U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-26-2006, 04:35 AM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 594,650 times
Reputation: 175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
Facism is a political term but it refers to militants that do not put up with an opposing view, as in Hitler. They are Islamic and they are trying to get rid of everyone who is not, that makes them Islamic Facist.
Hi,

Just to jump in here. Fascism very specifically refers to a statist, corporatist ideology and I don't see the current breed of Islamic militants showing any ideological allegiance to Fascism. It may seem like wordplay, but the appropriate word is approrpriate.

Emotive decriptions are misleading. For example, we could call them "Islamic Child Molesters". Certainly this description would marshal a strong response from people, but in reality it doesn't describe what we're dealing with. I can't see why the term "Terrorist" isn't a complete enough description.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
Well Bin Ladin has been hard at work for years, he was behind the first WTC bombing the USS Cole and a few other projects. He has organized these primative soilders and they have been ignored for too long and in that time he has made some ground. The Islamic militants have been creating havoc in the US,London, Madrid,France, Russia not to mention Israel. I don't think our government has been responsible for these other bombings.
The US government has played a hand in OBL's work. The Taliban and Al Qaeda of today were the Mujahedeen of the 1980s. We funded them, we trained them and we equipped them to fight an asymmetrical war against the Soviets. Now they've brought those same lessons to the fight against us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2006, 11:50 AM
 
112 posts, read 51,241 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Hi,

Just to jump in here. Fascism very specifically refers to a statist, corporatist ideology and I don't see the current breed of Islamic militants showing any ideological allegiance to Fascism. It may seem like wordplay, but the appropriate word is approrpriate.

Emotive decriptions are misleading. For example, we could call them "Islamic Child Molesters". Certainly this description would marshal a strong response from people, but in reality it doesn't describe what we're dealing with. I can't see why the term "Terrorist" isn't a complete enough description.




The US government has played a hand in OBL's work. The Taliban and Al Qaeda of today were the Mujahedeen of the 1980s. We funded them, we trained them and we equipped them to fight an asymmetrical war against the Soviets. Now they've brought those same lessons to the fight against us.

I believe that fascism is the perfect word for them. There belief in jihad (the holy war) is triggered in there belief to get rid of the infidels of the world.

We trained the Mujahidin not the Taliban which in turn support Alqueada And that was before the Talaban took over. Taliban means student. They where student refugee's living in Afghanistan financed by the Saudis. America has and will continue to support countries like we did with Afghanistan if we find that our national security or our alies are at risk. Russia of the old was the reason for Afghanistan. Like I have said before we are not perfect but we still live in the best country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
944 posts, read 3,577,370 times
Reputation: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
It's hard to get a non-Jihadist to speak out against the actions of these killers, so I tend not to trust them.
I understand why you say this. There is a strange lack of protest from average, peaceful Muslims against the actions of militants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
I don't think of the United States as an Imperalistic nation I don't see us setting up our governments around the world.
"Imperialist" means (to me) that we are running an empire. From what I see, we are obviously the greatest imperial power the world has ever known. What part of the world do we not influence, if not directly control? Imperialism doesn't mean that we literally install and control governments, although we've done that in MANY Latin American nations and a few in other parts of the world. It also implies that our global economic impact is so powerful that no nation can do anything without feeling a response from the USA. It's an Empire. You like it because you're on the Imperialist side of the equation, enjoying the benefits of having easy access to material wealth, security, food, and freedom courtesy of a government that provides you with those benefits at the expense of other nations, their manpower, and their natural resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
Iraq was not a soveign and you can say Saddam was democratically elected if you want but we all know how they conducted elections over there
Saddam was another Stalin and he admired that murderous dictator. He isn't the subject of this discussion. Nobody on the left or right of the political spectrum liked him. But if you look at what happened in Ecuador, Chile, and Panama (for example) then you will see what I'm talking about. In each case there is clear evidence that we killed or caused the overthrow of democratically elected leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
As far as the conservative talk show host are concerned, I do believe they are providing a service to us. The mainstream media refuses to do the job.
I don't know how your TV or radio works, but on mine I find mostly right-wing talk show hosts. "Most" = "Mainstream". Stop using right wing talking points. You're being a parrot of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, and all the others who DOMINATE mainstream media yet pretend that they are some kind of oppressed minority. Get real! Where is this "mainstream media" that is so liberal? All you will be able to do is recite Bill O'Reilly's list of newspapers that have liberal (or even moderate) editorial pages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
944 posts, read 3,577,370 times
Reputation: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Just to jump in here.
Before I respond to you, I have to say that you have the best user name I've ever seen! What's the story behind it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Fascism very specifically refers to a statist, corporatist ideology and I don't see the current breed of Islamic militants showing any ideological allegiance to Fascism.
Words, definitions, denotations and connotations.... it's very appropriate to combine the terminology because popular usage has made it appropriate. Words didn't come out of the sky like magic, they are invented by humans and we change their meaning constantly. There's another thread where I got chastised by someone for my use of the word "dude". He schooled me on the origin of the word, but it means many different things to different people. I will continue to call friends and chat buddies "Dude" because I like the informality and playfulness of it. Other people find it very annoying.

What's my point? The word "Fascist" doesn't just refer to the dictionary definition of an economic system to anyone who isn't an economist and literalist. Today we use the word in popular language to mean "someone who imposes their way of seeing the world on others through coersive or violent force" ---- thus, there are Christofascists (e.g., Jerry Falwell), Islamofascists, and even back in the 1980s some of us used the term "Buddhist Fascist" to refer to extremely uptight New Age people who couldn't accept the fact that their point of view wasn't the only valid perspective.

"Reality" is a very subjective thing. To me, ANY type of strictly-held belief in one's personal perspective on reality smacks of fascism. We are all biological organisms limited to filtered sensory inputs, and we're all social organisms who process our sensory inputs through the filters that our culture, beliefs and biases impose on what we see, hear, think, and feel. I'm using a very populist and informal (connotation, not denotation) definition of "fascist" when I say that the Taliban are fascist. It simply means, to me and to many others in pop-cultural terms, that they are people who believe they are right and they oppose any other point of view.

Now, the tricky question is ---- am I being a fascist in the way that I impose my definition of "fascism" on this discussion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 06:16 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,287 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Hi,

Just to jump in here. Fascism very specifically refers to a statist, corporatist ideology and I don't see the current breed of Islamic militants showing any ideological allegiance to Fascism. It may seem like wordplay, but the appropriate word is approrpriate.

Emotive decriptions are misleading. For example, we could call them "Islamic Child Molesters". Certainly this description would marshal a strong response from people, but in reality it doesn't describe what we're dealing with. I can't see why the term "Terrorist" isn't a complete enough description.




The US government has played a hand in OBL's work. The Taliban and Al Qaeda of today were the Mujahedeen of the 1980s. We funded them, we trained them and we equipped them to fight an asymmetrical war against the Soviets. Now they've brought those same lessons to the fight against us.


Their is no difference between Hitler and the Islamofacist. The Nazi's tried to exterminate the Jews and the Islamofacist want to exterminate the Jews and anyone else that's not a member of Islam. They are Hitlers in head scarves. They are not militants. A militant may imply they are fighting for some legitimant cause and they are not. They think they are on this earth for one purpose only and that is to kill the infidels. If you are not Islamic you are an infidel and in their world you convert or die. That is period and end of that story. They have no tolerance for anyone else or anything. You make a cartoon of Mohammad and you have a full fledged war on your hands. They are not capable of being part of society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 06:28 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,287 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeptrance View Post
I understand why you say this. There is a strange lack of protest from average, peaceful Muslims against the actions of militants. "Imperialist" means (to me) that we are running an empire. From what I see, we are obviously the greatest imperial power the world has ever known. What part of the world do we not influence, if not directly control? Imperialism doesn't mean that we literally install and control governments, although we've done that in MANY Latin American nations and a few in other parts of the world. It also implies that our global economic impact is so powerful that no nation can do anything without feeling a response from the USA. It's an Empire. You like it because you're on the Imperialist side of the equation, enjoying the benefits of having easy access to material wealth, security, food, and freedom courtesy of a government that provides you with those benefits at the expense of other nations, their manpower, and their natural resources.Saddam was another Stalin and he admired that murderous dictator. He isn't the subject of this discussion. Nobody on the left or right of the political spectrum liked him. But if you look at what happened in Ecuador, Chile, and Panama (for example) then you will see what I'm talking about. In each case there is clear evidence that we killed or caused the overthrow of democratically elected leaders. I don't know how your TV or radio works, but on mine I find mostly right-wing talk show hosts. "Most" = "Mainstream". Stop using right wing talking points. You're being a parrot of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, and all the others who DOMINATE mainstream media yet pretend that they are some kind of oppressed minority. Get real! Where is this "mainstream media" that is so liberal? All you will be able to do is recite Bill O'Reilly's list of newspapers that have liberal (or even moderate) editorial pages.


I take is as a compliment that I can sound like Rush or Hannity and I thank you for that I am thankful they could help me see the light. I may have been another victim of the networks.

For weeks before the election CNN ran that speeded up 1 minute clip of Rush made out to look as he was poking fun of Michael J Fox's illness. He was doing nothing of the sort. They also ran a special titled, What did John Kerry really mean? They also ran a special called Broken Government. They also ran Islaofacist propaganda and told the Terrorist if they gave them a video they would get a fair shake.

Most radio talk shows are right wing because left wing talk show hosts have a hard time getting any sponsers or an audience. CNN, MSNBC and the other networks rating as down. Poor Katie Couric can't get anyone to watch, she is crashing and burning. I think people are getting tired of an agenda and they just want to hear the news without a spin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 06:31 PM
 
112 posts, read 51,241 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeptrance View Post
I understand why you say this. There is a strange lack of protest from average, peaceful Muslims against the actions of militants. "Imperialist" means (to me) that we are running an empire. From what I see, we are obviously the greatest imperial power the world has ever known. What part of the world do we not influence, if not directly control? Imperialism doesn't mean that we literally install and control governments, although we've done that in MANY Latin American nations and a few in other parts of the world. It also implies that our global economic impact is so powerful that no nation can do anything without feeling a response from the USA. It's an Empire. You like it because you're on the Imperialist side of the equation, enjoying the benefits of having easy access to material wealth, security, food, and freedom courtesy of a government that provides you with those benefits at the expense of other nations, their manpower, and their natural resources.Saddam was another Stalin and he admired that murderous dictator. He isn't the subject of this discussion. Nobody on the left or right of the political spectrum liked him. But if you look at what happened in Ecuador, Chile, and Panama (for example) then you will see what I'm talking about. In each case there is clear evidence that we killed or caused the overthrow of democratically elected leaders. I don't know how your TV or radio works, but on mine I find mostly right-wing talk show hosts. "Most" = "Mainstream". Stop using right wing talking points. You're being a parrot of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, and all the others who DOMINATE mainstream media yet pretend that they are some kind of oppressed minority. Get real! Where is this "mainstream media" that is so liberal? All you will be able to do is recite Bill O'Reilly's list of newspapers that have liberal (or even moderate) editorial pages.

Touching on the media discussion its a proven fact that the mainstream media leans left. One of the studies you can look up is the one that some political scientist did at UCLA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
944 posts, read 3,577,370 times
Reputation: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
I take is as a compliment that I can sound like Rush or Hannity and I thank you for that
You're welcome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
Most radio talk shows are right wing because left wing talk show hosts have a hard time getting any sponsers or an audience.
This is the only thing I agree with in your post. Talk radio has an audience that is mostly older and more conservative. Also, conservative views are easier to understand and to yell about, making them more entertaining. Talk radio will always be dominated by conservatives because any true liberal isn't interested in hearing their own opinions yelled at them over and over by a hate-filled demagogue like the ones you admire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecuban View Post
Touching on the media discussion its a proven fact that the mainstream media leans left. One of the studies you can look up is the one that some political scientist did at UCLA.
Here is what we "know" about mass media:
1. the vast majority of journalists/reporters vote for Democrats (one study I saw said it was 90%!!!)
2. the vast majority of OWNERS of mass media vote for moderates and conservatives
3. advertisers don't care much about politics, they care about getting an audience that will watch/read/listen and then spend money for whatever the advertiser is selling

So, what's the net result of all the above? Number one, the "mainstream media" are funded by moderates or apolitical advertisers, and profit is the goal of almost all mass media. Therefore, it's pretty easy to assume that the number one bias in media will be towards a moderate position that does not offend too many advertisers. You can call this left wing, right wing, whatever you like. But as sweettea already said, left wing talk radio is a failure. What he didn't say is that this is proof that leftist radio cannot get the advertising dollars needed to stay in business.

So I ask you, how can mainstream media be "left-leaning" if there is no money to support such media?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 07:51 PM
 
112 posts, read 51,241 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeptrance View Post
You're welcome! This is the only thing I agree with in your post. Talk radio has an audience that is mostly older and more conservative. Also, conservative views are easier to understand and to yell about, making them more entertaining. Talk radio will always be dominated by conservatives because any true liberal isn't interested in hearing their own opinions yelled at them over and over by a hate-filled demagogue like the ones you admire. Here is what we "know" about mass media:
1. the vast majority of journalists/reporters vote for Democrats (one study I saw said it was 90%!!!)
2. the vast majority of OWNERS of mass media vote for moderates and conservatives
3. advertisers don't care much about politics, they care about getting an audience that will watch/read/listen and then spend money for whatever the advertiser is selling

So, what's the net result of all the above? Number one, the "mainstream media" are funded by moderates or apolitical advertisers, and profit is the goal of almost all mass media. Therefore, it's pretty easy to assume that the number one bias in media will be towards a moderate position that does not offend too many advertisers. You can call this left wing, right wing, whatever you like. But as sweettea already said, left wing talk radio is a failure. What he didn't say is that this is proof that leftist radio cannot get the advertising dollars needed to stay in business.

So I ask you, how can mainstream media be "left-leaning" if there is no money to support such media?
I am proof type of guy. These studies that have been conducted to see where the mainstream media leans is the bases of my proof. Your formula is based only on theory not proof just like all the dems that speak on this issue. This is a sore issue for you dems because you definitely do not want to loose the media. The media is power and you guys know it and as long as you have it you own the upper hand. You can use all the insulting remarks you want on people that listen to talk radio but the fact stands that its the only leverage we have as conservatives when it comes to the news. By the way Fox was considered more centered than all combined. Another one that liberals hate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2006, 07:58 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,287 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeptrance View Post
You're welcome! This is the only thing I agree with in your post. Talk radio has an audience that is mostly older and more conservative. Also, conservative views are easier to understand and to yell about, making them more entertaining. Talk radio will always be dominated by conservatives because any true liberal isn't interested in hearing their own opinions yelled at them over and over by a hate-filled demagogue like the ones you admire. Here is what we "know" about mass media:
1. the vast majority of journalists/reporters vote for Democrats (one study I saw said it was 90%!!!)
2. the vast majority of OWNERS of mass media vote for moderates and conservatives
3. advertisers don't care much about politics, they care about getting an audience that will watch/read/listen and then spend money for whatever the advertiser is selling

So, what's the net result of all the above? Number one, the "mainstream media" are funded by moderates or apolitical advertisers, and profit is the goal of almost all mass media. Therefore, it's pretty easy to assume that the number one bias in media will be towards a moderate position that does not offend too many advertisers. You can call this left wing, right wing, whatever you like. But as sweettea already said, left wing talk radio is a failure. What he didn't say is that this is proof that leftist radio cannot get the advertising dollars needed to stay in business.

So I ask you, how can mainstream media be "left-leaning" if there is no money to support such media?

I don't know that conservative radio is made up of all older folks I hear all kinds calling in and I think a lot more kids are interested in politics since 911. I think 911 was an awakening to all and I also think many who were on the more liberal side of the isle have crossed over. Talk radio is entertaining but what makes it entertaining these days is that it's pretty easy to laugh at what the dems are saying or doing without much show prep. They have become a joke.

I would not know half of the information I get from Rush and Sean. I wouldn't have heard that tape of John Mertha saying he would consider taking a bribe. I wouldn't have heard of William Jeffersons frozen money. I didn't know Nancy Pelosi was hiring illegals on her winieries and in her restaurants. I didn't know Harry Reed was using campaign money for give Christmas bonus's. I wouldn't have heard Hilary Clinton's 2 speaches one prasing the illegals and one complaining about illegals. I would have not known Michael J Fox admitted he never read the proposition he was backing. I never would have known the proposition he was backing had little to do with stem cell research but it was a cloning initiative. I wouldn't have heard Robert Byrd use the N word in an interview and I wouldn't have known he was a clan member. I didn't know Michael Moore owned stock in Haliburton, I didn't know the Kerry's and the Clintons owned Walmart stock. I didn't know John Edwards was soliciting a PS3 from Walmart.I don't hear about these things on CNN or MSNBC all I hear is them trying to explain to us what John Kerry meant over and over again and a telethon about Mark Foley and re-run after re-run of Rush's ditto cam and if I didn't listenn to Rush I would think he was making fun of Michael J Fox from that one minute clip.

I don't think the mainstream media or mainstream press have any trouble getting sponsers they have been around for a long time, sponsers know they still have viewers and they can still market their products, although the main stream media does not have the monopoly on the news anymore thanks to talkradio and the internet. Left wing talkradio can't seem to get any traction and it may be due to who they have as host. Janine Garafalo, Al Franken, Whoopie may not be the best people to inform people. NPR is so dull and boring you can't stay awake long enough to listen.

I agree conservatism is easier to understand because it is based on common sense. Liberalism has many faces of many people saying many things most of which do not make sense. We have limosine liberals making obscene amounts of money and ACTING like they no part in Capitalism and then we have the affirmative action crowd looking for handouts, we have the rappers who say filthy things about our government and law enforcement. We have the environmental crowd that like to fly around the world wasting fuel in their private jets and living in mansions either by themselves or with one other person yet they point fingers at our government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top