The Party of Brownshirts

They've been rendered irrelevant and have nothing to do with the German Brownshirts of 1933 and the US NeoCons of today. History would've been very different had JFK, JFK Jr. and RFK not been assassinated but the Kennedy family was not as strong as the forces that took them out.

 

Your hate for Bush has overpowered you abilities to think logically.

Since Bush is a Nazi because his grandfather had financial dealings with the Nazis(according to you), it just naturally follows that Edward Kennedy is a Jew hating Nazi lover like his father was.

 

Again, it has nothing to do with emotion, it just is what it is.

 

No my point is, you are letting your hate for bush to allow you to think illogically... forward or backward...

Guilt by association is not guilt...
Prove Bush is a Nazi.

By the way I love palindrones... my favorite is racecar!

 

I am not sure how to respond to individuals who think they understand my emotions. Am I to respond to your and Carpros comments by saying your love for Bush is allowing you to think illogically? I did not hate Bush and then figure this stuff out. I don't hate him now for I would prefer he would repent of his wickedness. I was a neocon supporter, voted for Bush, I was Carpro-light. It's not the person that caused me to believe him to be a worker of iniquity but the fruits of the person that can not be denied, though often is.

I can not prove to you that Bush is a Nazi anymore than you can prove that he isn't. History, in a Matthew 10:26 sort of way, will prove what he was. If you would like to learn about it in your lifetime, start with WTC-7.

 

And what it is is pure conjecture motivated by ...love, maybe?

 

How about motivated by a desire to preserve freedom? A love for the constitution? But it is easier to ascribe hate to any opinions contrary to our own.

 

Or motivated by reckless hysteria.

 

In that case, he should stick with the facts and not half baked notions that are so only because he desperately wants them to be so.

Comparisons of Bush with Hitler have been rampant with Bush haters for years and there is no truth in them, just hate.

 

While I am very critical of the President and his administration I, too, think any comparison to the Nazis and Hitler is over the top. To compare any American politician to Hitler shows a gross ignorance to the horror and evil that the Nazis inflicted upon the world. Frankly, we heard enough of this kind of vile garbage from Republicans during the Clinton years, when Christians like Jerry Falwell were (falsely) accusing the President of everything from murder to drug running. Christians are called to be "salt and light" and to uphold the truth. Engaging in hyperbole and the spreading of baseless rumors and slander is none of these things.

 

These Bushites have a very short memory. It seems that the things they did to Clinton somehow don't apply now, since it is a Republican in the White House. It is nothing except pure hypocrisy.

 

Hopefully there will never be another regime that will compare to the Nazi Regime but I do think that those who wish to have a grasp of a long standing power that there are components of Nazism that are appealing and usefull in application. Some of the psychological aspects of Nazism such as propaganda campaigns and mass control of the populace through the use of fear mongering are used in the Bush Administration.

 

I do not disagree that this administration has employed deception to accomplish its policies even as it has villified and questioned the patriotism of its critics. I would also agree that this administration has a tendency toward an authoritarianism that has shown little regard for our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would even go so far as to say that there are elements within the larger conservative movement that share many of the attributes of classical fascism. Nonetheless, I would still argue that President Bush and his administration are neither "brownshirts" nor fascists.

The neoconservative movement that you mention is a distinct segment of American conservatism and it's roots lie not in Nazism, but in Trotskyism. It needs to be understood that many of the founders of the neo-conservative movement were originally a part of the American left of the 1940's and 50's, specifially the Trotskyist movement. As strange as it may sound, the roots of neo-conservative political theory are actually to be found in the theories of former-Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky. In the 1920's Trotsky formulated his theory of Permanent Revolution which was in essence the following:

Trotskyism from its inception was a movement against stalinism. Over a period of decades a segment of this movement, made up of left wing intellectuals and radicals, took a long journey to the right. Being bitter opponents of communism they were not without influence along the way. During the 1950's and 60's they were hardened cold war liberals who differed with liberals over the the issue of the Vietnam war and other foriegn policy issues. With the election of Ronald Reagan they made their final break with the Democratic party. But they never completely abandoned Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, instead adapting it to their changing ideological views.

Trotsky's adapted theory of Permanent Revolution can be found today in the neo-conservative construct for the Middle East, which was namely that if we remove Saddam from power the Iraqi people would create a democratic society which would serve as a beacon of hope for oppressed Arabs throughout the Middle East. With a democratic Iraq serving as an example and a staging ground for revolutionary movements, the Arab peoples would overthrow corrupt regimes and tyrants throughout the Middle East who would then align themselves with Iraq (and thus the United States). In this utopian scheme peace and democracy would come to the Middle East, thus assuring both security for Israel and US access to a dependable oil supply from friendly governments. Of course as we've seen this theory hasn't exactly panned out as promised.

I do not believe that President Bush was originally a big believer in these nutty neo-conservative political theories. Frankly, I think his motivation with regard to Iraq had more to do with pure politics, oil, and revenge coupled with legitimate security concerns. Even so, I am convinced that following the events of 9/11 there was a convergence of oil, politics, and neo-conservative pipe dreams that made the war in Iraq possible.

The resignation of Donald Rumfield was probably the final nail in the coffin of the neo-conservatives (other leading neo-cons have previously left the administration). And just as in the administration of Bush's father, the realists are now coming to prominence in the current adminstration. We can only hope that this new blood will find a way to make a purse out of a sows ear in Iraq and that some of the damage to our nation's reputation can be undone.

The Bush administration is all but done and their credibility severely tarnished, as current polls show. The neoconservative movement is likewise spent and their influence diminished. The task now is not to worry about the emergence of a non-existant movement of brownshirts, but to get to work picking up the wreckage and cleaning up the messes this administration have made.

 

They could have served the warrant while Koresh jogged outside the compound ANY day -- what the FEDS did, they did to make a point -- to provide an example of what happens to those who would resist them. At least -- that was true in the Clinton (and Bush Sr.?) era.

JDale

 

You know, I almost agree with this portion of your statement. That you would blame this on GW Bush, though, makes you 180 degrees WRONG.

Oh, no question we are moving toward a "North American dictatorship." It's FAR more likely that it will be under the regime of one Hillary Rodham Clinton though.

First, you must understand that Republicans have as a party niether the guts nor the convictions to enforce such rule on the people. The "Democrats" (Liberals, Stalinists, Leftwing Fascists, whatever) on the other hand, have the statist philosophy, the elitist mentality and with Congress, the platform to make a dictatorship happen. And, if their guy gets in, they'll do it.

Some excellent examples of what Democrat control portends: (1) the movement toward gun control in the aftermath of Va. Tech (2) the movement away from engaging the "new media" aka Talk Radio, Fox News and other alternative media forums -- a new Dem Pres would bring back the "fairness doctrine," and regulate/tax the internet, websites, and even churches and ministries who stand up on moral issues (3) Surrender and retreatr from the coming Islamofascist onslaught (4) the rape of our military -- as happened under Clinton in the 1990's (5) economic socialism as health care becomes state run, as taxes skyrocket, as the deficit skyrockets, and as price controls and market restrictions multiply (6) Eventually, the declaration that NO form of voting machine is trustworthy, and thus, voting has outgrown its usefulness...

That last one was ALMOST tongue in cheek -- but not quite. Of course, I'd never make it past the imposition of #1, as I'd be in prison or dead at that point.

JDale

 

It is not "likely" at all.



http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27232

 

Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the evidence does not indicate what you think it does? Your slanted and prejudiced view does not bode well for objective evaluations.

Not at all.

Not at all. I don't really draw conclusions about this because we simply do not know. As a whole, your interpretation is so far fetched, I wonder if even you take it seriously.

But you are doing a bad job of evaluating that information. You are not giving it all. You are giving only the part that helps your position.

Calling it "like you see it" is a far cry from "calling it as it is." I don't think you recognize that distinction.

I agree totally. Can you not see that this is exactly what you are doing?

No you haven't, not here anyway.

You know better.

I wonder sometimes. I have never seen you and him at the same time.

I have never done that, much less "always." I am willing to debate facts. I am not always willing to engage in arguments about farcical interpretations of evidence.

I think you have proven this wrong.

I agree with that. But that is not what is happening now.

I doubt it. I don't even remember what the last thing you said was.

I haven't gotten personal at all, certainly not to the level you have. I am not blaming you for anything. I am simply pointing out that you are following a very far fetched interpretation of the evidence, and pointing out that anyone who thinks that what is going on now is anything like Nazism is ignorant of history.

It's not that I am unable to debate the evidence. It is that you rarely actually address the evidence. You referenced some document as a plan to give up America's sovereignty. I actually went and read the document (from your link as I recall) and it said nothing of the kind. You were simply dead wrong. There was nothing to debate.

It will fit right in with your pattern of ignoring everything that does not agree with your preconceived position.

 

I agree. It's not the Clintons who called for wiretaps without warrants, indefinite detention without charges, defended the use of torture, or believed in a "unitary executive" which claims that the President is entitled to the powers of a king. And it is certainly not the Clintons who would attempt to break down the separation of church and state, which is a doctrine that Baptists traditionally upheld until recent decades.