ASA - June 2006: Re: same-sex marriage

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun Jun 11 2006 - 23:07:56 EDT

At 08:53 PM 6/10/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:

>Just to show how poorly researched some of these
>claims really are and how non-sequitur to the
>discussion I would like to point out the following example:

Janice wrote: @ Democrat, Socialist,
Communist... The lines are blurring... by D. K. Zimmerman 07/16/01

News reports filtered out of that burgeoning
metropolis, Milwaukee, WI, this week of 27th Communist Party USA Convention.

Two of the banners in the convention ballroom,
"People and Nature Before Profits" and "End
Police Brutality," suggest a strong resemblance
between the party's leftist agenda and much of
the Democrat Platform. Webb suggests the party's
coalition-building with other groups is a sign of
vitality. The problem is, the Soviet Union’s
collapse and KGB revelations scattered its
members to the four winds. In too many cases, the
coalition being built is replete with former
party members in groups such as the ACLU, the
Sierra Club, and even entire states’ delegations to the Reform Party.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt
socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,'
they will adopt every fragment of the socialist
program, until one day America will be a
socialist nation, without knowing how it
happened." - Norman Thomas, former U. S. Socialist Presidential Candidate

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even
if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will
be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic
policy and environmental policy." - Timothy
Wirth, former U. S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"We share many things in common with the long
history of the Communist Party and all those
engaged in the fight for a decent life for
working people." - Milwaukee Mayor John O.
Norquist’s welcome letter to the
communists. ... [snip] http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b5610ea406d.htm

>Pim replies: "A statement issued Friday by Mike
>Soika, Norquist's chief of staff, said the mayor
>agreed to write a welcome letter for the group,
>which is common for visiting conventions. He
>said the letter was written by an unidentified
>staffer and not reviewed by Norquist, who is on
>a family vacation. He said Norquist "does not
>endorse Communist ideology and condemns many
>elements of Communist
>history." http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul01/norq14071301a.asp

@@ He got caught and then tried to
backpedal. Milwaukee has a ___long history___
of welcoming Communists, so his denial is
laughable. Those who can be fooled will be fooled.

"...Berger's most influential paper, however, was
the Milwaukee Leader, established in 1911. The
Leader, a popular Socialist daily, eventually
became Berger's main organ for the expression of his opposition to World War I.

The city in which the Leader became one of
the most widely-circulated Socialist dailies was
an ideal breeding ground for Victor Berger's
socialism. For much of Milwaukee's history,
Americans have perceived the city as a place
where "if you want the mob to lend you an ear,
shout beer, socialism, and Deutschland." This
tripartite stereotype of Milwaukee residents as
lovers of lager, Marx, and the Fatherland was not
an entirely false description during Victor
Berger's reign as the city's Socialist party boss. .....

The influence of German culture and ideas
extended into Milwaukee politics. Though not all
German-Americans were Socialists, many
German-Americans, especially immigrants who had
fled Germany after the failed revolutions of
1848, were "enthusiastic partisans of the new
communist and socialist doctrines." The
dominance of industry and the presence of a large
working-class population accustomed to the ideas
of German socialist philosophies also helped the
Socialists gain a political strength in Milwaukee
unrivaled in other American cities of similar
size. .." More: http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/bios/html/berger2.html

Wisconsin Historical Society - Milwaukee Sewer
Socialism
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-043/?action=more_essay

Milwaukee - The only major city to elect an
admitted socialist
mayor(s) Details:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544058/posts?page=9#9

Since you have chosen to be an apologist for
Norquist, I assume you disagree with Zimmerman's
main point about how the lines are blurring
between Democrats, Socialists, and
Communists. How aren't they blurring then?

I also noticed that you totally ignored it when I
debunked your assertion that I must be joking
in response to what I said about today's
conservatives being yesterday's classic liberals,
and today's liberals (progressives) are merely
yesterdays Commie/Marxist/Socialists --
omnipotent busibodies attempting to use fascist
tactics on the rest of us under a benign-sounding
phrase, "political correctness" - with the
approval of their own conscience because it's for
our own good, of course. Gag.

Pim continues: "notice also

>"The four-paragraph letter welcomes convention
>delegates, proclaims the working people of
>Milwaukee "have a long proud history in the
>defense of democracy, labor rights, civil rights
>and peace" and adds "if we, the people, work
>together, we can win the struggle to better the
>lives of ordinary working people."
>
>Defense of democracy, labor rights, civil rights
>and peace. Seems nothing wrong with such goals
>and actually seem to be matching what Christians
>should be striving to achieve. At least Janice's
>response helps support my original claim about
>liberalism and the conservatives. If the glove don't fit...

@@ My response helped support your
claims???? The delusion you display is breathtaking.

Not only that, but, are you so naive as not to
know that every despot / totalitarian mentality
who ever lived claimed to "care about the little
guy" and made the same sorts of "how can we fool
'em again today" claims?. Only utopians who
choose to delude themselves into believing that
people are "basically good" could ever fall for that BS.

>Pim continued:
>And finally
>
>"Well Norman had it mostly right. The exception
>is that it no longer requires liberalism to push
>forth the socialist agenda in this country.
>Today both parties are embracing this failed
>form of governance. The biggest difference today
>is that the Democrat Party is striving for these
>goals at break-neck speed while the Republicans
>choose a more incremental
>approach." http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/6412.html :-)

@@ Correction: Only the Rockefeller Republicans
(RINOS) like McCain are willing to join the
Democrat party in their folly. You apparently
didn't read what I wrote before, when I went out
of my way to distance my wing of the party from
theirs. Guess I'll have to post my comments
again, since you missed them the first time:

Among the heros of the Socialists - (includes
RINOS) - is John Maynard Keynes .... In the
1930s Hayek enjoyed a considerable reputation as
a leading economic theorist but his models were
challenged by followers of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes>John
Maynard Keynes who argued for more active
government intervention in economic affairs. The
debate between the two schools of thought remains
unresolved today, with Hayek's position gaining
currency since the late 1970s. .. [Ronald Reagan
era begins] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayek

Scholar
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Leonard_Liggio>Leonard
Liggio ...says, "Classical liberalism is
liberalism, but the current collectivists have
captured that designation in the United States.
Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and
were glad enough to call themselves socialists.
But no one in America wants to be called
socialist and admit what they are." He believes
that this is why liberalism means something
different in Europe than in America. Proponents
of the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Austrian_School>Austrian
School and the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Chicago_School>Chicago
School (sometimes called neo-classical
economists), such as
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Milton_Friedman>Milton
Friedman,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises>Ludwig
von Mises and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayek>Friedrich
von Hayek, also reject claims that modern
liberalism represents a continuous development
from classical liberalism. According to Friedman
Their view is that beginning in the late
nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in
the United States, the term liberalism came to be
associated with a very different emphasis,
particularly in economic policy. It came to be
associated with a readiness to rely primarily on
the state rather than on private arrangements to
achieve objectives regarded as desirable. Their
catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom.
Neo-classical economists instead see themselves
as the true inheritors of classical liberalism.
For example, Hayek argued that he was not a
conservative because he was a liberal; and had
refused to give up that label to modern
usurpers. [Today's "Conservatives"] Much
more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

>Pim continues:
>And since we are quote mining Norman Thomas here are a few more
>
>**The difference between Democrats and
>Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some
>ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly

@@ On the contrary. My wing of the Republican
party will NEVER accept such ideas. The RINOS
days are numbered. You can take it to the bank.
My latest post to that effect from
today: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647420/posts?page=25#25

~ Janice
Received on Sun Jun 11 23:08:43 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 11 2006 - 23:08:43 EDT