Thread: Do You Think GWB Hates Al Gore?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Conservative?

My point is that "Cabernet Communists" is a bit shrill. How would you feel if that sort of language was turned on you? Would that be "gentlemanly?" "Communist" is such a byword among some people; should we respond by calling them "Nazis?" Is either really accurate?

Besides, I see nothing "conservative" about the current crop of Republicans, climate change nay-sayers, and religious social engineers.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

How would you feel if that sort of language was turned on you?

I'd feel pretty, oh so pretty, I'd feel pretty and witty and bright!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Besides, I see nothing "conservative" about the current crop of Republicans, climate change nay-sayers, and religious social engineers.

j

I don't either. Well I see it in some of the local Republicans here at home and among several religious social engineers (assuming I know what those are), but not generally among Republicans. I don't see it in many Democrats either. I guess those conservatives (me) just aren't very well-represented this time around

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

My point is that "Cabernet Communists" is a bit shrill. How would you feel if that sort of language was turned on you? Would that be "gentlemanly?" "Communist" is such a byword among some people; should we respond by calling them "Nazis?" Is either really accurate?

Besides, I see nothing "conservative" about the current crop of Republicans, climate change nay-sayers, and religious social engineers.

j

You don't identify with Hoglahoo's statement, do you Jim?

My mother used to say that if a particular comment or description doesn't fit you, then there is no need to get offended!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

My point is that "Cabernet Communists" is a bit shrill. How would you feel if that sort of language was turned on you? Would that be "gentlemanly?" "Communist" is such a byword among some people; should we respond by calling them "Nazis?" Is either really accurate?

Besides, I see nothing "conservative" about the current crop of Republicans, climate change nay-sayers, and religious social engineers.

j

Methinks you doth protest too much...

Perhaps Syrah Socialists would be preferred since it is arguably less offensive? And let there be no doubt, socialism is what many mainstream Democrats advocate as a cure for all of America’s ills. Labeling a socialist a communist for the sake of highlighting their common traits is neither inaccurate nor unfair, merely an exaggeration. Socialism and communism spring from a common ancestor, Marxism; the latter is simply the former taken to the extreme.

Additionally, calling conservatives Nazis is not the same thing as calling liberals communists. The Nazis implemented a form of fascism which became known as National Socialism just as the Soviets implemented a flavor of Marxism which became known as Communism. Therefore, while few conservatives wish to impose anything approaching true fascism, the appropriate in-kind response to being called a communist would be to call your accuser a fascist. Thus had I said Sauvignon Soviets, a retort of … Nazi becomes logical. Sort of.

Still sounds like name calling to me, regardless of how complicated you rationalize it.

I have an idea . . . lets move on. . .

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Methinks you doth protest too much...

Perhaps Syrah Socialists would be preferred since it is arguably less offensive? And let there be no doubt, socialism is what many mainstream Democrats advocate as a cure for all of America’s ills. Labeling a socialist a communist for the sake of highlighting their common traits is neither inaccurate nor unfair, merely an exaggeration. Socialism and communism spring from a common ancestor, Marxism; the latter is simply the former taken to the extreme.

Additionally, calling conservatives Nazis is not the same thing as calling liberals communists. The Nazis implemented a form of fascism which became known as National Socialism just as the Soviets implemented a flavor of Marxism which became known as Communism. Therefore, while few conservatives wish to impose anything approaching true fascism, the appropriate in-kind response to being called a communist would be to call your accuser a fascist. Thus had I said Sauvignon Soviets, a retort of … Nazi becomes logical. Sort of.

You're right -- calling liberals "socialists" is not the same thing as calling conservatives fascists -- even assuming that there are such things as "liberals" any more, which I doubt.

Liberals never advocated government control of individual rights or the expansion of government. They do believe that government has a role in some areas where individuals can't get the best results, like health care or environmental protection, but other than that, nada.

On the other hand, conservatives -- and especially neo-cons -- have a great deal in common with fascists. In fact, they adhere to the most central tenets of fascist dogma. (Check here: Economic Fascism )

But, as Alan said, it's really just name calling, which was the subject of my post in the first place. I believe that conservatives would find that they could be much more persuasive if the could avoid such schoolboy tactics.

j

Getting back on topic, I dont think they hate each other, they have too much in common, such as an ever increasing role of government in indidual lives and liberty.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Getting back on topic, I dont think they hate each other, they have too much in common, such as an ever increasing role of government in indidual lives and liberty.

Ah, the voice of reason.

I don't think they hate each other either. To my observation, politicians seem to regard each other rather impersonally.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

On the other hand, conservatives -- and especially neo-cons -- have a great deal in common with fascists. In fact, they adhere to the most central tenets of fascist dogma. (Check here: Economic Fascism )

"fascists considered the economy to be of little importance and did not have clear economic views." - Wikipedia, the Ultimate Source of Knowledge

Interesting

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Getting back on topic, I dont think they hate each other, they have too much in common, such as an ever increasing role of government in indidual lives and liberty.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Ah, the voice of reason.

I don't think they hate each other either. To my observation, politicians seem to regard each other rather impersonally.

j

+1 and +1.
Wow.
I agree with both of you. I'm sure not much has changed WRT professional politicians since the days of the Romans.
So much for the founding fathers' ideals of the government being run by common citizens. That would seem to be the exception, rather than the rule, now, a campaign (if one hopes to be even remotely competitive) costs more than most Americans will ever SEE, let alone earn.

John P.