OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[XXXIV]

I know what 60 minutes is. If you want to discuss what a decorated CIA spy said in an interview regarding how her career was destroyed by an illegal leak of information from Cheney's office go ahead, but if you just want to indulge your aspergers then try someplace else, thanks.

You are 100% right ...again I m sorry...

[Feanor]

Oh, don't worry about it. Last month on the 1up boards some guy told me he hoped I get colon cancer because I said Luke Smith acted like a dick on an old 1up Yours podcast.

[XXXIV]

Oh, don't worry about it. Last month on the 1up boards some guy told me he hoped I get colon cancer because I said Luke Smith acted like a dick on an old 1up Yours podcast.

...I had some guy here tell me I should be aborted

I just feel bad...I think you are a good dude...and I know Im an ahole.

[RobVarak]

Holy s***, you actually go over to 1up???!!!

LOL

[RobVarak]

Only reason some conservatives didn't mind listening to Lieberman was because of the war and how he mouths similar polemic about "fascist Islam" being the greatest threat.

Just curious. Why the quotes?

[Feanor]

I really like their podcasts, so I post in the forums sometimes. Eurogamer is my main forum; some of the leftists on there would give a few DSPers heart attacks.

[XXXIV]

Eurogamer is my main forum; some of the leftists on there would give a few DSPers heart attacks.

Dude...I want a leftist...I talk to my father.

He thinks hes in the communist party.... and he is damned proud of it.

[Jackdog]

Only reason some conservatives didn't mind listening to Lieberman was because of the war and how he mouths similar polemic about "fascist Islam" being the greatest threat.

Just curious. Why the quotes?

C'mon Rob,you know why. They don't exist. The hell with the quotes. WTF does polemic mean?

[wco81]

Only reason some conservatives didn't mind listening to Lieberman was because of the war and how he mouths similar polemic about "fascist Islam" being the greatest threat.

Just curious. Why the quotes?

Because the attempt to connect Islam with Facism (with a capital F) is an exercise peculiar to a certain ideology.

I don't need to be quoted Lewis or Huntington.

The imprimatur of academic legitimacy to this POV doesn't hold up when you have types like Daniel Pipes hounding American professors who happen to be Muslim.

[XXXIV]

imprimatur

Your parents must be very impressed.

[MACTEPsporta]

While some argue that adding Biden would help, I tend to think that adding any experienced VP will make Obama look diminished by comparison.

I agree. Media seems to be painting Biden as almost a sure thing, but I think that would be a mistake. Granted Obama is in a bit of a pickle here, he can't get that much needed experienced VP without jeopardizing the authenticity of his message of change. So, from where I stand he needs to choose. Experience vs. Change. Since his his entire campaign is built around the message of change I believe he needs to choose latter. For me that makes Bayh - the Guy (sorry, couldn't help it). Young, attractive looking, from a swing state that can decide this election. Not to mention the obvious appeal to those much coveted white trash... no, I mean - redneck... crap - "blue collar voters" (nation of red, white and blue - truly). Bayh would also allow Obama to run as an outsider, something he has done so well in the primaries, and a position I believe he personally prefers. Seriously, am I missing something? Isn't Bayh the obvious choice?

imprimatur

Your parents must be very impressed.

Hell, I am impressed, but why is he talking about ejaculation?

[XXXIV]

Your parents must be very impressed.

Hell, I am impressed, but why is he talking about ejaculation?

...He is the pope of hate

[wco81]

Your parents must be very impressed.

Hell, I am impressed, but why is he talking about ejaculation?

...He is the pope of hate

"Oh look, I don't like the argument so lemme attack the person making the argument"

[XXXIV]

Hell, I am impressed, but why is he talking about ejaculation?

...He is the pope of hate

"Oh look, I don't like the argument so lemme attack the person making the argument"

Oh look, I have no personality...so let me invent one of persecution.

[wco81]

Oh look, I have no personality...so let me invent one of persecution.

Well not everyone can have your charm.

Look up ad hominem.

[XXXIV]

Oh look, I have no personality...so let me invent one of persecution.

Well not everyone can have your charm.

Look up ad hominem.

You are a wonder honey...now you look up reality.

[RobVarak]

Because the attempt to connect Islam with Facism (with a capital F) is an exercise peculiar to a certain ideology.

I don't need to be quoted Lewis or Huntington.

The imprimatur of academic legitimacy to this POV doesn't hold up when you have types like Daniel Pipes hounding American professors who happen to be Muslim.

Well now this is getting interesting. I find Huntington to be correct on some points, in the ballpark on others, and totally off the logical reservation on others. (Although bin Laden's obvious appreciation of Huntington may make him relevent whatever our respective feelings about the professor may be.)

Pipes is a raging d*****bag. Years ago he and I went toe-to-toe at a foreign policy forum. I don't think either has the standing to impart any sort of academic imprimatur to the phrase.

On the other hand, I hardly think one is necessary. I'm at a loss as to how else one would characterize the political philosophy of bin Laden, al Quaeda and related groups. They simply subsitute the caliphate concept for that of the State. He has explicitly called for the creation of a caliphate based around an extreme interpretation of traditional Islamic law. Moreover, the philosophy is violently anti-Western, anti-semitic and anti-Christian.

Let's look at a basic definition of facism.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

AQ's philosophy falls squarely within both definitions. It exalts the caliphate at the expnense of all other races, creeds and states. It would be headed by a caliph who is either a raw dicatator (under the Shi'a theory) or the head of a majlis which is in itself autocratic. Shari'a is the method by which they would engineer strict social regimentation. And I don't think any elaboration on the lengths to which these "believers" will go to forcibly suppress opposition.

Beyond AQ, one could safely argue that the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran (as well as in Saddam's Iraq) are fascist as well. Some may be more tolerant of outsiders than others, but that doesn't change the nature of the regime.

People are too quick to associate fascism only with the "traditional" models of Mussolini and Hitler. Of course there were enough differences between those two regimes themselves so as to make any linking of the two an empty exercise in itself.

I suppose I can understand a reluctance to embrace a term which has been abused or misused by some. But that does not change the fact that it's an accurate and useful term. Indeed, I think it's better than terms like "Muslim extremists" or "extreme Islam," which to my ears are much broader, less specific, less accurate and more likely to lead to the inappropriate stigmatization of the religion and believers as a whole.

All of which raises a question. What sort of "exercise" is it to simply use a term which is prima facie accurate to describe the philosophy of some of our enemies? I certainly don't see how, given the linguistic accuracy of the term, one needs to espouse a peculiar ideology in order to find the term convenient and appropriate.

[XXXIV]

Rob you always have had a way of handling human scum that I have never grasped....kudos to you sir.

[wco81]

let me invent one of persecution.

human scum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[XXXIV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dork

My friend dorkus maximus ladies and gentlemen.

A man with no balls..no penis...no brain.

[XXXIV]

Because the attempt to connect Islam with Facism (with a capital F) is an exercise peculiar to a certain ideology.

I don't need to be quoted Lewis or Huntington.

The imprimatur of academic legitimacy to this POV doesn't hold up when you have types like Daniel Pipes hounding American professors who happen to be Muslim.

Well now this is getting interesting. I find Huntington to be correct on some points, in the ballpark on others, and totally off the logical reservation on others. (Although bin Laden's obvious appreciation of Huntington may make him relevent whatever our respective feelings about the professor may be.)

Pipes is a raging d*****bag. Years ago he and I went toe-to-toe at a foreign policy forum. I don't think either has the standing to impart any sort of academic imprimatur to the phrase.

On the other hand, I hardly think one is necessary. I'm at a loss as to how else one would characterize the political philosophy of bin Laden, al Quaeda and related groups. They simply subsitute the caliphate concept for that of the State. He has explicitly called for the creation of a caliphate based around an extreme interpretation of traditional Islamic law. Moreover, the philosophy is violently anti-Western, anti-semitic and anti-Christian.

Let's look at a basic definition of facism.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

AQ's philosophy falls squarely within both definitions. It exalts the caliphate at the expnense of all other races, creeds and states. It would be headed by a caliph who is either a raw dicatator (under the Shi'a theory) or the head of a majlis which is in itself autocratic. Shari'a is the method by which they would engineer strict social regimentation. And I don't think any elaboration on the lengths to which these "believers" will go to forcibly suppress opposition.

Beyond AQ, one could safely argue that the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran (as well as in Saddam's Iraq) are fascist as well. Some may be more tolerant of outsiders than others, but that doesn't change the nature of the regime.

People are too quick to associate fascism only with the "traditional" models of Mussolini and Hitler. Of course there were enough differences between those two regimes themselves so as to make any linking of the two an empty exercise in itself.

I suppose I can understand a reluctance to embrace a term which has been abused or misused by some. But that does not change the fact that it's an accurate and useful term. Indeed, I think it's better than terms like "Muslim extremists" or "extreme Islam," which to my ears are much broader, less specific, less accurate and more likely to lead to the inappropriate stigmatization of the religion and believers as a whole.

All of which raises a question. What sort of "exercise" is it to simply use a term which is prima facie accurate to describe the philosophy of some of our enemies? I certainly don't see how, given the linguistic accuracy of the term, one needs to espouse a peculiar ideology in order to find the term convenient and appropriate.

Rob you are da man.....

[wco81]

All of which raises a question. What sort of "exercise" is it to simply use a term which is prima facie accurate to describe the philosophy of some of our enemies? I certainly don't see how, given the linguistic accuracy of the term, one needs to espouse a peculiar ideology in order to find the term convenient and appropriate.

You'll notice it's almost exclusively conservatives publicizing terms like "islamofacism," with Pipes being one of the earliest and staunchest purveyor of the term.

The definition of "fascism" that you gave is very broad. It could be synonymous with "authoritarian" and could apply to a lot of non-Muslim nations, not just the Arabic examples you cited.

The elision of Islam and facism in the current context is an attempt to conjure up Western associations with Fascist states, not just in figural terms, because I've read some attempts to draw a historical connection between the Axis powers and some Muslim figures who supposedly inspired the current jihad.

It's a loaded term and it's not surprising that the ones using it advocate the most hawkish stance -- demonization of the putative enemy often being a precondition for war.

[XXXIV]

Enjoy the moron rob....Its almost not fair...almost

[wco81]

Rob you are da man.....

Like you even get what he's saying.

Much less come up with any semblance of substance.

[XXXIV]

Rob you are da man.....

Like you even get what he's saying.

Much less come up with any semblance of substance.

Uh huh...



what a f***in d*****bag