New Coal Regulations Will Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills

[Bfgrn]

Liberal American journalists are the ones who labeled the Stalinist in Russia "conservatives." That's a perfect example of how the media propaganda organs define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. The label Stalinists "conservatives" simply so they can slam American conservatives.

Gullible pliant drones like you swallow this crap, but intelligent people aren't fooled.

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?

Sorry, but Stalinist is what Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat called himself.

Stalin received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary, there was nothing liberal about his upbringing.

Pamyat

Pamyat (Russian: Память; English translation: Memory) is a Russian ultra-nationalist organization identifying itself as the "People's National-patriotic Orthodox Christian movement." It has been accused of racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.

In the fall of 1987, the National-Patriotic Front (NPF) was founded, with the aim of "renaissance", with the intent to "lead Russian people to the spiritual and national revival" on the basis of "three traditional Russian values": Orthodoxy, national character and spirituality. After several splits and the imminent dissolution of the USSR, the organization adopted a monarchist position, thus breaking with its initial national-communist tendencies (e.g. Pamyat had appreciated Stalin's activities in the post-war era, esp. 'his campaigns against 'cosmopolitans').

In August 1990, a permanent NPF council member, Aleksandr Barkashov (the author of the book The ABC of a Russian Nationalist), caused another split after his announcement of being "tired to be preoccupied by recollections. It is time to act". His new group was dubbed "Russian National Unity" (Русское Национальное Единств&#1086. Barkashov promoted the cult of the swastika, a symbol which, according to Barkashov, "acts on subconsciousness of theomachists. It paralyses, weakens and demoralizes them."

It was claimed Pamyat's ideology blended fascism with autocratic monarchy (rejecting the "legitimist" Romanov family line), and an interpretation of Orthodoxy that borrowed heavily from the Nazi sponsored Positive Christianity. One of Pamyat's founders, Valeriy Yemelyanov, attempted to merge religious neo-Paganism with Russian ethnic neo-Nazism. He is also the author of the book "Dezionization".
wiki

 

[Big Fitz]

You know Big Fizzzzzzzz, I read all the posts on this thread from you folks who claim to be CONSERVE-ative. WHAT is it you want to conserve? If the health, well being and lives of our children and families is not the most important thing, than what is?

WE went to war over the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens, yet 13,000 die every year because of something that can be prevented, and there is no outrage from the right. Are you folks SO SURE that the studies done by doctors and organizations like the American Lung Association are bogus? What if you people are WRONG? How could you justify that?

We are trying to conserve our Liberties. You know, the things you desperately want to seize from us as individuals? To conserve and preserve a life of individual freedom and opportunity.

You try and manufacture moral outrages over insignificant events. It's all about ginning up fear in which people will surrender their freedom to totalitarians for a crisis that does not exist because you made them afraid.

Transfats, carcinogenic coal, radiation, Alar, Frankenfoods, high salt, tobacco, alcohol, coffee, driving low MPG cars, living in urban spawl, food deserts, global warming, global cooling, the ozone layer depletion, West Nile Virus, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, AIDS, SIDS, Ebola, Hanta Virus, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Radon....

Every damn day you turn around and find yet another thing to be scaring the masses on, and the solution is always always always more government control over your life. We can't be allowed to solve problems for ourselves because we as individuals are too dangerous and stupid to do so! We must have the wise and benevolent hand of bureaucrats, hired from among us and rule every aspect of our lives so we don't have to think and fear and be good little obedient drones programmed to do nothing but obey you.

What if a pill was invented tomorrow that could cure forever all lung cancer? What would be the response of the American Lung Association? The threat is gone. Would they be cheering on it's implementation and cure the world? then what? Their charity is DONE. No more money. The solution is there and no reason to buy the cheap little pill and everyone will forever be cured of lung maladies. I will guarantee you they'd fight tooth and nail to prevent a cure from happening because it destroys their livelihood. Just like a cop does not want all crime to go away because his job is ended, nor does any charity want their cause to end.

Jonas Salk's vaccine damn near ended the March of Dimes. They should have gone away because their cause was cured forever: Polio. So what did they do? They saved the jobs of all their bureaucrats instead. How? Changed causes to 'birth defects'! Now they will NEVER be threatened with going out of business again! It's the way non-profit addicts work. They don't want the cure, because it's a cushy job and life that makes them seem like champions for something they pray is never defeated.

Therefore, for every advance in technology to make coal power cleaner, safer and more efficient, the regulatory noose will tighten to more and more unreasonable levels so jobs are preserved in the groups that grow fat on regulating and inflating threats that really.... don't exist anymore. And that's the scam.

What if we're wrong? Well first, the burden of proof is on you for all suddenly discovered dangers. Secondly, you need to prove the cure is fiscally, economically, and morally responsible and in like with the needs of society at large, not some sliver minority that consists of the complaining parties and a few dozen more. Lastly, the cure has to be better than the problems it will create or issue at hand. Too often, it is not even close and not enough people have had the bravery to drown out your screams of "Won't Somebody Think About the Children" like a hysterical Mrs. Lovejoy.

So you can take your big government ecofascisti solution and shove it up your liberally broad ass, Tardtard. As an individual, I refuse it.

That's quite a rant there Big Fizzzzzz, but there is NO history of polluters ever abating their pollution unless it is cost effective or they are forced to by government regulations. You can 'grasp' government protecting the nation through military means, but you are obtuse to government's role in protecting citizens from other threats, foreign or domestic. You folks on the right have perverted liberty to mean some form of jungle law where any corporation can cause harm to the public and not be held accountable.

That whole right wing 'personal responsibility' mantra is total bullshit unless it applies to everyone, from a homeless person to a corporate CEO.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations, and they held owners and shareholders personally liable for any harm the corporation caused.

You could eat a shit sandwich, smile and ask for seconds, couldn't you Tardtard.

Nothing touched anything resembling a braincell I see.

But when you deny personal responsibility as a fraud or waste of time, you're declaring how worthless of a human being you are and we'd all be better off without you.

On that note, I think you've finally exhausted my patience for your rampant, shameless and entrenched stupidity and outright embrace of evil. I'm done listening to a damn thing you have to say and choose to not suffer the fool you are any longer. Welcome to the ignore list, Tardtard, you worthless waste of DNA.

(THAT, BTW, is a short and pithy rant. The former was a critical dissection of your stupidity for the benefit of others who can tell the difference)

 

[Bfgrn]

We are trying to conserve our Liberties. You know, the things you desperately want to seize from us as individuals? To conserve and preserve a life of individual freedom and opportunity.

You try and manufacture moral outrages over insignificant events. It's all about ginning up fear in which people will surrender their freedom to totalitarians for a crisis that does not exist because you made them afraid.

Transfats, carcinogenic coal, radiation, Alar, Frankenfoods, high salt, tobacco, alcohol, coffee, driving low MPG cars, living in urban spawl, food deserts, global warming, global cooling, the ozone layer depletion, West Nile Virus, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, AIDS, SIDS, Ebola, Hanta Virus, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Radon....

Every damn day you turn around and find yet another thing to be scaring the masses on, and the solution is always always always more government control over your life. We can't be allowed to solve problems for ourselves because we as individuals are too dangerous and stupid to do so! We must have the wise and benevolent hand of bureaucrats, hired from among us and rule every aspect of our lives so we don't have to think and fear and be good little obedient drones programmed to do nothing but obey you.

What if a pill was invented tomorrow that could cure forever all lung cancer? What would be the response of the American Lung Association? The threat is gone. Would they be cheering on it's implementation and cure the world? then what? Their charity is DONE. No more money. The solution is there and no reason to buy the cheap little pill and everyone will forever be cured of lung maladies. I will guarantee you they'd fight tooth and nail to prevent a cure from happening because it destroys their livelihood. Just like a cop does not want all crime to go away because his job is ended, nor does any charity want their cause to end.

Jonas Salk's vaccine damn near ended the March of Dimes. They should have gone away because their cause was cured forever: Polio. So what did they do? They saved the jobs of all their bureaucrats instead. How? Changed causes to 'birth defects'! Now they will NEVER be threatened with going out of business again! It's the way non-profit addicts work. They don't want the cure, because it's a cushy job and life that makes them seem like champions for something they pray is never defeated.

Therefore, for every advance in technology to make coal power cleaner, safer and more efficient, the regulatory noose will tighten to more and more unreasonable levels so jobs are preserved in the groups that grow fat on regulating and inflating threats that really.... don't exist anymore. And that's the scam.

What if we're wrong? Well first, the burden of proof is on you for all suddenly discovered dangers. Secondly, you need to prove the cure is fiscally, economically, and morally responsible and in like with the needs of society at large, not some sliver minority that consists of the complaining parties and a few dozen more. Lastly, the cure has to be better than the problems it will create or issue at hand. Too often, it is not even close and not enough people have had the bravery to drown out your screams of "Won't Somebody Think About the Children" like a hysterical Mrs. Lovejoy.

So you can take your big government ecofascisti solution and shove it up your liberally broad ass, Tardtard. As an individual, I refuse it.

That's quite a rant there Big Fizzzzzz, but there is NO history of polluters ever abating their pollution unless it is cost effective or they are forced to by government regulations. You can 'grasp' government protecting the nation through military means, but you are obtuse to government's role in protecting citizens from other threats, foreign or domestic. You folks on the right have perverted liberty to mean some form of jungle law where any corporation can cause harm to the public and not be held accountable.

That whole right wing 'personal responsibility' mantra is total bullshit unless it applies to everyone, from a homeless person to a corporate CEO.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations, and they held owners and shareholders personally liable for any harm the corporation caused.

You could eat a shit sandwich, smile and ask for seconds, couldn't you Tardtard.

Nothing touched anything resembling a braincell I see.

But when you deny personal responsibility as a fraud or waste of time, you're declaring how worthless of a human being you are and we'd all be better off without you.

On that note, I think you've finally exhausted my patience for your rampant, shameless and entrenched stupidity and outright embrace of evil. I'm done listening to a damn thing you have to say and choose to not suffer the fool you are any longer. Welcome to the ignore list, Tardtard, you worthless waste of DNA.

(THAT, BTW, is a short and pithy rant. The former was a critical dissection of your stupidity for the benefit of others who can tell the difference)

You have a major cognitive problem. It is either reading or comprehending.

Personal responsibility must apply to everyone fizzle brain, or it is an excuse to oppress another person. No one is above the law. If a corporation's pollution causes harm or death to human beings, then the owner and stockholders should be held PERSONALLY liable. That is how our founding fathers treated corporations and governed.

 

[daveman]

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?

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

February 27, 1989

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.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance

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.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists,'' representatives of politically conservative organizations are trying to draft voters and candidates to establish a foothold within the Government.

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

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'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

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

Your failure is in thinking that Russian conservatives are the same as American conservatives.

In reality, it's American Progressives who want the US to "progress" to the condition of the Soviet Union circa 1958: State ownership of industry, oppressive government control over individual lives, rigid control of thought and word, rewriting history to suit the needs of the moment.

 

[Bfgrn]

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?

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

February 27, 1989

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.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance

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.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists,'' representatives of politically conservative organizations are trying to draft voters and candidates to establish a foothold within the Government.

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

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'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

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

Your failure is in thinking that Russian conservatives are the same as American conservatives.

In reality, it's American Progressives who want the US to "progress" to the condition of the Soviet Union circa 1958: State ownership of industry, oppressive government control over individual lives, rigid control of thought and word, rewriting history to suit the needs of the moment.

Ironic, shortly after 9/11 I saw this:

October 16, 2001

What's truly ironic about this whole war is that the conservatives in our country do not seem to realize that the Taliban is simply an extreme version of the same primal impulse that drives them.

In every population there is a distribution of conservative to progressive, aggressive to peaceful, etc. The famous classical game theoretic model, the Hawk-Dove contest, shows that the evolutionarily stable population in that model is not all hawks or all doves, but rather a certain degree of each; in that model, 58% "doves" and 42% "hawks". It stands to reason that it is expected that you will have both types of personality in your population. Similarly, I believe a stable distribution of political sensibility is probably one with both progressive and conservative elements.

Of course, it's funny how the same personality type seems to latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "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. I believe that the propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more psychologically (and perhaps genetically?) similar between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.

But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.
M. Hadeishi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm sure you will not subscribe to that description of conservatives.

THEN, in 2009 I see this:

Comparing Republicans to terrorists...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

 

[daveman]

Ironic, shortly after 9/11 I saw this:

October 16, 2001

What's truly ironic about this whole war is that the conservatives in our country do not seem to realize that the Taliban is simply an extreme version of the same primal impulse that drives them.

In every population there is a distribution of conservative to progressive, aggressive to peaceful, etc. The famous classical game theoretic model, the Hawk-Dove contest, shows that the evolutionarily stable population in that model is not all hawks or all doves, but rather a certain degree of each; in that model, 58% "doves" and 42% "hawks". It stands to reason that it is expected that you will have both types of personality in your population. Similarly, I believe a stable distribution of political sensibility is probably one with both progressive and conservative elements.

Of course, it's funny how the same personality type seems to latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "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. I believe that the propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more psychologically (and perhaps genetically?) similar between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.

But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.
M. Hadeishi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm sure you will not subscribe to that description of conservatives.

THEN, in 2009 I see this:

Comparing Republicans to terrorists...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

Why would I subscribe to wrong ideas? Because you stamp your feet and have a hissy fit?

Not happening, Skippy. Deal with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?

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

February 27, 1989

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.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance

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.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists,'' representatives of politically conservative organizations are trying to draft voters and candidates to establish a foothold within the Government.

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

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'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

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

Your failure is in thinking that Russian conservatives are the same as American conservatives.

In reality, it's American Progressives who want the US to "progress" to the condition of the Soviet Union circa 1958: State ownership of industry, oppressive government control over individual lives, rigid control of thought and word, rewriting history to suit the needs of the moment.

Ironic, shortly after 9/11 I saw this:

October 16, 2001

What's truly ironic about this whole war is that the conservatives in our country do not seem to realize that the Taliban is simply an extreme version of the same primal impulse that drives them.

In every population there is a distribution of conservative to progressive, aggressive to peaceful, etc. The famous classical game theoretic model, the Hawk-Dove contest, shows that the evolutionarily stable population in that model is not all hawks or all doves, but rather a certain degree of each; in that model, 58% "doves" and 42% "hawks". It stands to reason that it is expected that you will have both types of personality in your population. Similarly, I believe a stable distribution of political sensibility is probably one with both progressive and conservative elements.

Of course, it's funny how the same personality type seems to latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "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. I believe that the propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more psychologically (and perhaps genetically?) similar between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.

But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.
M. Hadeishi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm sure you will not subscribe to that description of conservatives.

THEN, in 2009 I see this:

Comparing Republicans to terrorists...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

You posted this drivel, why?

 

[daveman]

You posted this drivel, why?

Just mindless lasing out.

 

[The T]

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?

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

February 27, 1989

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.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance

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.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists,'' representatives of politically conservative organizations are trying to draft voters and candidates to establish a foothold within the Government.

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

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'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

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

Your failure is in thinking that Russian conservatives are the same as American conservatives.

In reality, it's American Progressives who want the US to "progress" to the condition of the Soviet Union circa 1958: State ownership of industry, oppressive government control over individual lives, rigid control of thought and word, rewriting history to suit the needs of the moment.

Too many make the mistake of Comparing the rest of the world to the Uniquely AMERICAN experience that those entities have NEVER experienced.

Their recipe however is to downgrade US, to mirror them...(These idiots don't understand the fight on their hands)...

 

[daveman]

Too many make the mistake of Comparing the rest of the world to the Uniquely AMERICAN experience that those entities have NEVER experienced.

Their recipe however is to downgrade US, to mirror them...(These idiots don't understand the fight on their hands)...

I've never understood the almost worshipful attitude towards Europe. Nor the denial of American exceptionalism.

You have to ignore an awful lot of history to do either.

 

[The T]

Too many make the mistake of Comparing the rest of the world to the Uniquely AMERICAN experience that those entities have NEVER experienced.

Their recipe however is to downgrade US, to mirror them...(These idiots don't understand the fight on their hands)...

I've never understood the almost worshipful attitude towards Europe. Nor the denial of American exceptionalism.

You have to ignore an awful lot of history to do either.

Agreed...just like this fucking IDIOT...(I'd call him a HAS BEEN...but that would suppose that he ever WAS)...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIVFj6gcbw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪WZ‬‏[/ame]

 

[daveman]

Too many make the mistake of Comparing the rest of the world to the Uniquely AMERICAN experience that those entities have NEVER experienced.

Their recipe however is to downgrade US, to mirror them...(These idiots don't understand the fight on their hands)...

I've never understood the almost worshipful attitude towards Europe. Nor the denial of American exceptionalism.

You have to ignore an awful lot of history to do either.

Agreed...just like this fucking IDIOT...(I'd call him a HAS BEEN...but that would suppose that he ever WAS)...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIVFj6gcbw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪WZ‬‏[/ame]

At least he didn't make excuses for using rape as punishment -- like his guest was trying to, looks like.

Blind squirrel, nut, yadda yadda.

 

[The T]

I've never understood the almost worshipful attitude towards Europe. Nor the denial of American exceptionalism.

You have to ignore an awful lot of history to do either.

Agreed...just like this fucking IDIOT...(I'd call him a HAS BEEN...but that would suppose that he ever WAS)...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIVFj6gcbw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪WZ‬‏[/ame]

At least he didn't make excuses for using rape as punishment -- like his guest was trying to, looks like.

Blind squirrel, nut, yadda yadda.

True...

 

[bripat9643]

Who gives a shit what he calls himself? Every liberal in this forum claimes to be a "fiscal conservative," but we all know that's pure unadulterated crap

So, in your view, is a Stalinist a leftwinger or a rightwinger?

Liberal American journalists are the ones who labeled the Stalinist in Russia "conservatives." That's a perfect example of how the media propaganda organs define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. The label Stalinists "conservatives" simply so they can slam American conservatives.

Gullible pliant drones like you swallow this crap, but intelligent people aren't fooled.

But I thought liberals were collectivists? Well there goes the term Liberal progressive...

Progressives must be conservatives then...

How do you explain that the Russian people are mostly conservative?

Or what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's?

Sorry, but Stalinist is what Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat called himself.

Stalin received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary, there was nothing liberal about his upbringing.

Pamyat

Pamyat (Russian: Память; English translation: Memory) is a Russian ultra-nationalist organization identifying itself as the "People's National-patriotic Orthodox Christian movement." It has been accused of racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.

In the fall of 1987, the National-Patriotic Front (NPF) was founded, with the aim of "renaissance", with the intent to "lead Russian people to the spiritual and national revival" on the basis of "three traditional Russian values": Orthodoxy, national character and spirituality. After several splits and the imminent dissolution of the USSR, the organization adopted a monarchist position, thus breaking with its initial national-communist tendencies (e.g. Pamyat had appreciated Stalin's activities in the post-war era, esp. 'his campaigns against 'cosmopolitans').

In August 1990, a permanent NPF council member, Aleksandr Barkashov (the author of the book The ABC of a Russian Nationalist), caused another split after his announcement of being "tired to be preoccupied by recollections. It is time to act". His new group was dubbed "Russian National Unity" (Русское Национальное Единств&#1086. Barkashov promoted the cult of the swastika, a symbol which, according to Barkashov, "acts on subconsciousness of theomachists. It paralyses, weakens and demoralizes them."

It was claimed Pamyat's ideology blended fascism with autocratic monarchy (rejecting the "legitimist" Romanov family line), and an interpretation of Orthodoxy that borrowed heavily from the Nazi sponsored Positive Christianity. One of Pamyat's founders, Valeriy Yemelyanov, attempted to merge religious neo-Paganism with Russian ethnic neo-Nazism. He is also the author of the book "Dezionization".
wiki

 

[Bfgrn]

Who gives a shit what he calls himself? Every liberal in this forum claimes to be a "fiscal conservative," but we all know that's pure unadulterated crap

So, in your view, is a Stalinist a leftwinger or a rightwinger?

Liberal American journalists are the ones who labeled the Stalinist in Russia "conservatives." That's a perfect example of how the media propaganda organs define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. The label Stalinists "conservatives" simply so they can slam American conservatives.

Gullible pliant drones like you swallow this crap, but intelligent people aren't fooled.

Sorry, but Stalinist is what Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat called himself.

Stalin received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary, there was nothing liberal about his upbringing.

Pamyat

Pamyat (Russian: Память; English translation: Memory) is a Russian ultra-nationalist organization identifying itself as the "People's National-patriotic Orthodox Christian movement." It has been accused of racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.

In the fall of 1987, the National-Patriotic Front (NPF) was founded, with the aim of "renaissance", with the intent to "lead Russian people to the spiritual and national revival" on the basis of "three traditional Russian values": Orthodoxy, national character and spirituality. After several splits and the imminent dissolution of the USSR, the organization adopted a monarchist position, thus breaking with its initial national-communist tendencies (e.g. Pamyat had appreciated Stalin's activities in the post-war era, esp. 'his campaigns against 'cosmopolitans').

In August 1990, a permanent NPF council member, Aleksandr Barkashov (the author of the book The ABC of a Russian Nationalist), caused another split after his announcement of being "tired to be preoccupied by recollections. It is time to act". His new group was dubbed "Russian National Unity" (Русское Национальное Единств&#1086. Barkashov promoted the cult of the swastika, a symbol which, according to Barkashov, "acts on subconsciousness of theomachists. It paralyses, weakens and demoralizes them."

It was claimed Pamyat's ideology blended fascism with autocratic monarchy (rejecting the "legitimist" Romanov family line), and an interpretation of Orthodoxy that borrowed heavily from the Nazi sponsored Positive Christianity. One of Pamyat's founders, Valeriy Yemelyanov, attempted to merge religious neo-Paganism with Russian ethnic neo-Nazism. He is also the author of the book "Dezionization".
wiki

Stalinist Nikita F. Zherbin was the head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat. I gave you the info on Pamyat. Can you read?

Stalinist Nikita F. Zherbin boasting that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists.

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

Prominent among the speeches and the placards at conservative political gatherings is support for Pamyat (Russian for ''memory''), which has been repeatedly criticized in the Soviet press for anti-Semitism.

Kira A. Korneyenkova was at the rally last Sunday outside the Ostankino Television Center, and she joined several hundred other people in enthusiastic cheers as speaker after speaker called for a fight against ''liberal, Zionist forces'' that seek to control Soviet society.

''I am a Stalinist,'' the 53-year-old schoolteacher said proudly, ''and I think our so-called glasnost has divided our nation. It is our duty to fight against such elements.''

 

[daveman]

Stalinist Nikita F. Zherbin was the head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat. I gave you the info on Pamyat. Can you read?

Can you?

"So, in your view, is a Stalinist a leftwinger or a rightwinger?"

 

[The T]

Stalinist Nikita F. Zherbin was the head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat. I gave you the info on Pamyat. Can you read?

Can you?

"So, in your view, is a Stalinist a leftwinger or a rightwinger?"

He refuses to answer because BuFU knows the answer...watch the attempt to talk around it...just watch the seething obfuscation in progress.

 

[daveman]

Stalinist Nikita F. Zherbin was the head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat. I gave you the info on Pamyat. Can you read?

Can you?

"So, in your view, is a Stalinist a leftwinger or a rightwinger?"

He refuses to answer because BuFU knows the answer...watch the attempt to talk around it...just watch the seething obfuscation in progress.

Either that, or his post was an acknowledgement that he automatically believes everything Communists say.

Must be one of those useful idiots.

 

[Bfgrn]

Stalinist Nikita F. Zherbin was the head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat. I gave you the info on Pamyat. Can you read?

Can you?

"So, in your view, is a Stalinist a leftwinger or a rightwinger?"

Stalin was a conservative, not a liberal. Left wing and right wing are irrelevant because they only reflect parochial indoctrination. A conservative raised and indoctrinated in America would want 'conserve' capitalism. A conservative raised and indoctrinated in Russia would want 'conserve' communism.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.

 

[The T]

Can you?

"So, in your view, is a Stalinist a leftwinger or a rightwinger?"

He refuses to answer because BuFU knows the answer...watch the attempt to talk around it...just watch the seething obfuscation in progress.

Either that, or his post was an acknowledgement that he automatically believes everything Communists say.

Must be one of those useful idiots.

Vlad Lenin, and Joey Stalin must be proud of their podginy...