Arnold Schwarzenegger for president?-OR- If I had a nickel for every time I read the phrase....

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 07:00
VIEWED: 7135
PAGE 5 of 6

Fletch,

Your offensive rant is deliberately dishonest. You have read my other posts, and yet you persist on trying to restate my positions in some demonic form because I'm the political opposition, and you would stop at nothing to destroy me.

Bush isn't a socialist, but PNAC is and I've proven it countless times, and I don't need to because other people have everywhere else. It's a socialist agenda in action.

But why are we still talking about this? Socialism, dreamt up by intellectuals in the 19th century, became a hot topic of political debate in the 19'teens and 1920s, and then socialists everywhere rose to power, and enacted their agenda. As a result, civil liberties were destroyed, the world economy collapsed and 100 million people were killed in endless ideological genocidal warfare. To say that they failed doesn't even scratch the surface. It was an unholy abomination.

BTW, Mark my words on 'Team Evil.' If President Hillary comes to power she will complete Bush's agenda, just as Bush continued Clinton's. We'll have a nasty war in Iran, and a big monopolitic corporatocracy, which is what Mussolini called his form of socialism.

You're right, I argue abrasively. I don't do so any more than other people. I think I'm probably middle of the road abrasive. I am fairly certain I'm less so than you or Finn, Citizen, though he's mellowed, and much less than Hero, AJLynch or Auraptor, and much much less than Howard or PN.

The only people I can think of offhand who post often who are noticeably more mellow than me are Limi and Chris.

I think you simply notice it more in those who disagree with you. But I do recognize it's a problem.

Here's some food for thought. I think this guy is solidly to the left of me:

http://markhumphrys.com/modern.left.html

... but I like his



I would only argue that in stopping this mass slaughter and destruction of earth, we come up with better solutions when level heads prevail, and the Bush/Kennedy/Truman approach to bad socialist state govt - let's invade - is at the best suboptimal, and possible out and out appalling.

If, like me, you've studied socialism in action in depth, you know that naziism is a subset of it, and hardly holds a monopoly on the massive slaughter of innocent civilians, the dismantling of govts, cultures and nations, and the total suppression of civil liberties. I assume that if someone came to the forum and said "Nazi Germany is a model of a well-ordered society" everyone would respond with "Die fiend!" I think my attitude of "perhaps this merits more thought" was fairly cordial by comparison.

I don't think socialism is at all consistant a belief system at all coherent with the political ideas in firefly, and I think it's far far outside the mainstream. If I thought that it was what you really want, I would say, okay, that's your opinion, and shut up. But I don't. You don't perpetually post opinions which support big brother or the idea that we're all really better off if Blue Sun just gets its way and the Alliance controls everything.

But this gives me an idea.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

First, on this rather interesting Mal motivation discussion. I think I can guess at what's going on here. This isn't like trying to determine the motivations behind shakespear character or unravelling the Mayan Codeces. Joss is around today, we know basically what he stands for and he's quite outspoken. I know he opposed Bush in '04, and he is general libertarian leaning. We also know he was british educated.

The pre-alliance situation, the independents were undoubtedly internationalist, as they not unified, and represent in the western motif, the separate states, or on a european angle could represent the nations of europe. The alliance becomes the US, washington, or the EU. I don't think the Alliance is specifically the EU. I think Joss looked at the US under Bush, the EU, China and the USSR, and invented a new big bad. But what came before, we can tell by the values of Mal and Zoe. It was not chaos, as it is now, but it was free-er. There was relatively little interference by the independent govts. on people's affairs. Mal's patriotism represents something similar to what might happen to americans if they had been invaded by the soviet union, or the french resistance response to nazi occupation.

I agree, Mal is only a criminal because of circumstances, but I want to add one of those circumstances: He has no respect for the authority of the Alliance. He sees them as not accountable or representing the interests of the people, and so he sees them as an illegitimate occupier. Therefore, anything which need be done for the cause, must be done. The french resistance used similar logic.

I don't think it's fair to say everyone's going to see themselves in Mal. I think viewpoint characters are often supposed to appeal that way, but we can very clearly pin down what he's about, and we are supposed to be able to. I think Mal is absolutely libertarian, but not anarchist, he wants a decent limited govt. back, perhaps several. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but he's not losing my vote in election to Niska.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

CenturyHouse,

I don't usually fight with fletch, we disagree about 'socialism.' Maybe it's just the word.

Anyway, I wrote a lot about this it's all over the old threads, but I don't know percisely where. I got a lot of flames for it.

Kerry was right when he labelled Bush a "Herbert Hoover" but unfortunately, Kerry couldn't stay on message. Hoover (a Republican) was openly a socialist, and he viewed european socialism as the new paradigm for the American economy. The problem was the American economy didn't need a new paradigm, and it was a disaster. Just like we didn't need a new world order, the old world order was just fine, and now we don't need a new american century. We had something that worked, and people keep trying to throw it out.

These new socialists, or 'neocons' don't really have a direct connection to Hoover, but they're a similar idea.

The term 'neocon' was coined by michael harrington, who was a member of the shachtman trotskyite movement in the 50s-70s. It refers to socialists who join the republican party. Litterally, 'neocon' is a type of socialist, the way 'nazi', 'communist' and 'green' are all types of socialist. Some socialists are obviously more objectionable than others. In particular, a neocon is a shachmanite, which is a type of trotskyite. A neocon is a republican, and usually a former social democrat. If they are still a democrat, they are a social democrat, and not a neocon.

Max Shachtman was a socialist leader in the American communist party (ACP) who left to lead the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

The short history is the ACP was started by pro-soviets in the '20s, and then broke with the soviets over Stalinism. After Stalin's death in '53, the ACP split. The two factions, the leninists who favored renewing ties with the USSR, stayed as the ACP, the trotskyites, who favored a continuing the divide with the USSR left and joined the SWP, and their leader, Max Shachtman, as its head.

The Shachtmanites later left the SWP to join the democrats, and became the social democrats. This group later split as a result of the failed "scoop" jackson campaign of '72. It was here that the ones called neocons decided to make the move towards the republican party.

The democrats decision to nominate a peace candidate was a sign that '68 had temporarily killed the democrat hawk, and that they might need to go elsewhere. War was always on the agenda, since the entire object of Trotskyism is global social revolution.

Trotskyism holds:

1. The perfect society can be designed.
2. The perfect society can implement the design through revolution.
3. Every country must have a revolution in order for the world to be free of opposition to the perfect idea.

Shachtmanism only differs from traditional Trotskyism in a few notable ways:

1. Compromise is not possible, because it corrupts the perfect idea.
2. Internal revolutions compromise with the revolutionaries, and thus should be avoided, the perfect idea needs the perfect army, typically the US army.
3. Temporary corruption is tolerable because the ends justify the means, and this corruption will be corrected later.
4. The Mussolini corporatism, merger of corporation and state, with one monopolistic corporation holding power over a function is superior to soviet state agencies, because if you lose power of the agency, it is controlled by your opponenent, whereas the entrenched monopoly is always controlled by you.
5. The world will ultimately be arranged into a hierachy of supernational entities such as the EU, Nafta, African Union, Asean, etc., which will be ruled via a compound majority.
6. Compound Majority is when 60% of voters in 60% of districts in 60% of provinces in 60% of nations in 60% of multi-national unions in the world support the agenda, you have a majority, even if it is only 2.5% of the world's population (assuming 1/2 of elligible people, ie. 1/3 of all people vote, as is typical)

The neocons may have been responsible for Nixon's fall, and Ford's rise, there's a lot of theory out there, this one I suspe

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Joss is liberal, he says that there is a lot in Mal he disagrees with, I don't think that makes Mal Libertarian.


http://www.highstakes2004.com/photos.html

So we know you just made a call on Joss's politics that proved to be wrong, you saw what you wanted to see.

The Guardian newspaper did an interview with an Iraqi "resistance" leader last year, remove specific Arab/American or Muslim references and you could hear the same arguments you might have heard from Washington had you been able to do a battlefield interview back in 1777.

We know what Mal does, we can assign reasons to why he does it but he doesn't do it because he's fighting a gorilla war, this is his way of surviving, if in the process he embaresses the Alliance like in "Train Job" that's just gravy. I think he's too complex to be labeled, I think folks that give people labels are wrong anyway.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Joss is a liberal the way hollywood is liberal, but he's really more a barbara boxer or russ feingold liberal, not a socialist, pro-govt., etc.
The truth is the characters in Buffy and Firefly tend to be conservative and sometimes reactionary. This goes back to Chris' original post on the thread.

Why are we (conservatives) here, and they (conservatives who like Bush) is because Joss really paints characters we like. Particularly on Buffy: Willow, Anya, but also Spike, Giles, etc. are deeply concerned with helping the cause of universal equality and the general welfare, they're not crusading against corporations, and advocating state ownership. They're a fairly reactionary lot, and the only outright political statements come from Anya who is particularly right wing, like Emma Caulfied. On Firefly the most traditionally leftist lines are spoken by Book, who to some extent seems to be being set up as a punching bag. The more I think about it, the more I think it's not all that political, but if you look at the spectrum of television drama, nothing more conservative than Firefly is going to come on, that's any good anyways. Farscape maybe, but again, not anymore. So this is what we've got, such as it is. I think the same thing could definitely be said re: socialists. I certainly don't credit that Joss is not a libertarian. In almost all of his characters in all of his shows there's always at least a little of a libertarian bent, and a fair number are out and out anarchists.

Quote:

---

Can you really fight a war for your liberty and at the same time deny it to others?

---

Yeah, sure, people do it all the time. No one ever seems to notice their own hypocracy. The Americans did it in the war of independence, and then the South did it in the civil war.

Actually, Fletch, I hope you read my little history rant on neocons, so you can see I'm not spouting off and labelling, and I'm not really guessing here. But I also want to take a moment to put this up, because I think it's relevent, if people are going to keep on the civil war, which I think is relevent to the show.

The Civil War was not about slavery. Not directly, anyway. Slavery had existed for some time. The North found it distasteful, and had tried to find ways to end it, but it did not declare war on the south to end slavery. The war did not start with the emancipation proclaimation, just in case anyone has that misconception. The war started in 1860, the proclaimation was January 1, 1863.

The war was actually about the marginalization of the South. The reason abolitionists were unable to ban slavery was that they lacked the necessary votes in the US Senate. Abolitionists were largely whigs and republicans, but there were some democrats, but more importantly, they tended to be northerners, people from non-slave states. So in order to correct the balance it was proposed that the western territories be added as states and partitioned into a larger number of votes. The goal here was to force a republican majority of non-slave states, and forever force the south into a marginal political position.

The South saw this as a direct threat, who would want to be part of a union in which they were totally maringalized? (This is one of the problems we have in Iraq now with the Sunnis.) So the south responded with a move to partition texas to help even the future score, pending the partition. Requests to recognize Texas partitions were denied, and it became clear that the midwest partitioning would succeed, and the South saw its hand as forced. If they waited for the partition to be complete, their power would be lost completely, and so they decided to act.

This is, btw, not a theory. The Confederate states told this whole story many times in their documents at the time, and it shows up in many of their declarations of independence from the union. After the war the idea was shelved until a later date, but then enacted by Harrison in '89-'90

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Thing is, Bush isn't a conservative (well, he's a culturally conservative). He doesn't want to make the government less invasive, or smaller, or more defensive of basic freedoms.

---

i agree with this wholeheartedly.

i try not to get too involved in political conversations on this site, since i like to keep my politics and scifi seperate. since it's what i do, (or used to do), all day long, i'd rather have some time off.
the thing that kinda chafes my ass is the assumption that all of the people who frequent this site have the same political outlook. look, i don't care what your politics are, i really don't. but don't assume that i'm a half-wit or that i just want to fight if i support a certain party. that's right. i'm a conservative, with heavy libertarian tendancies.

and, just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "neocon?" to me, it's thrown around so much, it has no meaning anymore. kind of like calling someone a "liberal." don't assume that i don't know what the word means, i'm just curious what it means to you all. the word is always spat out with such vitriol in some circles, it's quite baffling.
i support limited government, and i support the advancement of capitalism. and although i like the terminator franchise immensely and have a definite soft spot for conan, voting for arnold is just a moot point, unless we pass an amendment to the Constitution.
(and no, i didn't read this entire thread, so if someone else mentioned that, then i'm sorry to be redundant.)
i don't want to fight or anything. like i said, i don't care what you do in the ballot box. my nature makes it impossible for me to remain quiet.

and it's true what river says, "people don't like to be meddled with." people also don't like to be prejudged.


love you all,
neocon V

http://violetrix.blogspot.com
you won't remember anyway

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hmm, well.

Fletch:
I think you were a little, erm, overly enthusiastic in your description of DreamTrove earlier. Having said that I can't fault the points you raise. I don't think I've seen anything that really says to me that Bush/PNAC/team evil whatever are Socialist or have a socialist agenda.

DreamTrove:

Quote:

---

As a result, civil liberties were destroyed, the world economy collapsed and 100 million people were killed in endless ideological genocidal warfare. To say that they failed doesn't even scratch the surface. It was an unholy abomination.

---

What? I mean seriously what? Do you think Russians we're better off under the Right-wing tsars? Because they really weren't. Civil Liberties have increased over the last 100 years in most countries, not decreased.

We had the two biggest wars mankind has ever seen over the last 100 years, do you think that might of had an influence on the world economy and the number of deaths? Yeah I know you blame Socialists for that to, but I'm far from convinced. Humans were still in constant conflict sometime before Socialism was on the scene.

Quote:

---

http://markhumphrys.com/modern.left.html

---

Following the links that say "100 million died for socialism" ends up at a section talking about Pinochet. Pinochet wasn't Socialist.
Further more he actually supports the idea that America has the right to invade any country she wishes. What he has to say about Soverenity:
"The United States must shatter this antiquated scam".
But who has the right to shatter the antiquated scam of Americas Soverenty? It reads like Mark thinks America has the right to tell the world how to act, while no one should dare tell America anything.
I especially like his assertions that the killing of Native Americans is all down to the Europeans...
Yet more seems to be inditment against religion.
I think he's a loony.

Quote:

---

let's invade - is at the best suboptimal, and possible out and out appalling.

---

I agree with that, but not that it's socialism.

Quote:

---

If, like me, you've studied socialism in action in depth, you know that naziism is a subset of it

---

Nazisim is a form of Fascism.

Chris:

Quote:

---

Do you think he's a 'bad guy', Fletch?

---

You know, in a lot of way's you could view him like that. I mean he shot a fed straight in the head... what would you think opun hearing a similar situation in the News?

He killed that Alliance pilot in Serenity, kinda goes contrary to what you'd expect of a hero, no?

Just throwing that out there.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Violetrix,

Welcome to political pie throwing, watch out for the

It sounds like you're not a neocon.

Neocon is not a random term or simply a left wing pejorative. It's a very definite term with a very definite meaning and refers very definitely to a distinct group of people. It is a marked contrast to traditional conservative, or 'paleocon.'

Neocons grew out of the trotsky socialist movement, and the Bush admin IS a neocon. It's not a bad neocon, it's a very true to form neocon, this is what a neocon is supposed to be.

If like AJLynch you think newamericancentury.org is the ideal source of America's best course of action, if you like big govt., merger of corporation and govt. and the new world order, one world govt. etc. and your favorite president is Bush, then you may be a neocon.

If you think that American conservatism is defined as a school of thought which started with Jefferson, Adams and John Quincy Adams, and was consistant through TR, Taft Coolidge and Eisenhower, and to some extent Nixon, Ford and GHW Bush, then you're probably not a neocon.

Please read my post if you missed it, (and if it doesn't bore you.) Here it is again, on the origins of neocons:

Quote:

---

The term 'neocon' was coined by michael harrington, who was a member of the shachtman trotskyite movement in the 50s-70s. It refers to socialists who join the republican party. Litterally, 'neocon' is a type of socialist, the way 'nazi', 'communist' and 'green' are all types of socialist. Some socialists are obviously more objectionable than others. In particular, a neocon is a shachmanite, which is a type of trotskyite. A neocon is a republican, and usually a former social democrat. If they are still a democrat, they are a social democrat, and not a neocon.

Max Shachtman was a socialist leader in the American communist party (ACP) who left to lead the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

The short history is the ACP was started by pro-soviets in the '20s, and then broke with the soviets over Stalinism. After Stalin's death in '53, the ACP split. The two factions, the leninists who favored renewing ties with the USSR, stayed as the ACP, the trotskyites, who favored a continuing the divide with the USSR left and joined the SWP, and their leader, Max Shachtman, as its head.

The Shachtmanites later left the SWP to join the democrats, and became the social democrats. This group later split as a result of the failed "scoop" jackson campaign of '72. It was here that the ones called neocons decided to make the move towards the republican party.

The democrats decision to nominate a peace candidate was a sign that '68 had temporarily killed the democrat hawk, and that they might need to go elsewhere. War was always on the agenda, since the entire object of Trotskyism is global social revolution.

Trotskyism holds:

1. The perfect society can be designed.
2. The perfect society can implement the design through revolution.
3. Every country must have a revolution in order for the world to be free of opposition to the perfect idea.

Shachtmanism only differs from traditional Trotskyism in a few notable ways:

1. Compromise is not possible, because it corrupts the perfect idea.
2. Internal revolutions compromise with the revolutionaries, and thus should be avoided, the perfect idea needs the perfect army, typically the US army.
3. Temporary corruption is tolerable because the ends justify the means, and this corruption will be corrected later.
4. The Mussolini corporatism, merger of corporation and state, with one monopolistic corporation holding power over a function is superior to soviet state agencies, because if you lose power of the agency, it is controlled by your opponenent, whereas the entrenched monopoly is always controlled by you.
5. The world will ultimately be arranged into a hierachy of supernational entities such as the EU, Nafta, African Union, Asean, etc., which will be ruled via a compound majority.
6. Compound Majority is when 60% of voters in 60% of districts in 60% of provinces in 60% of nations in

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME