The Republican Party....

[Tech_Esq]

Alaska charges other states for oil? Why does the State have oil to begin with? Are there state oil riggs?

I'm almost loath to respond to this question because the mere asking of it betrays a complete lack of understanding. However, I did notice you seem to have put together a cogent response in another post so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

No, Alaska doesn't charge "other states." The state has land. If land is not privately owed, it is.....that's right, Publicly owned. The state also has land it has acquired. If the state then sells a contract to an oil company to develop the oil resources on that land, the company agrees to pay some amount of money for those valuable rights and the state has income. I'm also guessing that Alaska has maintained right over the pipeline land and probably receives some money from that on an annual basis.

No, Alaska has not nationalized, or state-ized, the development of oil resources there. They do not own oil rigs. As with most countries and states that have developed their natural resources, Alaska has leased that to commercial firms that do that type of work.

 

[Turboswede]

I'm almost loath to respond to this question because the mere asking of it betrays a complete lack of understanding. However, I did notice you seem to have put together a cogent response in another post so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

No, Alaska doesn't charge "other states." The state has land. If land is not privately owed, it is.....that's right, Publicly owned. The state also has land it has acquired. If the state then sells a contract to an oil company to develop the oil resources on that land, the company agrees to pay some amount of money for those valuable rights and the state has income. I'm also guessing that Alaska has maintained right over the pipeline land and probably receives some money from that on an annual basis.

No, Alaska has not nationalized, or state-ized, the development of oil resources there. They do not own oil rigs. As with most countries and states that have developed their natural resources, Alaska has leased that to commercial firms that do that type of work.

That makes sense, I have a good friend that is a Native Alaskan that I worked with in Salmon factories up there and I always wondered why he received checks from the state. As the lands are public, it would make sense that Alaska residents would receive a portion of the proceeds from the oil generated from those lands.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

then Who Should They Have Voted For?

Rudy? That Would Have Been An Even Bigger Mistake.

And How Does This Make You An Independent If You Liked Huckabee Or...

Oh, You Are A Mitt Woman?

I Backed Rudy, And How Is He A Mistake?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Turboswede --

A couple of notes on a very well written post:

There are 2 aspects of fascism that are associated with the “Right” first is extreme nationalism and the belief that the land and blood of the nation is sacred. You can’t have fascism without extreme nationalism and nationalism is a right wing, not left wing trait. Socialism rejects Nationalism in the interest of fostering globalism and the idea that nations are just arbitrary distinctions between people. A Fascist would cringe at being called a socialist due to the belief in the nation rather than the global community.

While I think this is a fairly accurate text book description, I think you can get into trouble with it on a practical level. Fro instance, when looking at the history of Soviet Russia, you would have to say under these terms that it was closer to Fascism than Communism or Socialism. There was a great emphasis, especially during Stalin's time, on "Mother Russia" and the reference to World War II as "the Great Patriotic War." These concepts seem to square more closely with your description of Fascism. While it is true that promotion of the Comintern supported to varying degrees of emphasis the concept of one world state and the rise of the "worker's paradise," there seems to have been a pragmatic side that was quite fascist in its operation.

On the other side, the Nazis (National Socialist German Worker's Party), belied their name. For those that like to bring up the "Socialist" part of their name. The Nazi's (well, Hitler and that's pretty much the same thing) rejected the Socialist concepts that some in the party had before 1930. By the time they came to power in 1933, there was no real socialism left. This was mostly because Hitler neither understood, nor cared about economics. I'm not sure how other fascist governments worked economically, but with the Nazis, while they didn't own the means of production, they did control every aspect of the economy. The labor unions were outlawed and the government instituted a control board. The board allowed the employers great latitude. On the other hand, the government "required" much of the employers in the way of production. There were quotas for everything. Of course the government took, as it needed to, the money from the corporations to pay for its needs.

Of course there is an “extreme left” the extreme left would want the dissolution of national boundaries and the elimination or private property, no American politician that I can recall has ever run a campaign on those promises, but a number of European politicians have. I think you would have a hard time convincing even yourself that Obama wants to dissolve the United States and collectivize the entire world’s industry under the Aegis of “the people”. It’s loony, just like any political ideology taken to the extreme.

"Extreme left" is also a relative term. If, as has been the popular wisdom in the US, the US has been a center-right country for some length of time, then movement past center-left should seem cataclysmic. I would agree that nobody could run on the policies you state, however it is quite likely that someone who agreed with the general bent of that sentiment could enact policies that tended to get one there. For instance, instead of eliminating the borders, merely not enforcing them would be a good half measure. The history of collectivization is that unless you were in a dictatorial country, it has happened a bit at a time, not all at once. Stalin's collectivization cost, as you say 32 million, some estimate 40 million, people their lives. During the height, Stalin set up machine guns in front of the river border between Romania and the USSR and machine gunned people trying to escape. In China, Mao's Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward efforts killed untold millions. (a good chunk of the unaccounted for numbers).

If Obama wants to go that direction, it would look a lot more like Chavez' Venezuela than Stalin's Russia. A gradual erosion of speech rights and outlets of dissent, increased areas of government control. I would think it would be very gradual. The most important part would be preventing reversal of course. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

What I am trying to point out is that there is a continuum with the “left” on one end and the “Right” on the other, here is a visual representation:

Left--------------------------------------------------------------Right
Globalism------------------------------------------------------Nationalism
Collective ownership-----------------------------------------Private Property

A poli sci prof of mine used what I'm convinced is a better metaphor. Rather than a continuum, it's a circle with fascism on the right and communism on the left of 12 o'clock. Democracy at 6 o'clock. This would tend to explain the movements of the extreme right and the extreme left into areas more consistent with the other ideology.

Anyway, good post....just my $.02.

 

[sealybobo]

I Backed Rudy, And How Is He A Mistake?

He only says three things when he talks, a noun, verb and 9-11.

He's more socially liberal than McCain.

He's a scumbag. His firm is dirty. They teach dictators in 3rd worlds how to run dirty campaigns.

He has ties to the mob via Bernie Kerik.

He's a dictator.

He's not right for America.

He's a Republican.

The base hates him.

His own kids won't vote for him.

He dresses in drag.

He's George Bush all over again.

So you would vote for Bush all over again if you had the chance, huh?

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

He's more socially liberal than McCain.

WHY IS THAT BAD?

THE ISSUE WITH MCCAIN IS NOT THAT HE IS SOCIALLY LIBERAL
B/C HE IS NOT, THE ISSUE IS HE'S WRONG, HE'S NOT A FIGHTER
HE'S A HERO BUT NOT FIGHTER

He's a scumbag. His firm is dirty. They teach dictators in 3rd worlds how to run dirty campaigns.

HIS CAMPAIGN WAS NOT DIRTY, I MEAN DID HE HAVE A CAMPAIGN LOL

He has ties to the mob via Bernie Kerik.

OBAMA HAS TIES TO A TERRORIST. SO WHAT? THE FACT IS HAS RUDY DONE WHAT BERNIE DID?

He's a dictator.

HE WAS ELECTED MAYOR TWICE,ELECTED BY THE PEOPE

He's not right for America.

I DISAGREE

He's a Republican.

SO WHAT, OMG, HIS PARTY AFFLICATION MAKES HIM BAD, NOT HIS POLICIES

The base hates him.

THEY DISLIKE HIS SOCIAL VIEWS

His own kids won't vote for him.

GOOD, YOU SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR A PERSON JUST B/C HE'S YOUR DAD

He dresses in drag.

He's George Bush all over again.

NO, HE'S RUDY AND I LOVE HIM FOR THAT

So you would vote for Bush all over again if you had the chance, huh?

AGAINST WHO? OBAMA? yes

BUSH IS NOT A BAD GUY, ALOT OF HORRIBLE THINGS HAVE OCURRED DURING HIS TERM BUT THEY ARE NOT HIS FAULT

 

[jillian]

BUSH IS NOT A BAD GUY, ALOT OF HORRIBLE THINGS HAVE OCURRED DURING HIS TERM BUT THEY ARE NOT HIS FAULT

And Rudy was not well regarded in NY until 9/11...

I say that as someone who voted for him twice because no one better ran against him. But there's no way the loonies on the right were voting for a cross-dressing, reproductive choice supporting, divorced, adulterer who's an I-talian, Catholic from NYC.

which is exactly why his campaign never went anywhere.

 

[sealybobo]

WHY IS THAT BAD?

THE ISSUE WITH MCCAIN IS NOT THAT HE IS SOCIALLY LIBERAL
B/C HE IS NOT, THE ISSUE IS HE'S WRONG, HE'S NOT A FIGHTER
HE'S A HERO BUT NOT FIGHTER


HIS CAMPAIGN WAS NOT DIRTY, I MEAN DID HE HAVE A CAMPAIGN LOL


OBAMA HAS TIES TO A TERRORIST. SO WHAT? THE FACT IS HAS RUDY DONE WHAT BERNIE DID?


HE WAS ELECTED MAYOR TWICE,ELECTED BY THE PEOPE


I DISAGREE



SO WHAT, OMG, HIS PARTY AFFLICATION MAKES HIM BAD, NOT HIS POLICIES



THEY DISLIKE HIS SOCIAL VIEWS




GOOD, YOU SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR A PERSON JUST B/C HE'S YOUR DAD





NO, HE'S RUDY AND I LOVE HIM FOR THAT



AGAINST WHO? OBAMA? yes

BUSH IS NOT A BAD GUY, ALOT OF HORRIBLE THINGS HAVE OCURRED DURING HIS TERM BUT THEY ARE NOT HIS FAULT

Being liberal won't fly with your party. Being liberal isn't bad to me.

McCain WAS socially liberal. That's why your base didn't like him. They remember his words about Roe v Wade. Do you?

Obama doesn't have ties to terrorists. See, this is the game you guys play. You say Obama has ties to some nobody like Ayers and that gives you the ok to be in bed with the mob and Bin Ladin family? Come on!!

Rudy was not popular in NY on 9-10-01.

Bush lied us into Iraq. Don't forget that.

 

[Turboswede]

Turboswede --

A couple of notes on a very well written post:

While I think this is a fairly accurate text book description, I think you can get into trouble with it on a practical level. For instance, when looking at the history of Soviet Russia, you would have to say under these terms that it was closer to Fascism than Communism or Socialism. There was a great emphasis, especially during Stalin's time, on "Mother Russia" and the reference to World War II as "the Great Patriotic War." These concepts seem to square more closely with your description of Fascism. While it is true that promotion of the Comintern supported to varying degrees of emphasis the concept of one world state and the rise of the "worker's paradise," there seems to have been a pragmatic side that was quite fascist in its operation.

Thanks!

You are right of course, the Soviet army of the late 20’s, 30’s and early 40’s may have been the ideal “communist” army, there were basically no ranks except conscript, officer and General. The uniforms were designed to show no distinction between units or ranks. The Red army was predominantly foot infantry and their armor was generally a whole lot of identical vehicles. The Soviets found out by the end of 1942 that Communism is not a very effective motivator for the armed forces.

Out of desperation the Soviets adopted nationalism on a scale second only to the Germans (in my opinion). You are absolutely correct in pointing out that the Soviets were anything but “good communists” and appeared much more “Right Wing” from about 1942 until 1991 as they realized that people are more motivated by emotion than logic. It’s impossible to have a disciplined and effective military if you reject Nationalism because there is very little to inspire the troops in the face of overwhelming odds.

If you look at the political media of the period its fascinating to see the dramatic shift in 1942 when lithographs of Czarist generals began appearing to urge the red army on to “defend the motherland”. Soviet system went from vilifying the aristocracy of the old regime to calling them Heroes of Russia (not the Soviet Union). [/QUOTE]

On the other side, the Nazis (National Socialist German Worker's Party), belied their name. For those that like to bring up the "Socialist" part of their name. The Nazi's (well, Hitler and that's pretty much the same thing) rejected the Socialist concepts that some in the party had before 1930. By the time they came to power in 1933, there was no real socialism left. This was mostly because Hitler neither understood, nor cared about economics. I'm not sure how other fascist governments worked economically, but with the Nazis, while they didn't own the means of production, they did control every aspect of the economy. The labor unions were outlawed and the government instituted a control board. The board allowed the employers great latitude. On the other hand, the government "required" much of the employers in the way of production. There were quotas for everything. Of course the government took, as it needed to, the money from the corporations to pay for its needs.

Exactly, but the key is that Albert Speer allocated labor to private employers until the final days of the war. That’s why the NDSP was accepted by the German aristocracy even though they were a “working man’s” party, they never threatened to put private ownership of property in jeopardy.

"Extreme left" is also a relative term. If, as has been the popular wisdom in the US, the US has been a center-right country for some length of time, then movement past center-left should seem cataclysmic. I would agree that nobody could run on the policies you state, however it is quite likely that someone who agreed with the general bent of that sentiment could enact policies that tended to get one there. For instance, instead of eliminating the borders, merely not enforcing them would be a good half measure. The history of collectivization is that unless you were in a dictatorial country, it has happened a bit at a time, not all at once. Stalin's collectivization cost, as you say 32 million, some estimate 40 million, people their lives. During the height, Stalin set up machine guns in front of the river border between Romania and the USSR and machine gunned people trying to escape. In China, Mao's Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward efforts killed untold millions. (a good chunk of the unaccounted for numbers).

I knew I missed one, the Great leap Forward was insane, 500,000,000 people trying to make iron in their homes so they could surpass Britain in iron production, at a time Chine had no industry to demand Iron. I think that snuffed out 10-15 million over 4 years. Oh and I am absolutely not defending the USSR, my point is that the problem is extremism rather than whether something is “left” or “right” either political philosophy backed by a totalitarian regime will lead to disaster.

If Obama wants to go that direction, it would look a lot more like Chavez' Venezuela than Stalin's Russia. A gradual erosion of speech rights and outlets of dissent, increased areas of government control. I would think it would be very gradual. The most important part would be preventing reversal of course. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

I think it would look more like Blair’s Brittan as our political and legal systems are based on the British model (well except all of you guys in the big easy). Venezuela is also a much more homogeneous country with basically one religious identity. I think our society is way too diverse and our political system is way too Pluralistic to resemble Venezuela.

A poli sci prof of mine used what I'm convinced is a better metaphor. Rather than a continuum, it's a circle with fascism on the right and communism on the left of 12 o'clock. Democracy at 6 o'clock. This would tend to explain the movements of the extreme right and the extreme left into areas more consistent with the other ideology.

Yes, I like that one better but it’s a little harder to grasp, at the 12:00 position State Socialism and Fascism look about the same, but they way they get to that point is very different. If Fascism is 11:59 and State Socialism is 12:01 then the US sways from about 6:00 to 7:00 and will continue to stay in that zone for the foreseeable future.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

McCain WAS socially liberal. That's why your base didn't like him. They remember his words about Roe v Wade. Do you?

mccain has a pro-life record, his record speaks miles

Obama doesn't have ties to terrorists. See, this is the game you guys play. You say Obama has ties to some nobody like Ayers and that gives you the ok to be in bed with the mob and Bin Ladin family? Come on!!

he does have ties to a terrorist, b/c he knows a terrorist. however, that doesn't reflect on him like bernie on rudy, that was my whole point
rudy knowning berine doesn't make a him a monster

Rudy was not popular in NY on 9-10-01.

he won twice in ny, just b/c he fought against the teacher union and al sharpton doesn't mean he faced impeachment or shit

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's the corporatists you should be chasing out. Shultz, Rummy, Cheney, Baker, Jackson etc. These guys have run the party into the ground since the eighties. I'll be interested to see if they disappear with their hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars or if it's true that you can never satiate the aristocracy.

There's no such thing as a corporatists... I know that Wiki says there is... but as is nearly always the case, the concept of 'corporatists' is a fabrication from the rhetorical ether by the ideological left... it's not distinct in the slightest from the fabrication by the NAZIs of "The Dirty JEW." Oh sure, the Jew existed, but not the sinister rodent the Jews were made out to be in the ehtereal fabrication; the same holds true for the 'dirty corporatists.' This fairly recent specter is designed to denounce capitalism... those that are found denigrating the dirty 'corporatists' are never found advocating for the individual who seeks to freely exchange goods and services to the mutua benefit of both parties... or any other function of capitalism.

The GOP should eject ANYONE that has lends credence TO ANY LEFTIST POLICY... PERIOD!

If you believe in ANYTHING which infringes on the valid rights of one individual for the purposes of subisidizing another: GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP YOU LEFTIST FUCK!

 

[Old Rocks]

BINGO!

I'm not prepared to abandon the party... I intend to spend the next four years doing my level best to chase the independent, moderate, centrist, progressives the HELL OUT OF THIS PARTY!

Thank you, thank you! People like you assured the victory of President Obama. May you continue to keep up the good work!

 

[9 Volt]

There's no such thing as a corporatists... I know that Wiki says there is... but as is nearly always the case, the concept of 'corporatists' is a fabrication from the rhetorical ether by the ideological left... it's not distinct in the slightest from the fabrication by the NAZIs of "The Dirty JEW." Oh sure, the Jew existed, but not the sinister rodent the Jews were made out to be in the ethereal fabrication; the same holds true for the 'dirty corporatists.' This fairly recent specter is designed to denounce capitalism... those that are found denigrating the dirty 'corporatists' are never found advocating for the individual who seeks to freely exchange goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... or any other function of capitalism.

The GOP should eject ANYONE that has lends credence TO ANY LEFTIST POLICY... PERIOD!

If you believe in ANYTHING which infringes on the valid rights of one individual for the purposes of subsidizing another: GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP YOU LEFTIST FUCK!

It was Mussolini himself who coined the phrase corporatism as the more appropriate term for Facism...and if you don't think government subsidized corporations infringe on the valid rights of individuals for the sake of their own gain, and the personal financial gain of government officials, you're a dumber fuck than I could have ever imagined.

 

[elvis]

And Rudy was not well regarded in NY until 9/11...

I say that as someone who voted for him twice because no one better ran against him. But there's no way the loonies on the right were voting for a cross-dressing, reproductive choice supporting, divorced, adulterer who's an I-talian, Catholic from NYC.

which is exactly why his campaign never went anywhere.

sad