you. That's right. Nor are the people who claim to be "alien abductees" actually abducted by aliens. Nor are the mobsters who claim to be "legitimate businessmen" actually legitimate. And I could go on and on and on. Like I said, the stupid people believed them. However we here in the United states are heading directly to a police state that will mirror the abuses of the Soviet system except with worse health care and welfare. Will we have mandated 5 year plans for our factories? I don't think so. What we are doing is heading for Fascism. Another flavour of Totalitarian Socialism. The problem that arises when you don't accurately define what you're talking about is that it becomes very easy to disprove. The groups who are organising the peace marches want the same thing as the Bush administration. Possibly. Possibly not. Your original question is that there is no reason to fear the brand of communism they espouse. And what brand is that? Maybe not fear their ownership of the ship of state but the aims they wish to acheive is being moved forward by the US government. Yes, more about "them" and what "they" are doing. I don't care what they would LIKE to happen. I have not VOTED for them for public office.
Post #83,024 by boxley 2/20/03 7:10:22 PM Reply	Dictionary eh? [link\|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary\|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary] Main Entry: com\ufffdmu\ufffdnism b : a totalitarian system of government sounds like the republicans to me. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #83,028 by Brandioch 2/20/03 7:31:46 PM Reply	And this is what is called "smack down". [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communism\|dictionary.com] The FIRST definition given: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. I will notice that you have "b. " in front of your defintion. Doesn't that imply an "a. "? Let me just post the ENTIRE entry for that word on the site you quoted. 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively Hmmmmm. I wonder why you had trouble posting that. Hmmmmmmmmm..........
Post #83,034 by boxley 2/20/03 8:23:20 PM Reply	zing, hook line and sinker if you noticed Capitalised does NOT agree with your definition, thank you for admitting you were wrong about the USSR, : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. anything else I can do for you today? <huge fscking grin> thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #83,046 by Brandioch 2/20/03 9:10:48 PM Reply	"Define communist, then tell me what Bush is up to" You may notice that was the whole of your initial post on this subject. if you noticed Capitalised does NOT agree with your definition, thank you for admitting you were wrong about the USSR, Okay, so you want to get into a pissing contest on whether it was capitalized or not? Well, I think you should look at your initial post on the subject. : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the *official ideology* of the U.S.S.R. Yes, that is one definition of "Communism". You might wonder why they included the phrase "official ideology". No, you wouldn't wonder. You'd just parse for phrases. So, if I said (as I did) that the USSR government claimed to be Communist, then that would make their "official ideology" Communism. Not their "actual" ideology. Their "*official*" ideology. Kind of like what our "official" reasons are for invading Iraq.
Post #83,192 by mmoffitt 2/21/03 1:59:44 PM Reply	You'd probably agree, then... that the old Soviet definition of "Capitalism" is a valid description. Capitalism: A socio-economic system in the last stages of decay. No? Then stop corrupting the definition of Communism. Go to the source, read the Manifesto. My 2. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #83,202 by boxley 2/21/03 2:55:02 PM Reply	No question s/Communism/Capitalism both are failed economic models in the last stages of decay. Piracy is the only model that works but only in frontier areas. Harder to find these days.I have read the manifesto and determined that the threat differential to my person was rather high. no thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #82,980 by Arkadiy 2/20/03 3:47:46 PM 2/20/03 3:48:09 PM Reply	The only relations btw Totalitarian Socilist and Communist is the fact that whenever people set out to build the later, they ended up with the former. Could there be a pattern here? -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have. Edited by Arkadiy Feb. 20, 2003, 03:48:09 PM EST Expand All History
Post #82,988 by boxley 2/20/03 4:04:01 PM Reply	:-) will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #83,023 by Brandioch 2/20/03 7:08:17 PM Reply	Yep. "Shepard" and "Sheep" and "mutton". If they're stupid enough to believe that everyone will be nice and not greedy, selfish bastards....... Then they put the people in charge who say that...... What we need is a political system that expects the WORST in people but rewards the BEST in people.
Post #83,067 by Arkadiy 2/20/03 10:20:26 PM Reply	Capitalism? ducks -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #83,074 by Brandioch 2/20/03 10:37:37 PM Reply	No need to duck. You will see VERY similar responses in Capitalism. "laissez faire" and all. "caveat emptor" also applies. When you believe that the used car salesman is going to argue with his boss to get you the best deal he can on this car that was only driven to church on Sundays by a little old lady who changed the oil every 3,000 miles.
Post #82,909 by bepatient 2/20/03 11:14:21 AM Reply	Well then... ...I post a link to something without >ANY< commentary (lest you think I was posting like Marlowe...and we all know how you love that)...and now, by implication, >I< am David Horowitz? Which one of us is pathetic? The one that posts alternate views to your world order...or the one that personally attacks anyone who dare link to someone with an opposing point of view. Someone, in fact, who is identified with the >left< in this country. If you would have bothered to >read< the interviews...you would have seem that there are those (myself included...as I have stated elsewhere) that think there are individuals and protesters that have legitimate concerns about Iraq. The issue raised by Horowitz is the fact that their legitimate concerns are being co-opted by people with no interest in their concerns...and with an agenda that none of them would ever support. How DARE me...reading concerns of others about the current crop of protests...ESPECIALLY if they disagree with you. How positively UNAmerican of me to be so politically incorrect. And how abso-fucking-lutely typical of your gutless buddy to pile on with completely unrelated bullshit. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #82,965 by Silverlock 2/20/03 2:56:58 PM Reply	You are joking, right? Someone, in fact, who is identified with the >left< in this country. Maybe 30 years ago. Not now. Horowitz is a conservative. Period. He makes his living attacking leftist positions. If that is how he is "identified" with the left, then you are not, in fact, wrong. Just using strange definitions of common terms. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #82,973 by bepatient 2/20/03 3:22:26 PM Reply	Heh. Hmm. Take a look at his beliefs...his actions...his causes..and now he's kicked out of the left because he feels they've gone too far. Interesting. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #82,991 by Silverlock 2/20/03 4:10:33 PM Reply	So he's not a conservative? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,033 by bepatient 2/20/03 8:20:08 PM Reply	Depends, I suppose, on defintion. In the traditional sense...he probably is. If thats the only objection you had to that series of posts...we may be making progress. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,139 by Silverlock 2/21/03 9:42:25 AM Reply	My objection should be easy to grasp You said he was associated with the left. I disagreed. I might be wrong. I wondered how you were defining the word "associated". If you were defining it is "opposed to" than we don't have a disagreement anymore. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,253 by Ashton 2/21/03 6:47:24 PM Reply	Re: Depends, I suppose, on definition. <<<< I suppose 'it' might. Whatever 'it' is. The question you will never answer: What is 'it' that 'conservatives' want to conserve? (an immediate clash with the connotation of 'conservation' makes 'it' even fuzzier) Oh.. Besides the status-quo: that used to be called reactionary however, before there was bafflegab Never mind. It's so suave a mindless-slogan, it could only be diminished in effectiveness by any attempt to find if any two people have the same definition. Ashton
Post #83,093 by rcareaga 2/21/03 12:01:28 AM Reply	Horowitz Take a look at his beliefs...his actions...his causes..and now he's kicked out of the left because he feels they've gone too far. My problem with Horowitz is that he was a doctrinaire thug a generation ago and he's a doctrinaire thug today. The doctrines have changed, but tactically he remains a Stalinist. You, of course, are too witlessly young as yet to grasp this. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #83,094 by bepatient 2/21/03 12:09:43 AM Reply	Actually...he pretty much admits.. ...to dropping the Stalinist (he calls communist) belief structure of his youth. (not that young)...but still carries a pretty good torch for individual liberty and civil rights....but thinks that the pendulum has gone too far...especially in universities...and that the "radical left" as he calls them are actually squelching the free exchange of ideas. Tactically? I won't bicker about that with you. Anyone with their mind made up and a really strong POV could be called a "tactical Stalinist" or a doctrinaire thug. Even some folks here :) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,095 by rcareaga 2/21/03 12:16:45 AM Reply	Re: Actually...he pretty much admits.. I call Horowitz a thug tactically and doctrinally. He was a street criminal, rhetorically speaking, in 1967 and he's a street criminal today--he's just working the other side of the street. It's tough for me to see how any rational person can take him seriously: he's the spiritual heir of Roy Cohn. not-so-cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #83,100 by bepatient 2/21/03 12:33:05 AM Reply	Far be it from anyone... ...to bring alternative viewpoints to this group. Seems that differing views just cannot be tolerated. If you don't want to take him seriously, then don't. I linked to it based on something I heard on the radio on my way home from work...thought it might stir something up in here. Lord knows if somebody thinks a little differently...they cannot be rational. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,106 by rcareaga 2/21/03 1:15:12 AM Reply	Re: Far be it from anyone... So you heard something on the radio on the way home...and you regard criticism of Horowitz as intolerance? This is the mindest that imagines "liberal media bias." God help us all. "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #83,117 by bepatient 2/21/03 6:55:00 AM Reply	Could be over-reacting.. ...but the first response after posting was a personal attack...not by you granted. Then "no rational person" should be able to take him seriously...not so cordially... Attitude man...its the attitude. Tell me..."Horowitz is a loonie...has been from the 60's...still one now just working for he other side"...I'd agree...instead you get the "how could...nobody should..." type of criticism. You know...the exact stuff he bitches about existing on campus. Yes. I consider that intolerance...because veiled in the criticism of the messenger is the utter dismissal of any consideration of his views as "irrational". HE won't help. HE's a hands-off guy (or gal). You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #82,862 by Arkadiy 2/20/03 9:27:47 AM 2/20/03 9:28:21 AM Reply	Let's attack Sikhs - they wear towels on their heads too. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have. Edited by Arkadiy Feb. 20, 2003, 09:28:21 AM EST Expand All History
Post #82,863 by Arkadiy 2/20/03 9:29:46 AM Reply	Oh, never mind... I now remember - some red neck in Texas beat me to this shortly after 9/11. He either killed or almost killed a Sikh gas station owner. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #82,910 by bepatient 2/20/03 11:15:12 AM Reply	Was Arizona. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!