GOP committing political suicide

[Murf76]

Liberals and most Democrats stand with and for equal treatment and equal protection for ALL human beings, not JUST WASPs...

That includes ALL people; young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

You right wing scum bags stand for 3 things; ME, MYSELF and I, and ALWAYS with the government, just as long as that government doesn't try to help fellow Americans. But government can't be BIG enough or intrusive enough for you right wing scum if the government is harassing, arresting, incarcerating or executing 'OTHERS'...which is anybody BUT YOU.

Like I said... "useful idiots".

Collectivists only care about what they can USE in order to prod people into a predetermined demographic. If they actually gave a crap about American equality, they'd understand that equality starts with the natural rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens.

 

[xsited1]

Political trends are pendular, population demographics are NOT.

You pea brains are toast...but you reap what you sew. Your hate, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and 'Southern strategy' will bring you exactly what you deserve; permanent minority status, condemnation and irrelevance.

Michael Gerson: GOP committing political suicide

Republicans have now sent three clear signals to Hispanic voters: Proposition 187 in California, attempting to deny illegal immigrants health care and public education; the immigration debate of 2006, dominated by strident Republican opponents of reform; and now the Arizona immigration law. According to a 2008 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 49 percent of Hispanics said that Democrats had more concern for people of their background; 7 percent believed this was true of Republicans. Since the Arizona controversy, this gap can only have grown larger. In a matter of months, Hispanic voters in Arizona have gone from being among the most pro-GOP in the nation to being among the most hostile.

Immigration issues are emotional and complex, but this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics now make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.

washingtonpost.com


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

You must have jizzed your pants after reading this. Imagine 1-party rule for the next 100 years. That must be heaven to someone like you.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Political trends are pendular, population demographics are NOT.

You pea brains are toast...but you reap what you sew. Your hate, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and 'Southern strategy' will bring you exactly what you deserve; permanent minority status, condemnation and irrelevance.

Michael Gerson: GOP committing political suicide

Republicans have now sent three clear signals to Hispanic voters: Proposition 187 in California, attempting to deny illegal immigrants health care and public education; the immigration debate of 2006, dominated by strident Republican opponents of reform; and now the Arizona immigration law. According to a 2008 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 49 percent of Hispanics said that Democrats had more concern for people of their background; 7 percent believed this was true of Republicans. Since the Arizona controversy, this gap can only have grown larger. In a matter of months, Hispanic voters in Arizona have gone from being among the most pro-GOP in the nation to being among the most hostile.

Immigration issues are emotional and complex, but this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics now make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.

washingtonpost.com


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Foolish leftie, you suppose the only way to garner support is by simple-minded pandering.

I suppose not. There are far more generalized human and societal positions where the right is more "in-line" with Latin American thinking than the left. Guess will see how your pandering strategy works out.

Let's get the opinion of Michael Murphy, a Republican political consultant. He has advised such nationally prominent Republicans as John McCain, Jeb Bush, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Spencer Abraham, Christie Whitman, Lamar Alexander, and Arnold Schwarzenegger....

Just keep passing laws like Arizona's immigration bill and cheerleading for the torture of Muslims you bunch of pea brains...

For Republicans, the Ice Age Cometh

Despairing Republican friends have been asking me what I think we should do to rebuild the GOP and begin our certain and inevitable comeback. My answer disappoints them: "Build an ark."

I say this because I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.

In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double. In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose. Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow.

Read more: For Republicans, the Ice Age Cometh - TIME

Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
Edmund Burke

Why did you post the musings of some GOP has been that is the mastermind of the defeats of 2006 and 2008. Any sane person on the right, would treat Murphy and his ideas as the cryptonite they are.

Murphy is an advocate of the Republican party becoming the Tory party of Great Britain or if you like Democrat-lite. This is a losing strategy for the Republicans and a bigger losing strategy for Americans.

As I've said many times, if given a choice between Democrat-lite and a real Democrat, people will pick the real Democrat every time.

 

[Maple]

Political trends are pendular, population demographics are NOT.

You pea brains are toast...but you reap what you sew. Your hate, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and 'Southern strategy' will bring you exactly what you deserve; permanent minority status, condemnation and irrelevance.

Michael Gerson: GOP committing political suicide

Republicans have now sent three clear signals to Hispanic voters: Proposition 187 in California, attempting to deny illegal immigrants health care and public education; the immigration debate of 2006, dominated by strident Republican opponents of reform; and now the Arizona immigration law. According to a 2008 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 49 percent of Hispanics said that Democrats had more concern for people of their background; 7 percent believed this was true of Republicans. Since the Arizona controversy, this gap can only have grown larger. In a matter of months, Hispanic voters in Arizona have gone from being among the most pro-GOP in the nation to being among the most hostile.

Immigration issues are emotional and complex, but this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics now make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.

washingtonpost.com


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Nope! Some of you don't get that many, many hispanics ARE republicans - and THESE hispanics are the ones who VOTE!!! The majority are against illegal entry and do not want these illegals to be rewarded for jumping the fence or the line! Republicans are more about FREEDOM and LIBERTY; Democrats are more about SOCIALISM and FREEBIES.

Yes, and 70% of Arizonan's support the law, many of them are hispanic.

From the census department:

45%
The percentage of New Mexico's population that was Hispanic in 2008, the highest of any state. Hispanics also made up at least one fifth of the population in California and Texas, at 37% each, Arizona (30%t), Nevada (26%), Florida (21%) and Colorado (20%). New Mexico had 891,000 Hispanics

 

[Coyote]

Political trends are pendular, population demographics are NOT.

You pea brains are toast...but you reap what you sew. Your hate, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and 'Southern strategy' will bring you exactly what you deserve; permanent minority status, condemnation and irrelevance.

Michael Gerson: GOP committing political suicide

Republicans have now sent three clear signals to Hispanic voters: Proposition 187 in California, attempting to deny illegal immigrants health care and public education; the immigration debate of 2006, dominated by strident Republican opponents of reform; and now the Arizona immigration law. According to a 2008 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 49 percent of Hispanics said that Democrats had more concern for people of their background; 7 percent believed this was true of Republicans. Since the Arizona controversy, this gap can only have grown larger. In a matter of months, Hispanic voters in Arizona have gone from being among the most pro-GOP in the nation to being among the most hostile.

Immigration issues are emotional and complex, but this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics now make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.

washingtonpost.com


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Nope! Some of you don't get that many, many hispanics ARE republicans - and THESE hispanics are the ones who VOTE!!! The majority are against illegal entry and do not want these illegals to be rewarded for jumping the fence or the line! Republicans are more about FREEDOM and LIBERTY; Democrats are more about SOCIALISM and FREEBIES.

Yes, and 70% of Arizonan's support the law, many of them are hispanic.

From the census department:

45%
The percentage of New Mexico's population that was Hispanic in 2008, the highest of any state. Hispanics also made up at least one fifth of the population in California and Texas, at 37% each, Arizona (30%t), Nevada (26%), Florida (21%) and Colorado (20%). New Mexico had 891,000 Hispanics

Sounds like another bit of popular myth building in an attempt to portray broad hispanic support.


Arizona's Hispanic voters overwhelmingly oppose the law, which takes effect this summer and authorizes state police to arrest anyone reasonably suspected of being an illegal immigrant. But they are increasingly frustrated by federal inaction on comprehensive immigration reform and are moving swiftly away from candidates who support the Arizona law, the polls said....Key findings included that 81 percent of Arizona's Hispanic voters oppose SB 1070.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It doesn't really matter who supports the law or doesn't. We have the same sort of law here in Prince William County, VA. Our local police have been enforcing immigration laws for over 2 years now. There was a big dust-up when it was passed originally, but the effect has been that the illegals, mostly, left. The crime rate is at a 15 year low. School overcrowding, once rampant, has abated somewhat. Costs for services are down even in a recession.

It's a good law and when the people start feeling the good effects of it, there will be a bunch more supporters of it. (It's like Obama's theory on Health Care, once you get to feel how good it is, you'll like it. Damn, don't you hate those double-edged swords?)

 

[bodecea]

A proposition that denies public education to children of illegals is just plain stupid...it will have no effect on illegal immigration and simply create a huge underclass of uneducated people. It punishes the children that have no say in the matter.

Prop 187. Promoting it ruined Pete Wilson's political career.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals and most Democrats stand with and for equal treatment and equal protection for ALL human beings, not JUST WASPs...

That includes ALL people; young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

You right wing scum bags stand for 3 things; ME, MYSELF and I, and ALWAYS with the government, just as long as that government doesn't try to help fellow Americans. But government can't be BIG enough or intrusive enough for you right wing scum if the government is harassing, arresting, incarcerating or executing 'OTHERS'...which is anybody BUT YOU.

Like I said... "useful idiots".

Collectivists only care about what they can USE in order to prod people into a predetermined demographic. If they actually gave a crap about American equality, they'd understand that equality starts with the natural rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens.

You mean by INDIVIDUAL citizen(s)...YOU, not individuals that happen to be young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

AGAIN, 'collectivist' is only a derogatory label when liberals profess an ALL inclusive society where all are equal. Yet right wingers LOVE the ultimate collectivism; war, military service and corporations.

There are 2 types of collectivism Horizontal and Vertical...

Horizontal collectivists tend to favor democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups. Horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism.

And of course, the right embraces the ultimate collectivist statement:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

wiki

 

[Tech_Esq]

Liberals and most Democrats stand with and for equal treatment and equal protection for ALL human beings, not JUST WASPs...

That includes ALL people; young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

You right wing scum bags stand for 3 things; ME, MYSELF and I, and ALWAYS with the government, just as long as that government doesn't try to help fellow Americans. But government can't be BIG enough or intrusive enough for you right wing scum if the government is harassing, arresting, incarcerating or executing 'OTHERS'...which is anybody BUT YOU.

Like I said... "useful idiots".

Collectivists only care about what they can USE in order to prod people into a predetermined demographic. If they actually gave a crap about American equality, they'd understand that equality starts with the natural rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens.

You mean by INDIVIDUAL citizen(s)...YOU, not individuals that happen to be young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

AGAIN, 'collectivist' is only a derogatory label when liberals profess an ALL inclusive society where all are equal. Yet right wingers LOVE the ultimate collectivism; war, military service and corporations.

There are 2 types of collectivism Horizontal and Vertical...

Horizontal collectivists tend to favor democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups. Horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism.

And of course, the right embraces the ultimate collectivist statement:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

wiki

Is this your attempt to deconstruct political science?

No, Stalin and Lenin were not rightists, they were leftists. Mao was also a leftist. Communist = leftist. Socialist, Marxist, Social-Democrat = Leftist

You entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

 

[hboats]

What IS disgusting; YOUR projection. You are so self centered and blind to your lack of caring about anyone but YOU, that everyone ELSE must ALSO be as devoid of morals...

It's a twist of the transactional analysis 'I'm OK, you're OK'. In your case it's 'I'm a scum bag, so everyone ELSE must be a scum bag too'

You stand with RACE-BAITERS and think you're qualified to discuss morals?
.... that's rich. Really, it is.

These fuckers have been sorting PEOPLE into racial, ethnic, and gender categories, pouring on fertilizer in order to create growth of bias and hard-feelings along those lines... and then coming back every two years to harvest the vote since they lost the Civil Rights battle in the 1960's. Only useful idiots believe they care about "people".

We didn't see the Democrats in power stand with the State of Arizona or the Rule of Law. We didn't see them stand for equal treatment and protection of all CITIZENS. What we saw was a deliberate distortion of a state's immigration law in order to foment racial division, and ALL for the sake of political gain.

The idea that somebody like you, who stands with lawlessness, who stands with those who would gladly subjugate our natural rights and our security for the sake of tumult and division on the off-chance it would result in more political power and lucre for THEMSELVES.... the idea that YOU would have anything to say to me about "morals" just shows your total ignorance.
You wouldn't know morality or honor if they bit you on your stupid ass.

Liberals and most Democrats stand with and for equal treatment and equal protection for ALL human beings, not JUST WASPs...

That includes ALL people; young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

Don't forget CRIMINALS. Because after all, illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS. But you want them to have the same rights as the rest of us that actually OBEY THE LAW.

You right wing scum bags stand for 3 things; ME, MYSELF and I, and ALWAYS with the government, just as long as that government doesn't try to help fellow Americans. But government can't be BIG enough or intrusive enough for you right wing scum if the government is harassing, arresting, incarcerating or executing 'OTHERS'...which is anybody BUT YOU.

The rest of this rant is total B.S. But we don't really expect much more from you.

Rick

 

[Bfgrn]

Like I said... "useful idiots".

Collectivists only care about what they can USE in order to prod people into a predetermined demographic. If they actually gave a crap about American equality, they'd understand that equality starts with the natural rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens.

You mean by INDIVIDUAL citizen(s)...YOU, not individuals that happen to be young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

AGAIN, 'collectivist' is only a derogatory label when liberals profess an ALL inclusive society where all are equal. Yet right wingers LOVE the ultimate collectivism; war, military service and corporations.

There are 2 types of collectivism Horizontal and Vertical...

Horizontal collectivists tend to favor democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups. Horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism.

And of course, the right embraces the ultimate collectivist statement:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

wiki

Is this your attempt to deconstruct political science?

No, Stalin and Lenin were not rightists, they were leftists. Mao was also a leftist. Communist = leftist. Socialist, Marxist, Social-Democrat = Leftist

You entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Ah, the parochial right wing pea brain...everyone in the world is labeled based on YOUR indoctrination. Well, here are some FACTS for you to digest. "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives." - Robert Altmeyer

Stalin attended a Georgian Orthodox seminary. Do you honestly believe Stalin wanted to 'conserve' free market capitalism and democratic principles? Is THAT what HE was taught in HIS culture???

Interesting...in the late '80's Mikhail S. Gorbachev tried to liberalize Soviet society and implement a democratic government. Guess WHO opposed him?

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

 

[Tech_Esq]

You mean by INDIVIDUAL citizen(s)...YOU, not individuals that happen to be young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

AGAIN, 'collectivist' is only a derogatory label when liberals profess an ALL inclusive society where all are equal. Yet right wingers LOVE the ultimate collectivism; war, military service and corporations.

There are 2 types of collectivism Horizontal and Vertical...

Horizontal collectivists tend to favor democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups. Horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism.

And of course, the right embraces the ultimate collectivist statement:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

wiki

Is this your attempt to deconstruct political science?

No, Stalin and Lenin were not rightists, they were leftists. Mao was also a leftist. Communist = leftist. Socialist, Marxist, Social-Democrat = Leftist

You entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Ah, the parochial right wing pea brain...everyone in the world is labeled based on YOUR indoctrination. Well, here are some FACTS for you to digest. "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives." - Robert Altmeyer

Stalin attended a Georgian Orthodox seminary. Do you honestly believe Stalin wanted to 'conserve' free market capitalism and democratic principles? Is THAT what HE was taught in HIS culture???

Interesting...in the late '80's Mikhail S. Gorbachev tried to liberalize Soviet society and implement a democratic government. Guess WHO opposed him?

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

I see. You're just confused.

You should learn to not be arrogant when you don't know what the fuck you're doing though. It makes you looks stupid.

Since it has nothing to do with the thread I'll spare you the lesson in Soviet comparative government and relative roles and political distribution across the communist spectrum that existed (or rose and fell) during the Soviet era. Suffice it to say that any attempt to make cross comparisons with the US is fraught with danger and you are not being nearly careful enough.

 

[Murf76]

You mean by INDIVIDUAL citizen(s)...YOU, not individuals that happen to be young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

AGAIN, 'collectivist' is only a derogatory label when liberals profess an ALL inclusive society where all are equal. Yet right wingers LOVE the ultimate collectivism; war, military service and corporations.

There are 2 types of collectivism Horizontal and Vertical...

Horizontal collectivists tend to favor democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups. Horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism.

And of course, the right embraces the ultimate collectivist statement:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

wiki

You stand behind these assholes while they foment every conceivable type of social division for the purpose of political gain.. and you think you're doing it in the best interest of American citizens?
And then you've got the nerve, so pissy in defense of your own lack of political insight, that the best you can do is insult me... like it's somehow my fault you don't have enough common sense to understand that you're a victim of a political marketing strategy.

Hey. I'm just glad I'm not so brainwashed that I'd be willing to debase myself to the point of race-baiting for the sake of some oily politician feathering his own nest.

The collectivist's view of "equality" is that we all be "equal" in our misery, "equally" deprived of our individual rights, "equally" under the thumb of a tyrannical bunch of elitist masters who will arbitrarily decide what they think is "fair".

Unfortunately for us... their view of "fair" is whatever serves them best politically. Keeping everybody equally poor and miserable, keeping them begging for crumbs, sniping at one another, and fooled into believing that their masters are their saviors is all that keeps statists from being discovered as the parasites they really are.

All collectivist ideologies end up the same... with a few elitists, who've managed to climb up over the backs of their brethren, utterly controlling the many. It's only through respect of the truly equal natural rights of the individual, that collectivism is avoided.

I didn't choose your side. You did. In a conflict between Collectivism and Liberty, you chose the Marxist. And now you piss and moan that there are still people who crave freedom and reject your pathetically naive, regurgitated sophistry.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Brgfn: Remember me? I remember you from the old AOL chat boards. You said I SHOULD commit suicide. What is it with you and self destruction, anyway? Well, time changes us all. I used to be a Liberal Democrat, before the AOL days, that is. They say, a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged. I got mugged by wetbacks, and it wasn’t pretty. They didn’t live up to all those high liberal Democrat expectations, those people are just asshole jerks. They don’t have one iota of respect for the Constitution, and human rights are just an excuse for them to manipulate stupid chumps like you . I have the feeling that plenty of disaffected liberals are ready to vote against the incumbent Liberal Democrats you support, over issues like this .. It's time for a change, and not in the Obama sense . I changed my party affiliation over this issue. A Newborn Republican. That is the change that is coming. Liberal morons with blinkered unrealistic inflexible mindsets LIKE you are the problem.

 

[Bfgrn]

Is this your attempt to deconstruct political science?

No, Stalin and Lenin were not rightists, they were leftists. Mao was also a leftist. Communist = leftist. Socialist, Marxist, Social-Democrat = Leftist

You entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Ah, the parochial right wing pea brain...everyone in the world is labeled based on YOUR indoctrination. Well, here are some FACTS for you to digest. "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives." - Robert Altmeyer

Stalin attended a Georgian Orthodox seminary. Do you honestly believe Stalin wanted to 'conserve' free market capitalism and democratic principles? Is THAT what HE was taught in HIS culture???

Interesting...in the late '80's Mikhail S. Gorbachev tried to liberalize Soviet society and implement a democratic government. Guess WHO opposed him?

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

I see. You're just confused.

You should learn to not be arrogant when you don't know what the fuck you're doing though. It makes you looks stupid.

Since it has nothing to do with the thread I'll spare you the lesson in Soviet comparative government and relative roles and political distribution across the communist spectrum that existed (or rose and fell) during the Soviet era. Suffice it to say that any attempt to make cross comparisons with the US is fraught with danger and you are not being nearly careful enough.

The confusion is yours, not mine. You are viewing Russia through AMERICAN political doctrine and tenets. AND you ignore personality traits and markers. The core of ALL Conservatism everywhere in the world is an adherence to and protection of THEIR traditions. It is a political and social philosophy that says traditional institutions work best. There is NO 'western' tradition in Russia. "Conservatives" here profess a belief in capitalism and extol the virtues of the good old days of the 1950's, a half century ago; "conservatives" in Russia pine for the bygone days of the stability of the old Soviet empire. Conservativism is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more similarity psychologically and personality wise between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.

 

[Bfgrn]

Brgfn: Remember me? I remember you from the old AOL chat boards. You said I SHOULD commit suicide. What is it with you and self destruction, anyway? Well, time changes us all. I used to be a Liberal Democrat, before the AOL days, that is. They say, a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged. I got mugged by wetbacks, and it wasn’t pretty. They didn’t live up to all those high liberal Democrat expectations, those people are just asshole jerks. They don’t have one iota of respect for the Constitution, and human rights are just an excuse for them to manipulate stupid chumps like you . I have the feeling that plenty of disaffected liberals are ready to vote against the incumbent Liberal Democrats you support, over issues like this .. It's time for a change, and not in the Obama sense . I changed my party affiliation over this issue. A Newborn Republican. That is the change that is coming. Liberal morons with blinkered unrealistic inflexible mindsets LIKE you are the problem.

Yea, I remember you. Here's my sincere advice. Seek professional help. See a qualified psychiatrist. Your hatred will consume no one but YOU...

 

[Bfgrn]

You mean by INDIVIDUAL citizen(s)...YOU, not individuals that happen to be young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

AGAIN, 'collectivist' is only a derogatory label when liberals profess an ALL inclusive society where all are equal. Yet right wingers LOVE the ultimate collectivism; war, military service and corporations.

There are 2 types of collectivism Horizontal and Vertical...

Horizontal collectivists tend to favor democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups. Horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism.

And of course, the right embraces the ultimate collectivist statement:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

wiki

You stand behind these assholes while they foment every conceivable type of social division for the purpose of political gain.. and you think you're doing it in the best interest of American citizens?
And then you've got the nerve, so pissy in defense of your own lack of political insight, that the best you can do is insult me... like it's somehow my fault you don't have enough common sense to understand that you're a victim of a political marketing strategy.

Hey. I'm just glad I'm not so brainwashed that I'd be willing to debase myself to the point of race-baiting for the sake of some oily politician feathering his own nest.

The collectivist's view of "equality" is that we all be "equal" in our misery, "equally" deprived of our individual rights, "equally" under the thumb of a tyrannical bunch of elitist masters who will arbitrarily decide what they think is "fair".

Unfortunately for us... their view of "fair" is whatever serves them best politically. Keeping everybody equally poor and miserable, keeping them begging for crumbs, sniping at one another, and fooled into believing that their masters are their saviors is all that keeps statists from being discovered as the parasites they really are.

All collectivist ideologies end up the same... with a few elitists, who've managed to climb up over the backs of their brethren, utterly controlling the many. It's only through respect of the truly equal natural rights of the individual, that collectivism is avoided.

I didn't choose your side. You did. In a conflict between Collectivism and Liberty, you chose the Marxist. And now you piss and moan that there are still people who crave freedom and reject your pathetically naive, regurgitated sophistry.

The projection on your part has reached the level of the absurd.

The 'marketing' of which you speak in the property of the right.

Conservatism has used a wide variety of methods to destroy reason throughout history. Fortunately, many of these methods, such as the suppression of popular literacy, are incompatible with a modern economy. Once the common people started becoming educated, more sophisticated methods of domination were required. Thus the invention of public relations, which is a kind of rationalized irrationality. The great innovation of conservatism in recent decades has been the systematic reinvention of politics using the technology of public relations.

The main idea of public relations is the distinction between "messages" and "facts". Messages are the things you want people to believe. A message should be vague enough that it is difficult to refute by rational means. (People in politics refer to messages as "strategies" and people who devise strategies as "strategists". The Democrats have strategists too, and it is not at all clear that they should, but they scarcely compare with the vast public relations machinery of the right.) It is useful to think of each message as a kind of pipeline: a steady stream of facts is selected (or twisted, or fabricated) to fit the message. Contrary facts are of course ignored. The goal is what the professionals call "message repetition". This provides activists with something to do: come up with new facts to fit the conservative authorities' chosen messages. Having become established in this way, messages must also be continually intertwined with one another. This is one job of pundits.

To the public relations mind, the public sphere is a game in which the opposition tries to knock you off your message. Take the example of one successful message, "Gore's lies". The purpose of the game was to return any interaction to the message, namely that Gore lies. So if it is noted that the supposed examples of Gore lying (e.g., his perfectly true claim to have done onerous farm chores) were themselves untrue, common responses would include, "that doesn't matter, what matters is Gore's lies", or "the reasons people believe them is because of Gore's lies", or "yes perhaps, but there are so many other examples of Gore's lies", or "you're just trying to change the subject away from Gore's lies", and so on.

Many of these messages have become institutions. Whole organizations exist to provide a pipeline of "facts" that underwrite the message of "liberal media bias". These "facts" fall into numerous categories and exemplify a wide range of fallacies. Some are just factually untrue, e.g., claims that the New York Times has failed to cover an event that it actually covered in detail. Other claimed examples of bias are non sequiturs, e.g., quotations from liberal columns that appear on the opinion pages, or quotations from liberals in news articles that also provided balancing quotes from conservatives. Others are illogical, e.g., media that report news events that represent bad news for the president. The methods of identifying "bias" are thus highly elastic. In practice, everything in the media on political topics that diverges from conservative public relations messages is contended to be an example of "liberal bias". The goal, clearly, is to purge the media of everything except conservatism.

The word "inaccurate" has become something of a technical term in the political use of public relations. It means "differs from our message".

Public relations aims to break down reason and replace it with mental associations. One tries to associate "us" with good things and "them" with bad things. Thus, for example, the famous memo from Newt Gingrich's (then) organization GOPAC entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control". It advised Republican candidates to associate themselves with words like "building", "dream", "freedom", "learn", "light", "preserve", "success", and "truth" while associating opponents with words like "bizarre", "decay", "ideological", "lie", "machine", "pathetic", and "traitors". The issue here is not whether these words are used at all; of course there do exist individual liberals that could be described using any of these words. The issue, rather, is a kind of cognitive surgery: systematically creating and destroying mental associations with little regard for truth. Note, in fact, that "truth" is one of the words that Gingrich advised appropriating in this fashion. Someone who thinks this way cannot even conceptualize truth.

Conservative strategists construct their messages in a variety of more or less stereotyped ways. One of the most important patterns of conservative message-making is projection. Projection is a psychological notion; it roughly means attacking someone by falsely claiming that they are attacking you. Conservative strategists engage in projection constantly. A commonplace example would be taking something from someone by claiming that they are in fact taking it from you. Or, having heard a careful and detailed refutation of something he has said, the projector might snap, "you should not dismiss what I have said so quickly!". It is a false claim -- what he said was not dismissed -- that is an example of itself -- he is dismissing what his opponent has said.

Projection was an important part of the Florida election controversy, for example when Republicans tried to get illegal ballots counted and prevent legal ballots from being counted, while claiming that Democrats were trying to steal the election.

* The Destruction of Language

Reason occurs mostly through the medium of language, and so the destruction of reason requires the destruction of language. An underlying notion of conservative politics is that words and phrases of language are like territory in warfare: owned and controlled by one side or the other. One of the central goals of conservatism, as for example with Newt Gingrich's lists of words, is to take control of every word and phrase in the English language.

George Bush, likewise, owes his election in great measure to a new language that his people engineered for him. His favorite word, for example, is "heart". This type of linguistic engineering is highly evolved in the business milieu from which conservative public relations derives, and it is the day-to-day work of countless conservative think tanks. Bush's people, and the concentric circles of punditry around them, are worlds away from John Kerry deciding on a moment's notice that he is going to start the word "values". They do not use a word unless they have an integrated communications strategy for taking control of that word throughout the whole of society.

Bush's personal vocabulary is only a small part of conservative language warfare as a whole. Since around 1990, conservative rhetors have been systematically turning language into a weapon against liberals. Words are used in twisted and exaggerated ways, or with the opposite of their customary meanings. This affects the whole of the language. The goal of this distorted language is not simply to defeat an enemy but to destroy the minds of the people who believe themselves to be conservatives and who constantly challenge themselves to ever greater extremity in using it.

A simple example of turning language into a weapon might be the word "predictable", which has become a synonym for "liberal". There is no rational argument in this usage. Every such use of "predictable" can be refuted simply by substituting the word "consistent". It is simply invective.

More importantly, conservative rhetors have been systematically mapping the language that has historically been used to describe the aristocracy and the traditional authorities that serve it, and have twisted those words into terms for liberals. This tactic has the dual advantage of both attacking the aristocracies' opponents and depriving them of the words that they have used to attack aristocracy.

A simple example is the term "race-baiting". In the Nexis database, uses of "race-baiting" undergo a sudden switch in the early 1990's. Before then, "race-baiting" referred to racists. Afterward, it referred in twisted way to people who oppose racism. What happened is simple: conservative rhetors, tired of the political advantage that liberals had been getting from their use of that word, took it away from them.

A more complicated example is the word "racist". Conservative rhetors have tried to take this word away as well by constantly coming up with new ways to stick the word onto liberals and their policies. For example they have referred to affirmative action as "racist". This is false; it is an attempt to destroy language. Racism is the notion that one race is intrinsically better than another. Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, as a means of partially offsetting discrimination in other places and times, but it is not racist. Many conservative rhetors have even stuck the word "racist" on people just because they oppose racism. The notion seems to be that these people addressed themselves to the topic of race, and the word "racist" is sort of an adjective relating somehow to race. In any event this too is an attack on language.

A recent example is the word "hate". The civil rights movement had used the word "hate" to refer to terrorism and stereotyping against black people, and during the 1990's some in the press had identified as "Clinton-haters" people who had made vast numbers of bizarre claims that the Clintons had participated in murder and drug-dealing. Beginning around 2003, conservative rhetors took control of this word as well by labeling a variety of perfectly ordinary types of democratic opposition to George Bush as "hate". In addition, they have constructed a large number of messages of the form "liberals hate X" (e.g., X=America) and established within their media apparatus a sophistical pipeline of "facts" to support each one. This is also an example of the systematic breaking of associations.

The word "partisan" entered into its current political circulation in the early 1990's when some liberals identified people like Newt Gingrich as "partisan" for doing things like the memo on language that I mentioned earlier. To the conservative way of politics, there is nothing either true or false about the liberal claim. It is simply that liberals had taken control of some rhetorical territory: the word "partisan". Conservative rhetors then set about taking control of the word themselves. They did this in a way that has become mechanical. They first claimed, falsely, that liberals were identifying as "partisan" any views other than their own. They thus inflated the word while projecting this inflation onto the liberals and disconnecting the word from the particular facts that the liberals had associated with it. Next, they started using the word "partisan" in the inflated, dishonest way that they had ascribed to their opponents. This is, very importantly, a way of attacking people simply for having a different opinion. In twisting language this way, conservatives tell themselves that they are simply turning liberal unfairness back against the liberals. This too is projection.

Another common theme of conservative strategy is that liberals are themselves an aristocracy. (For those who are really keeping score, the sophisticated version of this is called the "new class strategy", the message being that liberals are the American version of the Soviet nomenklatura.) Thus, for example, the constant pelting of liberals as "elites", sticking this word and a mass of others semantically related to it onto liberals on every possible occasion. A pipeline of "facts" has been established to underwrite this message as well. Thus, for example, constant false conservative claims that the rich vote Democratic. When Al Franken recently referred to his new radio network as "the media elite and proud of it", he demonstrated his oblivion to the workings of the conservative discourse that he claims to contest.

Further examples of this are endless. When a Republican senator referred to "the few liberals", hardly any liberals gave any sign of getting what he meant: as all conservatives got just fine, he was appropriating the phrase "the few", referring to the aristocracy as opposed to "the many", and sticking this phrase in a false and mechanical way onto liberals. Rush Limbaugh asserts that "they [liberals] think they are better than you", this of course being a phrase that had historically been applied (and applied correctly) to the aristocracy. Conservative rhetors constantly make false or exaggerated claims that liberals are engaged in stereotyping -- the criticism of stereotyping having been one of history's most important rhetorical devices of democrats. And so on. The goal here is to make it impossible to criticize aristocracy.

For an especially sorry example of this pattern, consider the word "hierarchy". Conservatism is a hierarchical social system: a system of ranked orders and classes. Yet in recent years conservatives have managed to stick this word onto liberals, the notion being that "government" (which liberals supposedly endorse and conservatives supposedly oppose) is hierarchical (whereas corporations, the military, and the church are somehow vaguely not). Liberals are losing because it does not even occur to them to refute this kind of mechanical anti-reason.

It is often claimed in the media that snooty elitists on the coasts refer to states in the middle of the country as "flyover country". Yet I, who have lived in liberal areas of the coasts for most of my life, have never once heard this usage. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Nexis database does not contain a single example of anyone using the phrase "flyover country" to disparage the non-coastal areas of the United States. Instead, it contains hundreds of examples of people disparaging residents of the coasts by claiming that they use the phrase to describe the interior. The phrase is a special favorite of newspapers in Minneapolis and Denver. This is projection. Likewise, I have never heard the phrase "political correctness" used except to disparage the people who supposedly use it.

Conservative remapping of the language of aristocracy and democracy has been incredibly thorough. Consider, for example, the terms "entitlement" and "dependency". The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had titles, and they thought that they were thereby entitled to various things, particularly the deference of the common people. Everyone else, by contrast, was dependent on the aristocrats. This is conservatism. Yet in the 1990's, conservative rhetors decided that the people who actually claim entitlement are people on welfare. They furthermore created an empirically false association between welfare and dependency. But, as I have mentioned, welfare is precisely a way of eliminating dependency on the aristocracy and the cultural authorities that serve it. I do not recall anyone ever noting this inversion of meaning.

Conservative strategists have also been remapping the language that has historically been applied to conservative religious authorities, sticking words such as "orthodoxy", "pious", "dogma", and "sanctimonious" to liberals at every turn.

Department of Information Studies

 

[SW2SILVER]

I would make a effort to be offended, but it would be as hollow as your response. Tell me, are you a professional? Professional WHAT? You like the Constitution? Now, here is a simple question: If and when YOU visit internationally, do you sneak in over the border without filing a Visa and getting a passport? Now, riddle me this, Einstein, Why can't Mexicans do the same fucking thing when they immigrate? IS that TOO much to ask, WHY can't THEY they do they same?

 

[BolshevikHunter]

You mean by INDIVIDUAL citizen(s)...YOU, not individuals that happen to be young, old, black, brown, white, red, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

AGAIN, 'collectivist' is only a derogatory label when liberals profess an ALL inclusive society where all are equal. Yet right wingers LOVE the ultimate collectivism; war, military service and corporations.

There are 2 types of collectivism Horizontal and Vertical...

Horizontal collectivists tend to favor democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups. Horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism.

And of course, the right embraces the ultimate collectivist statement:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

wiki

Is this your attempt to deconstruct political science?

No, Stalin and Lenin were not rightists, they were leftists. Mao was also a leftist. Communist = leftist. Socialist, Marxist, Social-Democrat = Leftist

You entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Ah, the parochial right wing pea brain...everyone in the world is labeled based on YOUR indoctrination. Well, here are some FACTS for you to digest. "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives." - Robert Altmeyer

Stalin attended a Georgian Orthodox seminary. Do you honestly believe Stalin wanted to 'conserve' free market capitalism and democratic principles? Is THAT what HE was taught in HIS culture???

Interesting...in the late '80's Mikhail S. Gorbachev tried to liberalize Soviet society and implement a democratic government. Guess WHO opposed him?

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

Could you be anymore stupid? Most likely I am sure. People like you should be eradicated. ~BH

 

[Zander]

Who gives a shit, really? I'd rather do what is right than worry about politics.