I'm voting for McCain....

[medicineman]

CC will never get over it. He will be mortified, probably move to some right wing dictatorship, oh, thats right. we already have one going right now. Damn, where's Ronnie Reagan when you need him, (Trickle down).

 

[TetraHyC]

Here's a conservative quote by.
Harry J. Anslinger

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

 

[ViRedd]

CC will never get over it. He will be mortified, probably move to some right wing dictatorship, oh, thats right. we already have one going right now. Damn, where's Ronnie Reagan when you need him, (Trickle down).

On the contrary Med ... we are moving into a liberal, "progressive," fascist dictatorship and have been doing so since the late 1800s.

Order this book ... it will change the way you view things:

Amazon.com: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning: Jonah Goldberg: Books

ABOUT THIS BOOK


“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

About the Author


JONAH GOLDBERG is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and contributing editor to National Review. A USA Today contributor and former columnist for the Times of London, he has also written for The New Yorker, Commentary, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. He lives in Washington, D.C.



Vi

 

[tipsgnob]

Here's a conservative quote by.
Harry J. Anslinger

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

do you think that is why obama is so uppity? cause he smokes the reefer....

 

[ccodiane]

I guess he's going to be emotionally crushed if Obama Wins the election.

Emotionally? Hell no..............financially maybe.....

 

[ccodiane]

Here's a conservative quote by.
Harry J. Anslinger

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

Anslinger was surprised to be re-appointed by President John F. Kennedy in February 1961.

 

[moon47usaco]

I think...

Uh... Can i vote for Bush AGAIN... ??

Hmmmmmmmmmm... Oh yes i guess i can... =]

I just saw a sticker that read Bush can have a 3rd term... Vote McCain... =P

I bet you voted for Bush the second time around too... =[

Stupid Americans... =]

Anyway just babbling here so i remember to come back and read that speech... =]

 

[SocataSmoker]

Marriage exists for one reason; to raise children in a time tested traditional way that works

You really are ignorant aren't you? Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with raising children... marriage is about love. Hence why all marriages are failing these days because the parents do it for "the kids" instead of for "their love".

 

[ccodiane]

Hence why all marriages are failing these days

Oh really?........Thanks. I better go and get my divorce decree, before the lines start getting longer.

 

[SocataSmoker]

Oh really?........Thanks. I better go and get my divorce decree, before the lines start getting longer.

Good idea.

 

[ccodiane]

As soon as I put these scamps in their cages........."Honey, where are the keys to the cages?"

 

[ViRedd]

You really are ignorant aren't you? Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with raising children... marriage is about love. Hence why all marriages are failing these days because the parents do it for "the kids" instead of for "their love".

You mean that, in your opinion, if a couple decided not to get married they won't or can't love each other?

Marriage isn't about love, although most couples who get married are in love.

Marriage is a vow taken in front of a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, judge or the Capitan of a ship. Its a contract between two people, usually between a man and a woman.


Love, in this case, is the spiritual bond between two people who have touched each others hearts. Having a piece of paper, or not having a piece of paper, really hasn't much to do with it.

Vi

 

[Dankdude]

I think gays have just as much of a right to be as miserable as strait people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the Government only got involved in marriage after the Civil War. Back then it was technically illegal to marry out side one's race.
This came up in Ohio. A White man wanted to marry a black woman, The state was the first one to issue a marriage license.
Back then the legal definition of License was governmental permission to do an illegal act.

in the early 20th century The Government saw an opportunity to make money by taxation by granting marriage licenses.

I said it once before and I'll say it again.

 

[SocataSmoker]

You mean that, in your opinion, if a couple decided not to get married they won't or can't love each other?

I said nothing remotely close to that effect... I said marriage is ABOUT love. If you love someone but do not want to marry them and they're fine with that then what's the problem? I do not see one and did not intend to sound like I did, I just simply stated that marriage is about love and if two people that love each other want to get married then by all means go for it, it means nothing to me if you're gay or straight... you're a human and that's that. Fuck the naysayers because it is not their choice if they should allow you to get married or not based on orientation... it is your choice to be married. People need to learn to stay the hell out of other people's business, and what harm will a gay couple marrying bring you? None.

 

[ccodiane]

Marriage is NOT about love. Love stands alone. Marriage is about family. The old shotgun weddings, forced marriages after the unwed mother to be was with child, were a good thing, for society in general. It was/is about supporting children, the parents, the mother and the father. The union of marriage provides the best opportunity for a stable environment for children.....in the absence of marriage, what are we often left with. Permanent welfare recipients; broken homes. Love is in the heart, not in the institutions of society. If your gay and you love your partner, let them know, and leave society out of your personal affairs. Or start a petition......the will of the people should be respected in matters such as these.

Opinions are like assholes,......uh, sorry, I didn't mean to bring up your sexual orientation like that....

 

[Dfunk]

You all seem to have an opinion, but really marriage is about nothing really. Marriage is simply whatever it is to those two people. It could be about love, family, financial, or many other things. True love as well as true family dosen't really need a piece of paper to justify it's existence, but this is just my opinion. I think Dank's statement about the government seizing the opportunity to make MONEY might be correct.

 

[Leilani Garden]

You all seem to have an opinion, but really marriage is about nothing really. Marriage is simply whatever it is to those two people. It could be about love, family, financial, or many other things. True love as well as true family dosen't really need a piece of paper to justify it's existence, but this is just my opinion. I think Dank's statement about the government seizing the opportunity to make MONEY might be correct.

Yeah. I agree with this, and the with post referenced.

For those of you singing about the purpose of marriage being about raising children, what do you think of people who get married and choose not to have children? Or who cannot have children? What an absurd argument. And on this site? My gosh. What a huge turn-off. If you really want to research the history of marriage, follow the money: it's a financial arrangement, first and foremost. And that, along with my liberal views in general, is what makes all the arguments that advocate no marriage for gays so unfair, imo.

And to the fools yakking about "liberal fascism" I suggest you read the book The Anatomy Of Fascism. It's not written by a journalist. It's written by a professor of political science from Columbia U with many years of experience studying the topic. Fascism is the merging of corporate and government interests. IOW, what we've got going on in the US now. Liberal fascism is an oxymoron. And by the way, the term "socialist" as it was used by those who became the Nazis was not the same thing as socialism as we call it now.

I cannot believe the ignorance I have seen on this thread. Kudos to those of you who have managed to speak with respect to those who know not what they speak of.

Ugh.

 

[Leilani Garden]

Marriage is NOT about love. Love stands alone. Marriage is about family. The old shotgun weddings, forced marriages after the unwed mother to be was with child, were a good thing, for society in general. It was/is about supporting children, the parents, the mother and the father. The union of marriage provides the best opportunity for a stable environment for children.....in the absence of marriage, what are we often left with. Permanent welfare recipients; broken homes. Love is in the heart, not in the institutions of society. If your gay and you love your partner, let them know, and leave society out of your personal affairs. Or start a petition......the will of the people should be respected in matters such as these.

Opinions are like assholes,......uh, sorry, I didn't mean to bring up your sexual orientation like that....

God damn, you are vicious.

 

[VTXDave]

In all seriousness, I despise McCain....I'm voting for him if for no other reason than to show the libs you can't always get what you want.....I think they need to be defeated. Yes, McCain has liberal leanings, but he is not the libs candidate of choice. I believe McCain, in his "great wisdom", knew this all along. The libs would vote for the candidate that they saw as the lessor of two evils, Obama, and the conservatives would stay home.....except.....he also knew that we couldn't let O'bama win, since we knew he was really the "devious" one, (when it comes to undermining this country, INTENTIONALLY)....so we vote for the "not Obama" that has a chance. I can not support McCain, or supplant his principles for mine. He has my vote, though.

Fair enough. Here's a couple of reasons why I won't vote for...

One...He voted to increase the federal deficit to 9 trillion dollars

and Two...

Since he voted to increase the deficit, I've also not seen, nor heard, nor read anything to indicate that he'd cut spending. A vote for McCain is a vote for more bloated government and rampant spending. He'll run this country into the ground with deficit spending and borrowing. The dude is an economics retard.

There are other reasons, but that should suffice.

 

[Leilani Garden]

Fair enough. Here's a couple of reasons why I won't vote for...

One...He voted to increase the federal deficit to 9 trillion dollars

and Two...

Since he voted to increase the deficit, I've also not seen, nor heard, nor read anything to indicate that he'd cut spending. A vote for McCain is a vote for more bloated government and rampant spending. He'll run this country into the ground with deficit spending and borrowing. The dude is an economics retard.

There are other reasons, but that should suffice.

Yes, yes, yes. And here, from the horse's mouth--check out this You Tube video of McCain flip-flopping all over the place, including regarding his lack of economic knowledge:

YouTube - McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare