"still waiting for something of substance..."

Wow, your ego still makes you post fabrications I see.

Again SB, you took to defending the claim that Hitler was not a leftist. Where is your proof of that or any other claim you have made?

Demanding that someone proves you wrong is not how it works just as resorting to calling people names is not how a debate or discussion is conducted.

"it's easy to walk around what you've stated. but you've done nothing to explain your comment "Historically and traditionally it is the leftist represented by the Democrat party in recent decades that seek to impose similar legislation and controls as those sought historically by fascists in power.""

And you have done nothing to back up your claim previous to my comments. To even get to address my comments, you would first have to backup yours.

And it must really be embarrassing for you when my comments are supported by the very referenced you posted as a defense of yours.

"The Nazis were one of the most facist regimes ever. "

Yes, but not the only one and every fascist regime did not operate exactly the same. Again, national socialism is not the same as Nazism.

"You may like to avoid what you said and dance around my answers."

You have provided no answers, Just dodged like calling people names.

"I understand. I'd be embarrassed too."

Again, you resorted to insulting people rather than debating. Be embarrassed all you like.

"Name calling? c'mon. I'm not calling you names. Just like I'm not calling a table a name when I call it a table."

Poor leftist justification. Typical for one of your outlook to feel justified in calling people names simply due to the fact that they disagree with you.

"some things just are..."

Making my point for me. This is akin to the claim that if you disagree with Obama, you are automatically a racists. Simply claims for simply and polarized minds.

"but, it's easier for you to twiddle with what I say rather than say anything yourself."

I have stated what I mean and you still cannot address the fact that you have not backed up your argument with any facts. All you have done is go from one dodge to another and insult people you cannot debate with.

"again...waiting...still.."

Keep waiting. As long as you refuse or are unable to back up your initial claim which prompted my first reply, then you have no argument.

Again, you lost the argument once you resorted to insulting people and calling them names.

I had a big long answer to your last post, then hit the wrong button and poof, gone. Crap it was good too.

Anyway, short version, good ideas, we may actually agree on some stuff, no need for big bureaucracy.

Joyce -- You asked whether I could support a plan that would not lead that would not lead to a huge new government bureacracy. The answer is, of course, yes.

But devil is in the details. The Republican plans I've seen are long in generalities but short on details. The problem is how can you force insurance companies to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions without them jacking up the insurance rates even higher than they already are?

The other problem is how rates can middle class folks with incomes under, say $60,000 per year, afford health insurance if they need to buy it on their own.

These are the key issues in any health reform plan. And there are no easy solutions.

I'm all for:

a. High deductible plans (i.e. Health Savings Accounts).
b. Requiring anyone receiving government subsidies to (i) quit smoking, (ii) lose weight, and (iii) get annual check-ups.
c. Make health insurance tax deductible for individuals.

That would all help, but I don't think that would get us past the hump. What's your idea?

"LOL

you asked for a source, I answered, then you complained about my answer?"

I asked for a source that backed up your argument and claim. Simply posting a source is not sufficient.

"that's kind of weak, don't you think? Kind of like avoiding a topic?"

I am not the one who cannot back up their claims SB, you are. You took up the argument of trying to prove that the claim that Hitler was not a leftist was true or that the right has distorted history.

In that endeavor, you failed to prove you point and then tried to resort to a dodge that I had to prove my point first.

Now you seek to use another copout since your cited source did not address your claims or back them up.

"sorry but I've posted many links as you prattle on about the lack of substantive debate. "

Sorry if the fact that you have yet to prove your claims is so upsetting but there is not need to get insulting unless of course that is all you have you support your claims.

"and yet, after replying with a source, you continue to prattle..."

Again, a source that did not support your claim that the concerns fo socialism was defeated 50 years ago.

"pretty sad."

That you cannot back up your claims? True, but as others have noted, when pressed for fact or a rational argument, you tend to try to dodge your way out of such a rational debate. Take for example your simplistic ad hominem dismissal of Burley.

"Let me know when you've got something to offer."

Why? All you would do is cower away again, but thank you for the final cop out.

Odd. One would think that if you had the facts on your side, as you claim, you could easily be able to provide a plethora of them rather than posted a few quote mined comments, selective definitions and one video from forty eight years ago.

You posted the first part of dictionary.com and left out the second part of "fascism" directly below it.

I had forgotten why I don't respond to your posts. You tuck tail when outmatched with a strong counter argument. You get a gold star anyway, since you shouldn't have your feelings hurt.

LOL

you asked for a source, I answered, then you complained about my answer?

that's kind of weak, don't you think? Kind of like avoiding a topic?

sorry but I've posted many links as you prattle on about the lack of substantive debate. and yet, after replying with a source, you continue to prattle...

pretty sad.

Let me know when you've got something to offer.

Snarkybird, you forgot the rest of dictionary.com:

fas•cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

It is a form of centralization, as you know. I have yet to see a reduction in the size and number of federal agencies.

wikipedia.org – List of United States federal agencies OR usa.gov - All Agencies

Since those agencies are appointed and not elected, you have bureaucracies that don’t fear retribution by voters. That is government gaining power. While it is NOT U.S.S.R., Prussia, Zimbabwe, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Venezuela, or WW2 Germany; inch by inch, regulation by regulation, it slowing gets closer. Typically vented hyperbole aside, each person has their own line draw into how much power they want government employees to have over citizens.

I find all members of Congress who have not worked to reduce bureaucracies appointed by Congress have been at fault for this. It is akin to a landscape caretaker leaving weeds and pests to grow just because the last caretaker did nothing about it. Whether it’s business or government based, centralization of power reduces individual choices and encourages LESS thinking.

SBA.gov = research/rs264tot.pdf
“The research finds that the cost of federal regulations totals $1.1 trillion; the cost per employee or firms with fewer than 20 employees is $7,647.”

Federal Register page count under Reagan = 54,335 pages of regulations.
Federal Register page count under George W Bush = 80,700 pages of regulations. Please keep in mind this is the LARGEST it’s been in it’s history.

"To your first posting...again, you've offered nothing but your opinion which is just wrong."

I challenged the unsubstantiated claim that the ”right” has distorted history and the Hitler was not a leftist.

You replied to me and took up that argument. You either changed names from the original post or simply took up the challenge.

It therefore falls upon you to back up what you now defend.

If you can’t, reporting to intellectually dishonest doges does nothing to support your claims.

"To declare what either the democrats in congress or the president have done at any point as fascism ignores both the context of previous fascist regimes and the means to gain power and the amount of power they had to exert on the public."

According to whom? You? You cannot even defend a claim you either posted or chose to defend.

And as far as seeking power over others, that is exactly what government seeks to do.

The fact that you ignore the facts of history of what the government has passed that limit freedoms and cause the very problems they now want to fix tends to make you appears as if you simply prefer a party line over reality.

" both congress and the president were democratically elected and to even compare that with how hitler was elected or what he did once he was, ignores the history of what he did and how he did it."

Again, where did I ever make such claims about the election or Obama?

Cite where I commented on how his election was akin to Htiler’s.

All you appear to have are strawman claims of what you think I have stated rather than address what I have actually posted.

"It's just pure ignorance to make a weak point that you don't like govt. I mean, speaking of straw men! LOL"

Do you even know what a strawman is? A prime example of a strawman would be your misrepresentation of what I have stated in order to try to easily defeat it.

When I state I do not like government, it is a statement of fact.

Your calling that a strawman is odd to say the least.

"You dont like govt - Fine. then vote for someone else or run for office."

As anyone would have or will do. But such a comment by you is irrelevant to your inability to defend your claims.

I feel Drea3's frustration here. You can't actually address what we say so you deflect to something else. King George denied all the many peaceful attempts made by the colonists. That's why there was war. I imagine you'll be among the first to buy a red hat when the revolution begins. Oh, BTW: I don't mind being called irrational by one who IS irrational. Kind of reinforces my opinion.

To your first posting...again, you've offered nothing but your opinion which is just wrong.

To declare what either the democrats in congress or the president have done at any point as fascism ignores both the context of previous fascist regimes and the means to gain power and the amount of power they had to exert on the public. both congress and the president were democratically elected and to even compare that with how hitler was elected or what he did once he was, ignores the history of what he did and how he did it.

It's just pure ignorance to make a weak point that you don't like govt. I mean, speaking of straw men! LOL

You dont like govt - Fine. then vote for someone else or run for office.

To your request: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

There's plenty more out there but I especially like that this is Reagan. :-)

Joyce -- Why do you think allowing people the OPTION of choosing health insurance provided by the government will lead to the government take-over of health care.

A little background. Many liberals would prefer a single payer insurance system, like in Canada. That's not the same as government control of health care like they have in England, but it doesn't matter because it's not even on the table.

A second option would be to allow uninsured folks to buy into Medicare. That's not on the table either, because Medicare pays doctors and hospitals about 20% less than private insurance companies, so the doctors, drug makers and insurance companies would all balk at that.

So, in most versions of the "public option," the government sponsored health insurance would pay 10% more than Medicare in order the placate those groups.

But the insurance companies don't want that either, so they've spent $1.5 million per day to modify that proposal, which is why the Blue Dog Democrats eliminated the tie-in with Medicare altogher (and, thus, the public option loses the barganing power of Medicare) and now the newly formed government entity will need to negotiate directly with doctors, drug manufacturers, etc. just like private health insurance companies do.

But even THAT doesn't satisfy the Republicans, who continue to claim the public option will destroy private insurance.

There, that should do it. Fightin substance with substance there...Yeah man!!

So are you still confused as to what substance is or do you still consider the length of a reply the measure of its worth and validity?

You appear to be simplistically dismissing anything you simply do not want to confront or believe.

And again, where is your proof to back up your claim?

Depending on what flavor of fascism you are talking about, again, one can reach such a state by taking a far right or far left approach.

In the most purest sense, the examples of fascism we have from history would have to be considered neither since such examples contain both examples of ideology from what would be seen as right and left ideologies, extreme or otherwise.

Hence the preferred reference to fascism as “third force”.

The point is that so many jump on it that there are well know actions taken from the left and the right that were used historically by fascistic states.

With this in mind Snarkybird, you are in error when you claim that the Democrats of recent decades have not enacted similar legislation as that used by fascistic states.

Many of the socialistic ideals that the more vocal in the DNC echo many of the goals of such states.

Now, far be it from me to resort to simplistic comparisons as the article you cited tried when the author claimed that national socialism was the same as Nazism, but people who cherish their freedoms have a right to be concerned when they see their government and their elected officials trying to put into law similar laws that were used in fascist states of the past.

This doesn’t even begin to address the fact that, in regards to health care, many of the problems Obamacare seeks to address are creations, intentional or otherwise, of previous actions taken by the government.

you said "And none of what is going on now is even remotely conservatism, don't be stupid."

Yes, I know. That was my point.

SS and Medicare, etc are all just govt programs. Anyone can propose they be eliminated. Heck, Bush tried to work on Social Security. Ron wanted to greatly reduce defense spending, you see where that got him.

and, pay attention? ouch...my comments have struck at thee so?

rejoyce
oh the irony of you saying wake up. When the things you're saying to oppose this reform are the EXACT same things conservatives said in opposition to medicare. Did they happen? No.

But we need to "wake up" because this time, what you're saying will super dooper happen. We just need to pay closer attention.

Um, maybe your right but...history says you're wrong.

Call me crazy but, I'm sticking with history.
By snarkybird

I'm not even sure what your point is here? I wasn't addressing that to you originally anyway, but now I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

You need to think out your posts dude, too flighty.

Oh wait, you did - Ron just didn't seem to get enough votes.

I wonder why?
By snarkybird

Maybe lack of intelligence on the part of voters!

I was not a voter when the SS, Medicare, etc. was voted in, would have voted against. But they are there now, and it's kinda hard to reverse it which makes it especially important to stop this new one.

I believe I've told you that before, pay attention.

And none of what is going on now is even remotely conservatism, don't be stupid. I said convervatism, not Republican!

"so, substance equals more words then?"

No, substantive mean backing up your claims.

"You can read here:"

So you are going to fall back on the “go look it up” rebuttal?

"But I like the last one:"

And resort to quote mining and selective quoting. I’m sure you like that passage since it supports your myopic view of the term but ignores the historical facts of the related political ideology and action taken under the label of fascism.

But, let us look at your selective quote mining and illustrate how what you present now doesn’t support your original claims.

"Some have argued ...word has come."

Your original claim was in regards to distortion of history by “the right” that Hitler was view as being a leftist.

What you post here has nothing to do with backing up that claim. It does speak to the abuse of the term post WWII, but doesn’t address the political classification or leaning of Hitler in regards to left or right.

"of course there is always dictionary.com"

And again, where does this definition disprove, prove or address you original claim?

"either way you slice it, what you're seeing now is no where near fascism."

According to what proof? You have provided nothing to back up your original claim or to prove that what we are seeing mow is not fascism.

And again, I can cite your own selective use of terms and quote mining that supports your myopic view.

You ignore the historical facts of the actions of the fascist states.

"..and look, more words WITH content!"

So you admit not to comprehend what I meant when I stated substance. You are confusing your bloviating and the length of a post with the quality of that post.

Oh and that makes it all better I suppose? We don't need another government bureaucracy PERIOD.

And you are either lying or delusional if you can't see that the majority of plans the Dems are pushing will just through the act of attrition, result in a single payer system.

WAKE UP

fascism, socialism, communism, statist, doesn't really matter. What is going on right now, is wrong. There, that is simple. We do NOT need big government. Little by little we are headed that way and it has to stop.

so, substance equals more words then?

You can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

But I like the last one:

Some have argued that the term "fascism" has become hopelessly vague in the years following World War II, and that today it is little more than a pejorative epithet used by supporters of various political views to attempt to discredit their opponents. This view dates back to George Orwell, British writer and author of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, who famously remarked:

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

of course there is always dictionary.com

fas⋅cism
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

either way you slice it, what you're seeing now is no where near fascism.

..and look, more words WITH content! Did I pass your "substantive" test or do I need to just state it in a sentence like you did?

Keep in mind, this is what you're comparing Obama to:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090816/OPINION03/908160358/-1/ARCHIVE01/Comparing+Obama+s+health+plan+to+Nazi+party+is+wrong

If you dont think that's far fetched and is "historically" in keeping with the healthcare reform being proposed, then I have a bridge to sell you.

WEBWENCH.............I'm soooo glad you found early........I was worried that he was either bait or a yummy snack.....

Thank you a'gin....youz iz a sweeeeeeety oxoxoxoxoxoxox

It is a very sad day for the world when the American right has so successfully butchered history that its constituents believe that Hitler was politically left.

Would seem to be entirely appropriate. Many of our directions Obama is taking us, were taken in Germany. Frank being Jewish should be even more sensitive to that direction. His response was un-called for.

If he looks at our silly wanderings, I hope he realizes Stan's #1 Fan is a joke.