The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2013, 01:41 PM   #51
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
So North Korea is a Democratic Republic eh? Who knew?
GB embarrassing himself once again.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 02:16 PM   #52
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Whether they won or not they either held positions or ran for them. The same can't be said for most/all of the people pony quoted.

As for influence, Limbaugh's influence in particular has been demonstrated over and over again. And even if you ignore his influence his voice is not that of a radical in the GOP.

You're smart enough to see that this is an apples/oranges comparison.
Sorry, but Rush was pretty plain about being for just about anyone but Romney. Romney winning the nomination tells you all you need to know.

There's one list of people liberals like to think are influential in the Republican Party. And then there's the list of people who actually are.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 02:25 PM   #53
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
capitalism <3's fascism

Friedman
Hayek
Mises

All had their favorite dictator.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/
http://archive.mises.org/18257/mises-on-fascism-again/

Quote:
Here we go again. Today, statist-nationalist Michael Lind writing in Salon seizes on one passage from Mises’s book Liberalism to argue that Mises was a crypto-authoritarian (which is a heck of an accusation for Lind, of all people, to make; Lind wrote an entire book that seeks to revive nationalism as a political ideology – even regretting that fascism discredited nationalism).

The passage from Mises as selectively quoted:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

And that’s where Lind ends it, failing to add Mises’s actual conclusion:

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

The passage was part of Mises’s book that was published in 1927, just after Mussolini took power. Mises could easily discern that many people regarded Fascism as a savior, and this passage is merely acknowledging that common view. This view lasted for many years. For example, fully six years later, the New York Times Magazine published (March 19, 1933) a massive tribute to the glories of Professor Mussolini. The NYT writes:

In a period when all politicians are either dull or unwilling to break away from routine – “tradition” ; when it seems that in every Western nation the spring of imagination is dried up, Mussolini gives the impression of an ever-welling source. One may object to any for of dictatorship, but one cannot help being stimulated by the phenomenal vitality of this man who, in his role of dictator, has commanded the barren soil of Italy to produce wheat within a given time; ordered his territory to be expanded (by reclaiming swamps) without extending his fronters; and, not content with summoning new cities into existence, is changing the face of the Eternal City by diggin up the buried glories of Imperial Rome….
So in reality Mises was saying pretty much the opposite of what you're tagging him with.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 02:29 PM   #54
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Sorry, but Rush was pretty plain about being for just about anyone but Romney. Romney winning the nomination tells you all you need to know.

There's one list of people liberals like to think are influential in the Republican Party. And then there's the list of people who actually are.
Care to make us an Influential/Not-Influential list so we can know who the real idiots behind last year's colossal ****-up were?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 02:29 PM   #55
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
The Nazis were a radical, reactionary, xenophobic, rascist, anti-democratic, Right Wing movement. Where the shoe fits...
Funny. Every adjective you used also applies to Stalin.

Left Wing movement.

See how easy that is?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 02:36 PM   #56
Blart
I'm gay for the Broncos!
 
Blart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,910

Adopt-a-Bronco:
all @ same time
Default

Sounds the same to me as a Marxist apologizing for the Soviet Union. "Full of the best intentions"

However, I've never seen a prominent Marxist rationalize the Gulag. Here's Mises writing away all of the needless violence and torture at the hands of dictators:

“The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time” - Mises

"The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises

I don't think you could be any more wrong, thankfully for him Austrian Economists don't consider history or evidence.
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 03:20 PM   #57
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Funny. Every adjective you used also applies to Stalin.

Left Wing movement.

See how easy that is?
.. the take away being, of course, that it's extremism that is the problem.

That's why the radical right taking over the Republican Party is so troublesome. The Republican party is so extreme right at the moment that their perception is out of whack with reality, which is why they consider centrists like Obama and the bulk of the Democratic party to be "radical".
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 03:31 PM   #58
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
Sounds the same to me as a Marxist apologizing for the Soviet Union. "Full of the best intentions"

However, I've never seen a prominent Marxist rationalize the Gulag. Here's Mises writing away all of the needless violence and torture at the hands of dictators:

“The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time” - Mises

"The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises

I don't think you could be any more wrong, thankfully for him Austrian Economists don't consider history or evidence.
You do realize that this stuff was written in 1929, don't you? Most of the really really bad stuff European fascists did was not only unknown to most people, but hadn't even really happened yet. How exactly was he supposed to denounce them for things they hadn't even done yet?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 03:38 PM   #59
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The Republican party is so extreme right at the moment that their perception is out of whack with reality, which is why they consider centrists like Obama and the bulk of the Democratic party to be "radical".
Yeah, totally. Cuz when right-wingers go wild, they do crazy **** like nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Compare those two again to Obama, and tell me again which is more centrist. I can't think of a single issue where Obama isn't 100% Liberal Orthodox. But for McCain or Romney, the inverse simply isn't the case.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 03:59 PM   #60
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, totally. Cuz when right-wingers go wild, they do crazy **** like nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Compare those two again to Obama, and tell me again which is more centrist. I can't think of a single issue where Obama isn't 100% Liberal Orthodox. But for McCain or Romney, the inverse simply isn't the case.
Just means you are a prime example of what I'm talking about. Obama is very much a centerist. Your perception of what "center" is simply is out of whack, because the American political system is very much skewed right.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:02 PM   #61
Blart
I'm gay for the Broncos!
 
Blart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,910

Adopt-a-Bronco:
all @ same time
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, totally. Cuz when right-wingers go wild, they do crazy **** like nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Compare those two again to Obama, and tell me again which is more centrist. I can't think of a single issue where Obama isn't 100% Liberal Orthodox. But for McCain or Romney, the inverse simply isn't the case.
Aside from human rights, civil liberties, wars, corporations, special interests, economic policy, and the environment... I guess he's pretty liberal.

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...esident-obama/
(be careful with that nate silver guy, he's a witch)
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:08 PM   #62
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
Aside from human rights, civil liberties, wars, corporations, special interests, economic policy, and the environment... I guess he's pretty liberal.
Well he campaigned to the left of Hillary on pretty much all of that. Did he keep all those promises? No. But that makes him more of a garden-variety politician than a 'centrist'
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:10 PM   #63
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Just means you are a prime example of what I'm talking about. Obama is very much a centerist. Your perception of what "center" is simply is out of whack, because the American political system is very much skewed right.
Ok, so who should the Republicans have nominated? In 2008, I chuckled all the time at some old left-leaners I knew because for 6 years or so, they swore up and down that if only Republicans had nominated McCain instead of Bush in 2000, they would've voted for him.

Then here he comes, and suddenly he's some sort of blind partisan ideologue they just couldn't support. The fact of the matter is that the blindness was theirs, not his.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:17 PM   #64
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Funny. Every adjective you used also applies to Stalin.

Left Wing movement.

See how easy that is?
Because yellow is a color it's the same thing as blue.

See how easy that is?

Yeah, I know all about your sophomoric love for fallacious argument. Which is why I ignore you.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:26 PM   #65
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
capitalism <3's fascism

Friedman
Hayek
Mises

All had their favorite dictator.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/
The dread of democracy by libertarians and classical liberals is justified. Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer. The only question that remains to be settled is why anyone should pay attention to libertarians.


The Koch Brothers despise democracy and spend the majority of their time and money trying to figure a way around it.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:30 PM   #66
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
.. the take away being, of course, that it's extremism that is the problem.

That's why the radical right taking over the Republican Party is so troublesome. The Republican party is so extreme right at the moment that their perception is out of whack with reality, which is why they consider centrists like Obama and the bulk of the Democratic party to be "radical".
I think Obama and the bulk of the Dems are right of center. The Right is so far right that the Dems, in contrast, appear to be centrists. If Nixon was alive today, he'd be a Leftist.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:31 PM   #67
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Sorry, but Rush was pretty plain about being for just about anyone but Romney. Romney winning the nomination tells you all you need to know.

There's one list of people liberals like to think are influential in the Republican Party. And then there's the list of people who actually are.
If you don't realize that Limbaugh I hugely influential and large (lol) figure to the republican brand then I don't know what to tell you.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:32 PM   #68
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Ok, so who should the Republicans have nominated? In 2008, I chuckled all the time at some old left-leaners I knew because for 6 years or so, they swore up and down that if only Republicans had nominated McCain instead of Bush in 2000, they would've voted for him.

Then here he comes, and suddenly he's some sort of blind partisan ideologue they just couldn't support. The fact of the matter is that the blindness was theirs, not his.
You haven't followed his politics very closely. He turned from true "maverick" to...well..."presumptive republican nominee".
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:35 PM   #69
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Well he campaigned to the left of Hillary on pretty much all of that. Did he keep all those promises? No. But that makes him more of a garden-variety politician than a 'centrist'
Your typical attempt at a dodge when you've been schooled. And yes, he is something of a "garden-variety" politician as opposed to being the extremist liberal you thought he was. You're slowly catching on whether you know it or not!
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 08:24 PM   #70
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
You haven't followed his politics very closely. He turned from true "maverick" to...well..."presumptive republican nominee".
I've heard that story told before. But I've never met the person that could make a decent case on what positions McCain changed between 2000 and 2008 that suddenly made him unacceptable.

In reality the only thing the changed was him winning the Republican nomination as opposed to losing it. You guys talk a good game, but at the end of the day the only thing you truly believe is that the only good Republican is a dead (politically) Republican. So you'll always talk up the Huntsmans and cry about the Romneys, even though the difference in real-world policy would be microscopic.

Rah Rah Rah! The party cheerleaders reliably stay in line during game time, even if they backbite and gossip a little on the bus ride home.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 08:27 PM   #71
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Your typical attempt at a dodge when you've been schooled. And yes, he is something of a "garden-variety" politician as opposed to being the extremist liberal you thought he was. You're slowly catching on whether you know it or not!
I love it when people bring absolutely nothing of any meaning to the table and then talk about how their non-response is "schooling" people. You said Rush was influential. So tell me, what groundbreaking Republican issue or candidate has he driven to victory lately? School me up.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 04-29-2013 at 08:32 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 10:32 PM   #72
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I've heard that story told before. But I've never met the person that could make a decent case on what positions McCain changed between 2000 and 2008 that suddenly made him unacceptable.

In reality the only thing the changed was him winning the Republican nomination as opposed to losing it. You guys talk a good game, but at the end of the day the only thing you truly believe is that the only good Republican is a dead (politically) Republican. So you'll always talk up the Huntsmans and cry about the Romneys, even though the difference in real-world policy would be microscopic.

Rah Rah Rah! The party cheerleaders reliably stay in line during game time, even if they backbite and gossip a little on the bus ride home.
Again you're showing your ignorance of the issues and plugging an old Fox News line...yeah yeah yeah, we know. You don't watch Fox News.

Okay, smart guy, how about we start with his opinion on treatment of detainees in Guantanamo? See, in '05 he and his best buddy Lindsey Graham penned this masterpiece.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/..._id=&Issue_id=

Quote:
"We firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action."
Then after he became the nominee, well look at that, he says regarding Boumedeine v. Bush:

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

How about we talk about his views on religious extremism? In '00 he said:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../28/se.01.html

Quote:
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."
And then in '06, you know, when McCain was starting to make his run at the nomination?

McCain Reconnects With Liberty University


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051300647.html

Quote:
"Six years after labeling the Rev. Jerry Falwell one of the political "agents of intolerance," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered the commencement address Saturday at Falwell's Liberty University, and vigorously defended his support for the war in Iraq"
Woooooooow. Look at that. What. A. Co-inky-dink.

Shall I continue?


Last edited by houghtam; 04-29-2013 at 10:37 PM..
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 07:55 AM   #73
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

You're going to have to point out to me how...

Quote:
"We firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action."
...is intellectually inconsistent with disagreeing with the Boumediene decision. What (in your mind) is the inconsistency here?

And on to point two... you've built a case that McCain could no longer be supported because he once spoke somewhere that once had something to do with someone you didn't like. Glad the fate of the nation rests on such weighty issues.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 08:06 AM   #74
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I love it when people bring absolutely nothing of any meaning to the table and then talk about how their non-response is "schooling" people. You said Rush was influential. So tell me, what groundbreaking Republican issue or candidate has he driven to victory lately? School me up.
Wow. So you're really going to pretend that Limbaugh doesn't have much sway in the GOP? That GOP politicians haven't frequently shown fear of, or deference towards, the king of right wing radio? Have you seen what he's beein doing to Rubio lately? I could give you hundreds of examples. Here's just a few.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ic-secret-tape

http://www.salon.com/2009/03/01/limbaugh_11/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03...can-pol/186630
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 08:22 AM   #75
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Wow. So you're really going to pretend that Limbaugh doesn't have much sway in the GOP? That GOP politicians haven't frequently shown fear of, or deference towards, the king of right wing radio? Have you seen what he's beein doing to Rubio lately? I could give you hundreds of examples. Here's just a few.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ic-secret-tape

http://www.salon.com/2009/03/01/limbaugh_11/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03...can-pol/186630
See, this is what I'm talking about. As evidence of who has real influence in the Republican Party, you cite three openly-liberal sources convincing themselves that Rush is enemy #1.

As I said, there's a list of people Liberals think are the most influential, and then there are those who actually are.

I'm not saying Rush doesn't have his base, and there's some influence there. But every neighborhood campaign worker in America has some level of 'influence' You guys like to pretend guys like Rush sit in back rooms, chomping cigars, deciding which way the party is going to head. There's just no evidence to back that up. Rush supported Romney in '08 when Romney lost. Rush OPPOSED Romney in '12 when Romney won.

Rush was at his peak in the 90's, influence wise, while he was breaking new ground in editorial news coverage. Now he's just another one of many voices out in the 24/7 news wilderness. Even if his ego has yet to realize it.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Denver Broncos