For the first time in my adult life I am proud of Bill Maher.

murf, yeah, same here…but I’m utterly perplexed too.

Wow….I find myself in total agreement with Bill….weird

lol

murf said:
For the first time in my adult life I am proud of Bill Maher.

….

… For the first time I agree with you.

Also: love Zach Galifianakis

Bill Maher is simply admitting what other liberals / progressives ought to realize. Namely, that their ideology is diametrically opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, and that this leftwing love affair with the Muslim religion, born of a desire to score points against conservatives, cannot last. Because if there is anything in the world more conservative than the American right, it is Islamic fundamentalism. If the Left thinks the tea party moms and pops are dangerous and reactionary, they ought to spend a little bit of time with the Taliban. In time, they will all be saying the same things that Maher is saying here.

Bill Maher is funny, but he’s really an ignorant douche nozzle. This is almost as stupid as his claim that vaccines are the cause of disease. He needs to change his bongwater.

I don’t by it. He was just trying to impress Hoover. Think about what going on in this screw balls brain.
(Thinking to himself) “Wow If I can snuggle over into her camp, there is a possibility I could get in her pants! Wow nailing the great-granddaughter of former President Herbert Hoover, who would have thought…”

(Any of them, in fact — Maher’s qualms with religion of any sort, Islam or not, are long-standing and well-documented.)

That’s all well and good until you get to Islam. Then, you just can’t say stuff like that. And don’t ask why, because we don’t want to talk about it, hater.

Who wants to tell Bill that he’s 9 years behind the lizard brains?

With this attempted terror attack today .. Is it safe to say Al Qaeda was just trying To Keep Fear Alive ?

LMAO

People in general are concerned about religious fundamentalism finding it’s way into government. This isn’t a left/right thing.

I guess there’s one issue he gets right. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s not anything that resembles libertarian anymore.

This is kind of old news.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6194354/Mohammed-is-most-popular-name-for-baby-boys-in-London.html

Bill Maher is a Nihilist.

Philosophy.
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

Maher gets it.

So much for leftist taboo and dogmatism. I can commend that.

murf said:
Bill Maher is a Nihilist. Philosophy.An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

Exactly. However, a normal episode in reaching for a better structure of society, not to be exploited by politicians and Hippies to ‘deconstruct’ all that they didn’t like, or their stonedness or cronyism didn’t like, over the past 50 years of destruction of what we had.

Bill has always been right on Islam. He had Mos Def on the show a few years ago, who claimed to be muslim or sympathetic with muslims, I can’t remember. Maher totally ripped him apart and showed him how islam teached violence. Maher hit a home run with this and Hoover did a great job of reeling him in with the Sharia law comment, which is actually really scary, if it’s true.

Proud of Bill Maher for saying that all Muslims are evil?

You’re about as pathetic as he is. Bill Maher’s comment was as prejudicial as it comes. Just because someone’s name is Mohammad does not mean they will grow up to be extremist or come from an extremist background.

Bill Maher’s comment was racist because most people who are Muslim come from a certain part of the world. And if he believes he is only targeting the religion when he condones anti-Islam dialogue, he is lying to himself.

Is the Bible more violent than Islam?

Yes it is: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

But Islam has a greater extremist component purely because much of Middle East has been under siege for several decades. It’s a political conflict more than a religious one.

Just lost a great deal of respect for Bill Maher.

murf said:
Bill Maher is a Nihilist.

Philosophy.
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

Teabaggers are the one that are the nihilists, anyone who would seriously vote for Sarah Palin or Christine O’ Donnell obviously hates everything.

espo222 said:
if it’s true.

Yeah, that’s the key phrase. Some RWers like to scream America is being taken over by Sharia law. The trouble is they can’t prove it to be true.

gibbersome said:
Is the Bible more violent than Islam?

Yes it is: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

But Islam has a greater extremist component purely because much of Middle East has been under siege for several decades. It’s a political conflict more than a religious one.

Just lost a great deal of respect for Bill Maher.

Eh whatever, I have always thought Bill Maher says things that he knows will get him publicity and further solidify his reputation as an iconoclast. Like the stuff last year with the vaccines, I think he says things to stoke controversy and let the liberals know that they don’t own him.

and anyway his real beef is with religion (which I understand), he would be just as concerned if everyone in the US started naming their kids Joseph Smith. I agree with him actually I would be concerned too.

“Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly,We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away.”- Bill Maher

Since when doesn’t Bill like Muslims….?

With Islam being the most intolerant religion on the planet, I believe Muslims should move to countries, in which their bigotry is the norm; Afghanistan or Iraq, for example. The US and other Western nations, also, shouldn’t have to tolerate this bigoted religion. Enough with political correctness.

Bill Maher is against all religion, but his broad anti-God rants have grown a little tiring so he’s piggybacking on the recent anti-Islam fervor in the US. Muslims are an easy target right now, ask Juan Williams. Boy would I love to get a $2 million contract like he did!

@newzmaker Then we should throw you in with the rest of the bigots. Seriously, how did you not see hypocrisy in your statement?

gibbersome said:
@newzmaker Then we should throw you in with the rest of the bigots. Seriously, how did you not see hypocrisy in your statement?

Yaaaaawwwwnnnnnnn……

Maher has always had issues with religion and there is no reason he should draw the line with the mother of all religions.

espo222 said:
Bill has always been right on Islam. He had Mos Def on the show a few years ago, who claimed to be muslim or sympathetic with muslims, I can’t remember. Maher totally ripped him apart and showed him how islam teached violence. Maher hit a home run with this and Hoover did a great job of reeling him in with the Sharia law comment, which is actually really scary, if it’s true.

I agree it’s nothing new for him.

What he might be doing is repositioning himself to move his comments towards the center a bit.

I noticed the joke he had about Charlie Sheen and being mad at the porno hooker he was with because she smelled like Tiger Woods was similar to the jokes he had on Politically Incorrect when he went after everyone and was a lot more entertaining and less predictable.

Bill Mahwer said:
Maher has always had issues with religion and there is no reason he should draw the line with the mother of all religions.

The mother of all religions? I dunno, of the three Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Judaism came first. So I guess that’s the motherly one then?

I too was one of the people taken aback by Bill’s comment. I usually agree with him but I didn’t know what to make of it. On it’s face, the fact that Muhammed is the #1 name in Britain could seem troubling if it was a signal that Islam was taking over Britain. When they mentioned Sharia Courts being used in Britain as a sign of this, I did research and discovered that this is an irrational fear. People in Britain may freely choose to let a Shaira court be a binding arbitrator in a case involving civil matters. Sound troubling? Well Britain has been letting Jewish beth din courts do this for the past century. No one may be subpoenaed or forced into arbitration by a Jewish or Muslim Court.

With that new knowledge I don’t condemn Bill nor do I agree with him, I just see why he thinks that. Only problem is when people begin to invidiously discriminate against Muslim people based on an irrational fear that they are “taking over.”

Hoover was right about Sharia law though…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

Don’t want some ancient, irrational legal system spreading anywhere. Be it Sharia, tribunal or some other form of crazy court.

Jimmy Carter’s interview was great. America has to accept the fact that we won’t remain the most powerful nation in the world no matter how big our defense budget it. If we had taken the moves to get off foreign dependence on oil when Carter warned us about it, we would be in this mess. Reagan really screwed us over in the regard.

He has always been against religions, so his comment is really nothing out of the ordinary for him. He is obviously trying to get the publicity, piggy backing on the Juan Williams debacle.

That said, we hear news stories all the time here about Muslims pushing for the removal of crosses from schools, demanding public pools hold Muslim women only nights, demanding new pools black out the windows to protest Muslim women from being seen, riots because France might ban head covers (even though in many countries here it is illegal to wear any covering that covers your face in public), etc. I just saw another story that Italians are pulling their kids out of public school and putting them in private in some neighborhoods because their classrooms are 99% Muslim. So, it may not be the intent of Muslims to *take over* but it sometimes seems that way, when you listen to the news.

Or when you listen to this guy:
CNN SHOCK INTERVIEW: RADICAL MUSLIM CLERIC DESCRIBES VIOLENT ISLAMIC VISION
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-radical-muslim-cleric-describes-islam-for-cnn/

Ask cartoonist Molly Norris about intolerance …if you can find her . An American , on the run in her own country . Absolutely nuts . http://www.dailydemocrat.com/guestopinions/ci_16421945

Until there’s an epiphany of reason as to the process and nature of why we are, then it’s just going to be one personified belief system vs. another, infinitum!

The good thing is that well-reasoned people know that process and nature; the question is whether it can be promulgated and incorporated into a future zeitgeist, before, shall we say, The Rapture!

NORBIT said:
Until there’s an epiphany of reason as to the process and nature of why we are, then it’s just going to be one personified belief system vs. another, infinitum! The good thing is that well-reasoned people know that process and nature; the question is whether it can be promulgated and incorporated into a future zeitgeist, before, shall we say, The Rapture!

ps) If you like Islamic theocracy, you’ll Love today’s (appeasing) Democrats!

11-02-10 —– Vote for Change —– Vote the New Republicans!

Sharia law is unfair to women.

In July 2008, a Pakistani man living near Atlanta was charged with beating his 25-year-old daughter to death for declining to go along with an arranged marriage to a cousin twice her age.
In Irving, Texas, on New Year’s Day 2008, Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot to death by their father for having unsanctioned boyfriends.
In Canada, where hate speech laws are strangling public discussion of any unpleasant aspects of militant Islam, certain segments of the growing Muslim population are applying Sharia law to wayward females. About a dozen cases have arisen, according to Amin Muhammad, a professor at Memorial University in Newfoundland. A much-cited 2001 stat from the United Nations Population Fund estimates the worldwide number of “honor killings” at 5,000 annually

It won’t take 300 years , Bill . On your next program , ask your audience to draw a picture of their God and send it in . You’ll have to go in hiding , and not from Catholics or Jews or Protestants .

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_odyssey_of_islamism_in_america.html

It is important to remember that not all Muslims are terrorists. The vast, overwhelming majority of them want to beat their wives, impose Sharia law, and establish a worldwide Caliphate peacefully.

Margret Hoover is a hottie

and God Bless Zach Galawhatever!

Bill Maher dare criticize Islam without immediately crapping on Catholics??
I don’t believe it….where is the unedited tape??

As Obama leaves next week on his 68.5 million dollar vacation to India , involving 40 aircraft and 785 hotel rooms , he should remember to leave a nice tip , or he could be smeared as a bad tipper as Sarah Palin was .

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/117956/LATEST%20HEADLINES/taj-trip-included-in-barack-obamas-itinerary.html

He probably should not leave ” his ” planes idling , since that would not be right .

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation

Big Eddie said:
As Obama leaves next week on his 68.5 million dollar vacation to India , involving 40 aircraft and 785 hotel rooms , he should remember to leave a nice tip , or he could be smeared as a bad tipper as Sarah Palin was . http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/117956/LATEST%20HEADLINES/taj-trip-included-in-barack-obamas-itinerary.html He probably should not leave ” his ” planes idling , since that would not be right . http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation

This is infuriating!

This guy has become almost a caricature of the corrupt, third-world junta leader.

He holds down small business, controls the big players in major industry, and keeps a stranglehold over society by picking winners and losers. Meanwhile he rules the kingdom like a feudal lord, and expects to be treated like royalty; no doubt, for his being reared and pampared in the self-absorbed, America-bashing world of the Progressive Left!

- but have you heard anything from ANY Republican? What’s wrong with them, not to make this supercilious fraud of a president, an issue?

Has Vivian Shiller called Maher a bigot yet? Gone public on how he needs to talk to his psychiatrist.

Fire Shiller, she has earned that.

I know he doesn’t work for NPR, but hey….Shiller better speak up none-the-less.

Will MESSNBC, Media Matters and Cair be calling for Maher’s firing? Hell MESSNBC could give him a $2 million dollar contract right away.

Let’s see how much press this gets.

Maher’s an asshole. He tries to be consistent with his religion bashing, but he’s not, which makes him a hypocritical asshole. If he spoke of islam the same way he trashes Christianity, his head would be cut off, and a note would be nailed to his chest. He knows that. All liberal assholes know that, which is why they’re the biggest bunch of two faced pussies imaginable.

Obama is meeting with his fellow Junta Member, Soros!!

If you like banana-republics, you’ll love today’s Democrats!

LOL!!!

Remember, Bill Maher is a rabid atheist. His usual targets are fundamentalists Christians. I do not like Maher’s remarks but they are consist. He is not a anti Muslim bigot like so many right wing neanderthals. He is an anti-religious bigot which is less offensive to my Christian ears. His bigotry is not based on ethnic bigotry. My issue is ethnic bigotry. Atheists see all religion as dangerous believing it is based on irrational superstition. That I believe is a rational position which actually makes sense to me. As a Christian I reject that view but I do understand it. Fundamentalists of all stripes make me often feel that ways about religion.

armwood said:
Remember, Bill Maher is a rabid atheist. His usual targets are fundamentalists Christians. I do not like Maher’s remarks but they are consist. He is not a anti Muslim bigot like so many right wing neanderthals. He is an anti-religious bigot which is less offensive to my Christian ears. His bigotry is not based on ethnic bigotry. My issue is ethnic bigotry. Atheists see all religion as dangerous believing it is based on irrational superstition. That I believe is a rational position which actually makes sense to me. As a Christian I reject that view but I do understand it. Fundamentalists of all stripes make me often feel that ways about religion.

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Stop making excuses for this clown.

MSNBC is so bummed out about the latest ISLAMIC Terror plot!
I’m watching it now and the host is trying her best to minimize it…..crude…amateurish…wouldn’t have caused any real damge.

NORBIT said:
Obama is meeting with his fellow Junta Member, Soros!!

If you like banana-republics, you’ll love today’s Democrats!

LOL!!!

If you like autocratic banana republics you will vote Republican in this election. The Republican party is backed by large wealthy interests who are marketing to unsophisticated middle Americans, a bill of goods, which is globalizing our jobs and creating a worldwide labor market which is driving down the wages of American workers as they export our jobs oversees. This is a worldwide corporate practice. I livd two years in South Korea and watched the same corporate practice there. This result of this process is concentrating wealth in a few hands and creating an oligarchy of the wealthy which resembles South American banana republics. At least in South Korea they had a much better health care system. Like all advanced democracies save the corporate controlled USA they have a single payer health care system, I became very ill there, collapsed in a subway station, and was treated overnight in a hospital. Because there are no middle man parasitic insurance companies my ambulance bill, battery of tests and drugs to stabilize my condition cost only $64.00. I payed only sixty dollars a month for this government run health care program.

American wage earning have been duped by corporate interests into believing that Obama care is a government takeover of healthcare. It is not. It is simply limited regulation of a private health care system. I wish we had a national, government run health care system like every other advanced country has. I would not have to fight with BlueCross BlueShield to obtain the maintenance drugs my doctor has prescribed. I received the same drugs in South Korea and had no problem getting them and they were much cheaper than they are in America where some of them are made. Lipitor was cheaper in South Korea than America.

Conservatives unquestioningly buy the corporate hype with out taking time to examine the facts. This type of ignorance is turning America into a corporate controlled banana republic. Americans need to wake up.

It breaks my heart to hear Maher saying he is afraid of Islam.

Wait, are we being taken over by Muslims or Mexicans? I keep forgetting.

Dave Richards said:
A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Stop making excuses for this clown.

I am not making an excuse for bill Maher. My point is that I believe ethnic or racial bigotry is much more invidious than a general questioning and fear of religion. Bill Maher does not like religion based upon his understanding of science. That is an intelligent position. Labeling all Muslims as terrorists and especially thinking someone dressed in muslim garb might be a terrorist is dumb. come on. Is a terrorist is a Muslim going to announce with his clothing”Hey look, I am a Muslim”. Did the abortion doctor terrorist where a huge cross announcing”I am a Christian”, Of course not. That type of bigotry is just plain dumb. Anyone who has lived in a large American city and interacted with a multicultural populations knows how ignorant these prejudices are. It simply an issue of exposure. Conservatives tend to lack wide exposure. They travel less and interact with people who are just like them. I have never met a conservative yet who when traveling to a non western country stays in the homes of natives of that country. This is the problem. When they do travel the recreate their own narrow experience overseas. They cannot handle being in a situation where no one speaks English. They are uncomfortable. This narrow type of experience limits there experiences and worldview.

Dave Richards said:
A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Stop making excuses for this clown.

Yeah, but armwood prefers those who are bigoted just like he is. Birds of a feather, and all that.

Conservatives tend to lack wide exposure. They travel less and interact with people who are just like them.

See? Bigot, straight up.

I hate to say this but – he’s right.

On the other hand even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

Jim DeMint started the recession said:
Teabaggers are the one that are the nihilists, anyone who would seriously vote for Sarah Palin or Christine O’ Donnell obviously hates everything.

Not everything, Jonathan, only people like you.

Good to see racism is still alive and well no matter what party you support, though it appears that it’ll only get you elected on the right.

armwood said:
Remember, Bill Maher is a rabid atheist. His usual targets are fundamentalists Christians. I do not like Maher’s remarks but they are consist. He is not a anti Muslim bigot like so many right wing neanderthals. He is an anti-religious bigot which is less offensive to my Christian ears. His bigotry is not based on ethnic bigotry. My issue is ethnic bigotry. Atheists see all religion as dangerous believing it is based on irrational superstition. That I believe is a rational position which actually makes sense to me. As a Christian I reject that view but I do understand it. Fundamentalists of all stripes make me often feel that ways about religion.

You sound like an apologist for Joy Behar. Her calling Sharron Angle a bitch is okay because she is a comedienne.

You are the epitome of Leftwing double standards. So you give Bill Maher a pass because he is an athiest.

armwood said:
armwood says:
October 30, 2010 at 9:06 am armwood(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

Yes, libs are proud of their bigotry but don’t agree with your bigotry.

We get it, you pathetically sad racist.

I agree with armwood. This isn’t terribly shocking of Bill Maher: he pretty much hates all religion. It’s different from the Right, who vilify Islam while enforcing extremist Christian values upon their constituents.

Personally, as a liberal, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying “almost all the terrorists who’ve attacked the Western world are Muslim”. It’s factually true.

But to be afraid of Islam culturally taking over the Western world is silly, in my opinion. So ‘Muhammad’ was the most popular baby name? Who cares? I think it’s safe to say if almost every Muslim child born in a year is named Muhammad, it will outnumber the Billys, Carols, Peters, Cindys, and Zai Chens born that same year.

Most people I know try to name their kids something DIFFERENT than their neighbor’s… It’s just a matter of statistics that Muhammad is the first, not some Islamic plot to destroy Western culture. Maher needed to re-think his statement.

notsofast said:
Yes, libs are proud of their bigotry but don’t agree with your bigotry.

We get it, you pathetically sad racist.

What’s with you people and your thumbs? I’m way too busy reading comments to click around thumbing up or down people’s comments, whether I agree or disagree.

the real john t said:
Yeah, that’s the key phrase. Some RWers like to scream America is being taken over by Sharia law. The trouble is they can’t prove it to be true.

Go to Dearborn some time.

pakattak said:
It’s different from the Right, who vilify Islam while enforcing extremist Christian values upon their constituents.

Really? Who does that?

Pablo said:
Really? Who does that?

Admittedly I was over-generalizing with that statement, but I was referring to the general Right-wing stance on social issues like Abortion or Gay Marriage.

I think it’s ironic since it makes them fall in line more with the social laws of Islam… if Republicans really wanted to stick it to the Muslims, they should be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. :D

That said, there was nothing else in my post you wanted to discuss, Pablo?

pakattak said:
Admittedly I was over-generalizing with that statement, but I was referring to the general Right-wing stance on social issues like Abortion or Gay Marriage.

That’s hilarious. When up for a vote, every state has voted against gay marriage , but it’s people like YOU who as you say are ” enforcing extremist lib values upon their constituents.”

pakattak said:
Admittedly I was over-generalizing with that statement, but I was referring to the general Right-wing stance on social issues like Abortion or Gay Marriage.

So, what you mean is nobody does it, and you were lying your ass off and trying to demonize Christians by creating a ridiculous, false caricature of them. Guess what that makes you? If you guessed “A big fat bigot”, you are correct.

Watching the libs on this thread defend maher and then try to convince us they aren’t is truly entertaining!

i think bill is just finally realizing that “mohammed” dont like the playboy club. a wrold without it would be a tragedy, for western civilization.

sarainitaly said:
He has always been against religions, so his comment is really nothing out of the ordinary for him. He is obviously trying to get the publicity, piggy backing on the Juan Williams debacle.

That said, we hear news stories all the time here about Muslims pushing for the removal of crosses from schools, demanding public pools hold Muslim women only nights, demanding new pools black out the windows to protest Muslim women from being seen, riots because France might ban head covers (even though in many countries here it is illegal to wear any covering that covers your face in public), etc. I just saw another story that Italians are pulling their kids out of public school and putting them in private in some neighborhoods because their classrooms are 99% Muslim. So, it may not be the intent of Muslims to *take over* but it sometimes seems that way, when you listen to the news.

Or when you listen to this guy:
CNN SHOCK INTERVIEW: RADICAL MUSLIM CLERIC DESCRIBES VIOLENT ISLAMIC VISION
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-radical-muslim-cleric-describes-islam-for-cnn/

So, first you say that there are Italian schools with students that are 99% Muslim and not provide any link to an article. Then you show a link to a cleric who is obviously a kook.

The U.S. State Department is continuing to bring thousands of Middle Easterners to be “resettled” as “Political Asylum” refugees in our country. They have problems adjusting to our way-of-life because of their culture and then become resentful when we resist their demands that we adapt to their customs.

If even a small percentage of them have the desire to inflict mass casualties on New Yorkers out for a Saturday night in a crowded Times Square they are a disaster waiting to happen:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/palestinians-have-missle

valkyrie101 says:
October 30, 2010 at 9:13 am (Quote)
It breaks my heart to hear Maher saying he is afraid of Islam.

The Rat Snakes in the field behind my house are harmless, but they still give me the hibee geebees, when I get near one.

Ehh, I don’t care about stopping gay marriage. I think they should have the right to do whatever they want.

However, I am a rich mofo who makes $1.5 million a year so I stand to lose several tens of thousands of dollars if Obama doesn’t extend the tax cuts.

I voted Republican since it’s more important for me to save money than worry about gay marriage. What I find funny is that so many middle class Americans vote republican too when it is obviously not in their economic interest.

Oh and I work for Goldman Sachs. :)

gibbersome said:
Ehh, I don’t care about stopping gay marriage. I think they should have the right to do whatever they want. However, I am a rich mofo who makes $1.5 million a year so I stand to lose several tens of thousands of dollars if Obama doesn’t extend the tax cuts. I voted Republican since it’s more important for me to save money than worry about gay marriage. What I find funny is that so many middle class Americans vote republican too when it is obviously not in their economic interest. Oh and I work for Goldman Sachs. :)

I’ll bet you’re really a college sophomore.

“I’ll bet you’re really a college sophomore.”

They know everything, it is the rest of the world that is screwed up. Been there.

Moderate said:
“I’ll bet you’re really a college sophomore.” They know everything, it is the rest of the world that is screwed up. Been there.

Me too. I should call my sons frat house and take their collective political pulse. ha! nahhh…

timzank said:
I’ll bet you’re really a college sophomore.

Nope. Finished college 6 years ago. I would show you my tax return from last year, but I don’t care enough too. Now go do my bidding and vote republican.

Why is that bigot Maher still on? Because libs love bigotry.

gibbersome said:
Nope. Finished college 6 years ago. I would show you my tax return from last year, but I don’t care enough too. Now go do my bidding and vote republican.

Here’s a bit of truth, people that make a lot of money don’t generally blog about the exact numbers. In reality, people with the skill set to generate $1.5 mil a year don’t blog at mediate.

They also don’t refer to themselves a “mofo”….

timzank said:
Me too. I should call my sons frat house and take their collective political pulse. ha! nahhh…

Lol, believe it or not. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Maybe if you were smart enough to go to Harvard (like I was) and smart enough to line a cushy job right out of school (we have a great alumni network), you’d be in the same position as I am.

Nice try though skippy, now get on over to the cafeteria, it’s lunch time.

When can we expect the (Democratic) mainstream media to start accusing Maher of Islamaphobia? – or is that only reserved for Republicans?

timzank said:
Here’s a bit of truth, people that make a lot of money don’t generally blog about the exact numbers. In reality, people with the skill set to generate $1.5 mil a year don’t blog at mediate.

Hey whatever brings you peace. My paycheck isn’t getting any lower whatever you want to believe.

I do like it how you are all hung up on the number though since that wasn’t the point of my original post. I don’t care if I make more money than you, but apparently you do.

Anybody else out there believe gibbersome is a Harvard grad making $1.5mil a year at Goldman and has the time and inclination to make comments on this blog on a Saturday morning?

A pleasant surprise. Finally a left winger was able to address the present day violence and intolerance of Islam, without feeling the need to immediately counterbalance it by bringing up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquistition.

When well heeled people discuss their income (and it’s real) they don’t use exact numbers like 1.5. You are lying and it’s funny.

My bet is a 12 year old with a face full of pimples.

Seeing November From My Window said:
My bet is a 12 year old with a face full of pimples.

His sentence structure and his feigned “umbrage” would support that!

Pablo said:
So, what you mean is nobody does it, and you were lying your ass off and trying to demonize Christians by creating a ridiculous, false caricature of them. Guess what that makes you? If you guessed “A big fat bigot”, you are correct.

First off, I am a Christian myself. I’ve been going to church every Sunday since I was a child. Second, yes, I admit I probably should have re-phrased that better.

But I don’t think I’m wrong in my assessment that many right-wingers who oppose the spread of Islam into Western culture actually have a lot more in common with Islam than they’d like to admit. Of course, it’s not like we have Christian extremists bombing trains and the like, but Islamic law is incredibly conservative. Two sides of the same coin, I think is the phrase?

notsofast said:
That’s hilarious. When up for a vote, every state has voted against gay marriage , but it’s people like YOU who as you say are ” enforcing extremist lib values upon their constituents.”

Things will change for the better soon. The recent overturning of Proposition 8 based on it’s unconstitutionality is a strong first step.

What’s so wrong with allowing gay marriage? Allowing gays to marry does absolutely no harm to those who oppose it. And ‘keeping the sanctity of marriage’ is a laughable reason for opposition; our high divorce rate has already ruined the reputation of Holy Matrimony to shreds.

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

Pak, show me a Christian who’s religion supports beating your wife and killing those who don’t convert.

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
You sound like an apologist for Joy Behar. Her calling Sharron Angle a bitch is okay because she is a comedienne.

You are the epitome of Leftwing double standards. So you give Bill Maher a pass because he is an athiest.

I agree with her sentiment but I do not use profane. I don’t use it.

pakattak said:
What’s so wrong with allowing gay marriage?

I think gays should be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us.

notsofast said:
I think gays should be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us.

LOL Yep. I know a lot of gay couples, They are all happy together, but then again they are not married to each other…

notsofast said:
That’s hilarious. When up for a vote, every state has voted against gay marriage , but it’s people like YOU who as you say are ” enforcing extremist lib values upon their constituents.”

In America basic human rights are protected from majority will. That is the purpose of constitutionally democracy. The constitution is meant to protect minority opinions and/or groups from the tyranny of the majority. If you go back and read Jame Madison’s Federalist Papers # 52 you will see the complete argument. The Bill Of Rights was a compromise document written by James Madison to asway the fears of the smaller states that they would be dominated by the large populations in the larger states. Senate representation was based upon statehood, not population because of this same fear that the most populous states would dominate the new union.

notsofast said:
I think gays should be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Wow! For once we agree! :)

armwood said:
Bill Maher does not like religion based upon his understanding of science.

Maher is not a scientist, and therefore must have faith that science explains away God.

armwood said:
That is the purpose of constitutionally democracy.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, we are a republic, not a democracy.

timzank said:
Anybody else out there believe gibbersome is a Harvard grad making $1.5mil a year at Goldman and has the time and inclination to make comments on this blog on a Saturday morning?

Wow he really got to you didn’t he?

Anyway, he does sound like some rich, Harvard jerks I know, lol.

newzmaker said:
With Islam being the most intolerant religion on the planet, I believe Muslims should move to countries, in which their bigotry is the norm; Afghanistan or Iraq, for example. The US and other Western nations, also, shouldn’t have to tolerate this bigoted religion. Enough with political correctness.

As a Libertarian I cannot understand all these right wingers wanting to go further to the right. Iran is a perfect example of going to the right about as far as you can go. Muslims are more then a religion. They are a political moment. As you say very intolerant! Being bigoted against woman, gays, as well as other religions….

Bill can get away with this, because he didn’t say it on Fox.

gibbersome said:
So, first you say that there are Italian schools with students that are 99% Muslim and not provide any link to an article. Then you show a link to a cleric who is obviously a kook.

If you had grown up in NYC like I did you would have seen 99% Italian Catholic Parochial Schools. My private high school was about 80% Italian.

DeJay said:
Wow he really got to you didn’t he? Anyway, he does sound like some rich, Harvard jerks I know, lol.

Guys like him crack me up, this is probably the real gibbersome:

http://forums.legitreviews.com/about23087.html

notsofast said:
That’s hilarious. When up for a vote, every state has voted against gay marriage , but it’s people like YOU who as you say are ” enforcing extremist lib values upon their constituents.”

Civils rights should be up for populus vote

notsofast said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, we are a republic, not a democracy.

What is a constitutional democracy. It is a democratic republic. Where did you go to school buddy? They did not do a good job of teaching you American government. Political Scientists call our system a constitutional democracy which is a republican form a government that includes citizen representation. Every republic is not a democracy. We would not call the German Democratic Republic a Democracy nor the Peoples Republic of China. Neither was the Roman republic a democracy.

Jack Burns said:
Iran is a perfect example of going to the right about as far as you can go

Wrong. Iran is just about as far left as you can go. I know it’s hip to say stuff like that, and the left encourages deflection, but,

Absolute Left = Total Government
Absolute Right = No Government

Don’t get suckered by political re-definitions that are meaningless. The new age definitions are just stupid, and simply put, anything that is at odds with progressivism is far right.

300 years? Try 50. Keep up on daily global news of the Islamic threat and see for yourself at http://tinyurl.com/islamwatch

News Flash: just because someone is moslem doesn’t mean they want sharia law in the US and have their women wear burqas. Just like all christians don’t blow up abortion clinics and hate gays. There are moderates and extremists of all faiths. Now my moderate christian believers; can you please do something about the blue laws?

armwood said:
What is a constitutional democracy. It is a democratic republic. Where did you go to school buddy?

The word “democracy” appears nowhere in any of the founding documents, as the founders knew that the notion of a democracy was evil, and has always been nothing more than a temporary transition from Republic to Oligarchy. Where did you go to school, buddy?

Maher is beginning a hegira of the left toward the center-right where about 65% of the sentient intelligent electorate is, in an effort to keep relevant. Or maybe he just woke up and smelled the coffee…!

timzank said:
Guys like him crack me up, this is probably the real gibbersome:

http://forums.legitreviews.com/about23087.html

Lol, it might be or could be someone else with the same s/n. It’s not worth getting riled up over.

Harvard does produce its share of elitists like our president.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Maher’s an asshole. He tries to be consistent with his religion bashing, but he’s not, which makes him a hypocritical asshole. If he spoke of islam the same way he trashes Christianity, his head would be cut off, and a note would be nailed to his chest. He knows that. All liberal assholes know that, which is why they’re the biggest bunch of two faced pussies imaginable.

What a failure, you didn’t even watch this did you. He just fucking said that he is concerned about the name Mohammad being the most popular name for boys in the UK and he doesnt want them taking over the west. And you in your infinite wisdom say “if he spoke of islam the same way he trashes Christianity, his head would be cut off”.

He just trashed Islam and you say that. Look I know teabaggers don’t read but you couldn’t even be bothered to watch a video, you just assumed Bill Maher is a liberal and so I will attack him. Fucking pathetic.

DeJay said:
Lol, it might be or could be someone else with the same s/n. It’s not worth getting riled up over. Harvard does produce its share of elitists like our president.

True, true! I’m just in an ornery mood today.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Wrong. Iran is just about as far left as you can go. I know it’s hip to say stuff like that, and the left encourages deflection, but,

Don’t get suckered by political re-definitions that are meaningless. The new age definitions are just stupid, and simply put, anything that is at odds with progressivism is far right.

I’m sorry but as someone who has been on this planet for close to six decades. I can assure you They are very Right wing.

Absolute Left = Progressivism and Totalitarianism
Absolute Right = Totalitarianism and Supremacism

Libertarianism = no left, no right. Just forward…

Jim DeMint started the recession said:
I know teabaggers don’t read

Thats because they are too busy shoving their balls in your mouth, bottombitch.

timzank said:
True, true! I’m just in an ornery mood today.

Happens to all of us. My response to this guy would be, so what if he make $1.5 million a year? That doesn’t make him better than me. And going to Harvard doesn’t make him smarter either. If this is what the guy uses to feel better about himself, it’s really sad.

Jim DeMint started the recession said:
What a failure, you didn’t even watch this did you. He just fucking said that he is concerned about the name Mohammad being the most popular name for boys in the UK and he doesnt want them taking over the west.

Nice try, kiddo, but Maher has always been, and this video shows that nothing has changed, a bigoted asshole.

Jack Burns said:
I’m sorry but as someone who has been on this planet for close to six decades. I can assure you They are very Right wing.

Sorry to see that, although we’re about the same age, I went to school, and you didn’t.

Bill Maher is an abject fool It won’t take 300 years for Islam to conquer Europe– its already well apace and may be irreversible! I suggest Maher check out Mark Steyn’s book that shows demographically that Europe is finished. 40 years is all it will take. Forgetting the low birth rate, Europe is a hollowed out shell of its former self, having forgotten the truths they learned in the Enlightenment and the great Christian movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. What a pity.

Maher reacts negatively to Sharia law, but he still refuses to accept that is Christian ethics that led us to the highest level of freedom ever known to man. It is no accident that natural rights flow from the view that all men are created equal, that their rights come from God not the state, that they are free individuals with the right to life, liberty, private property, and rule of law. Sharia law knows none of this! But when you tear down what you have, Bill, you better look out for what replaces it. You will be the first person they come for if Sharia ever takes hold. You fool.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Sorry to see that, although we’re about the same age, I went to school, and you didn’t.

Far right politics commonly include authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.The ideologies usually associated with the far right include Fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist, religiously extreme or reactionary ideologies

All of which Country’s like Iran and their Muslim counterparts participate in.

Show me where I am wrong school boy….

ProgLib says:
October 30, 2010 at 12:32 pm ProgLib(Quote)

News Flash: just because someone is moslem doesn’t mean they want sharia law in the US and have their women wear burqas. Just like all christians don’t blow up abortion clinics and hate gays. There are moderates and extremists of all faiths. Now my moderate christian believers; can you please do something about the blue laws?

ProgLib:
It doesn’t matter what mild and moderate Muslims want or desire because there is NO movement in Islam to stomp out the radical jihadists. Those who object are promptly killed. Is there any other religion on earth that is like Islam? A religion that kills not only its own followers, but goes after those who choose not to follow as well. Check out http://thereligionofpeace.com to see what is going on that you never read about in the media. Then tell me how moderates are going to stand up to the radicals.

Jack Burns said:
Far right politics commonly include authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.

No, but those traits are commonly associated with right wing politics by those on the left.

I usually refrain from providing links, because almost always they’re simply propaganda, but this one is a very good video explaining the political spectrum and American politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRQ76FYvw7M

I agree and it is about time Maher go some sense about him. I agree.

No matter how racist & non politically correct that statement will be labeled. It is the damn truth & I am glad I am not in the public limelight & can say & do as I believe without being fired or labeled a bigot for just saying what I deem the truth. I have been praying for Maher to “come around”. Maybe this is the first step. Or, perhaps & more likely, he just wants some media attention.

I rarely agree with anything coming out of Maher mouth but, on this subject I fully agree with him. Based on what we see happening in Europe, Mr.Maher’s statements are on solid ground. Those interested, might want to read Dr.Peter Hammond’s book, ” Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam”. In this book Dr.Hammond shows us just how Islamization begins to take a foothold in a country, and by increasing the Muslim population they start demanding. When news agencies ask the Muslims in this country to denounce radical-Muslim terrorists, their reluctance to do so should be a warning to everyone.

I completely agree with Juan Williams and Bill Maher. It was Muslims who tried to blow us up again yesterday.

Maher is a former comedian and the joke here is when the Muslims the liberals like to fawn over replace the Christians the liberals like to scorn, we will see the punchline is crushing of liberal values such as gay rights and abortion on demand. Christians may point fingers, but the Muslims will cut them off. Enjoy.

This was probably the best panel Maher’s had all year. He almost never has smart conservatives on the show so this was a welcome change. Even the Hollywood guy wasn’t an idiot (unlike most of the dumb-as-mud celebrities Maher loves to have on the show).

gibbersome said:
So, first you say that there are Italian schools with students that are 99% Muslim and not provide any link to an article. Then you show a link to a cleric who is obviously a kook.

No, I said classrooms with 99% muslim kids. There were three Italian kids, and the rest were Muslim, and the Italians were pulling their kids out because of it. I saw it on the news – I can search for the link, but if I find it, it will be in Italian – can you understand Itlaian?

The *kook* was on CNN, so take issue with them for having the *kook* on. And why is he a kook? Because you disagree?

Mr.Papshmer said:
Wrong. Iran is just about as far left as you can go. I know it’s hip to say stuff like that, and the left encourages deflection, but,

Absolute Left = Total Government
Absolute Right = No Government

Don’t get suckered by political re-definitions that are meaningless. The new age definitions are just stupid, and simply put, anything that is at odds with progressivism is far right.

I theocracy by definition is a right wing government. This is political science 101. Check it out if you do not believe me.

Mr.Papshmer said:
The word “democracy” appears nowhere in any of the founding documents, as the founders knew that the notion of a democracy was evil, and has always been nothing more than a temporary transition from Republic to Oligarchy. Where did you go to school, buddy?

You really do not understand the terms you are using. The word republic coined by Plato. He wrote a book called “Plato’s Republic” In it he created what he believed was an ideal government which was headed by what he called a philosopher king, the wisest person in the country. Plato believed that all knowledge was both finite and knowable. The philosopher king was someone who had mastered this finite knowledge. This ruler was a benevolent despot. It’s an interesting, though antiquated book. I carry it around in my iPod touch for reading when I need to kill time and have no available wifi connection. I first encountered it back in 1972 in my first political theory class. It’s really good reading if you like political philosophy.

Mr.Papshmer said:
The word “democracy” appears nowhere in any of the founding documents, as the founders knew that the notion of a democracy was evil, and has always been nothing more than a temporary transition from Republic to Oligarchy. Where did you go to school, buddy?

I can just about assure you I went to better schools and have a higher level of education than you but I really do not want to embarrass you. I really want to discuss substantive policy issues. I like to play the dozens as much as anyone but I like to discuss policy even more.

armwood said:
I can just about assure you I went to better schools and have a higher level of education than you

Then you should have paid attention and not wasted dad’s bucks. My younger brother has a masters and is a retired Boeing engineer. I helped him study when he was earning his BS. I’m proud of him for his accomplishments, but I have to say, knowing what I know about what it takes, degrees and level of education don’t impress me. Common sense does.

armwood said:
What is a constitutional democracy. It is a democratic republic. Where did you go to school buddy?

Unfortunately, you are a fool.

Why do you think the Pledge of Allegiance says ” and to the republic, for which it stands?”

Why did Franklin famously say this:

When asked what type of government the American people were going to participate in, by a well-meaning woman, a stern Benjamin Franklin warned that our new government was going to be “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
John Adams

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin

What kind of government does the United States have?

While many people describe the form of government in the United States as a democracy, it is technically defined as a federal republic;

You only had to Google “what kind of govt. is the US” but you thought , as a lib, you knew more than anyone.

armwood said:
I theocracy by definition is a right wing government. T

Wrong again!

A theocracy is a form of government in which religion or a deity is the supreme ruler of the country.

You really need to get an education.

Jack Burns said:
The ideologies usually associated with the far right include Fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist, religiously extreme or reactionary ideologies

This is a common mistake. Do you know where the terms “left” and “right” came from?

It has nothing to do with policies or beliefs but with the degree with which a government controls a society.

The terms come from pre-revolutionary France. Inside the chamber where the National Assembly met, members of the Third Estate sat on the left side and members of the First Estate sat on the right. The Third Estate consisted of revolutionaries, while the First Estate were nobles. Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative.

The distinction of whether a government is “Left” or “Right” is based on the degree to which that government controls an individual’s social and economic liberties. In a democracy, the majority rules the society, leaving an individual’s rights up to the whim of the people. That’s why the Founding Fathers detested the idea of a “democracy”.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
–Benjamin Franklin, 1759

This is why the FF created a Republic- a government that ruled by laws. In political terms, this is to the “Right” of a Democracy. Anarchy is to the “Right” of a Republic- in an anarchy , there is no government and an individual’s rights are at the whim of whomever decides to take one’s property or freedoms.

And what is to “Left” of a Democracy? Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism- where the governments have control over an individual’s liberties.

It matters not how or why these institutions come into existence- the bottom line is that they leave little individual freedoms.And to call Socialism a “Conservative” idea is pure ignorance of how governments are defined.

armwood said:
I can just about assure you I went to better schools and have a higher level of education than you but I really do not want to embarrass you. I really want to discuss substantive policy issues. I like to play the dozens as much as anyone but I like to discuss policy even more.

you tell him Erkel!!

come on people, armwood knows everything, don’t read the words, you have to know what the writer meant, which armwood as a mind reader will explain to you

so armwood explain the 2nd amendment meant, please

Mr.Papshmer said:
Then you should have paid attention and not wasted dad’s bucks. My younger brother has a masters and is a retired Boeing engineer. I helped him study when he was earning his BS. I’m proud of him for his accomplishments, but I have to say, knowing what I know about what it takes, degrees and level of education don’t impress me. Common sense does.

Unlike you I did not use my dad’s bucks. I paid for my schooling all night then going to school during the day for undergraduate school. I also worked and paid for my post graduate studies. I notice a whole lot of conservatives do not know what it is like to work hard without the support of a financially well off family. Your politics is often determined by your experiences.

Really an excellent comment, notsofast.

please explain armwood

notsofast said:
Unfortunately, you are a fool.

Why do you think the Pledge of Allegiance says ” and to the republic, for which it stands?”

Why did Franklin famously say this:

When asked what type of government the American people were going to participate in, by a well-meaning woman, a stern Benjamin Franklin warned that our new government was going to be “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

That is why the founders set up a constitutional democracy. As you said they feared majority rule. They equated majority rule with mob rule. After the ratification of the constitution only white male land owners could vote. Our form of constitutional democracy has been evolving. It took until around 1970 for our system to mature to the level that everyone was included in it and all state sanctioned human right violations were wiped from the books or made null.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
John Adams

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin

What kind of government does the United States have?

While many people describe the form of government in the United States as a democracy, it is technically defined as a federal republic;

You only had to Google “what kind of govt. is the US” but you thought , as a lib, you knew more than anyone.

Wrong again!

A theocracy is a form of government in which religion or a deity is the supreme ruler of the country.

You really need to get an education.

This is a common mistake. Do you know where the terms “left” and “right” came from?

It has nothing to do with policies or beliefs but with the degree with which a government controls a society.

The terms come from pre-revolutionary France. Inside the chamber where the National Assembly met, members of the Third Estate sat on the left side and members of the First Estate sat on the right. The Third Estate consisted of revolutionaries, while the First Estate were nobles. Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative.

The distinction of whether a government is “Left” or “Right” is based on the degree to which that government controls an individual’s social and economic liberties. In a democracy, the majority rules the society, leaving an individual’s rights up to the whim of the people. That’s why the Founding Fathers detested the idea of a “democracy”.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
–Benjamin Franklin, 1759

This is why the FF created a Republic- a government that ruled by laws. In political terms, this is to the “Right” of a Democracy. Anarchy is to the “Right” of a Republic- in an anarchy , there is no government and an individual’s rights are at the whim of whomever decides to take one’s property or freedoms.

And what is to “Left” of a Democracy? Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism- where the governments have control over an individual’s liberties.

It matters not how or why these institutions come into existence- the bottom line is that they leave little individual freedoms.And to call Socialism a “Conservative” idea is pure ignorance of how governments are defined.

2nd amendment please

Notofast is partially right, however after the decline of the European by the end of WW1 political scientist started to use the right left political axis in a different way. The center of the axis became classical liberal constitutional democracies like the U.S. and Great Britain. The extreme left was used to describe the Soviet Union and policies derived from the theories of Karl Marx. The extreme right was used to describe totalitarian governments based on traditional monarchies and the emergent fascist movement. An interesting book that discusses these models is Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” written during the 1950s. He describes the similarities between both extremes and lumps them together under a model of totalitarianism.

Prominent political scientists however like David Easton continued to use this modern left/right model. Under this model all monarchies, theocracies and fascists governments are considered right wing. All socialist leaning governments are considered left wing. This is the current model that everyone has used for at least forty years. An excellent book by David Easton is his “Systems Analysis of Politics.

armwood, your inability to use this site correctly says shit about your superior intellect, no?

armwood said:
Notofast is partially right, however after the decline of the European [sic] by the end of WW1 political scientist [sic] started to use the right left political axis in a different way.

Re-definition. Cool.

2nd amendent interpretation armwood

Every once in a while there’s a glimmer of sanity on these liberal shows. That’s a good sign, but it’s frustrating to watch them dance around the obvious implications of the revelation. Sharia law is not a separate problem from the popularity of the name Muhammad. They both are signs of the same advance of Islam in the West.

And Maher cites 300 years as his time frame, in an effort to make his fears palatable. But 30 years would be closer to the truth if the West does not wake from its stupor. Still, even weakened and stilted, it is a good sign for Maher to be dealing with this issue. Political correctness has got to go.

Say what you want about Bill Maher, but he’s the most courageous atheist in any medium. Thank you very much Mr. Maher. I’m an atheist too and I wish all of my fellow atheists had the courage to stand up to Islam. There are those who applaud a pile of shit formed in the image of Jesus and call it art, yet if you say anything negative about Muslims these same people will cry and call you racist and intolerant. I have no real love for any religion but the only one I fear is Islam. I know of no Christians at this moment that want me dead just because I live in a free country.

cd ohio said:
so armwood explain the 2nd amendment meant, please

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

When the constitution was ratified in 1789 there wasn’t a national army. Each state had a volunteer militia comprised of citizen soldiers who were civilians who could be called up to serve. Think about the original “minute men” model. The right to bear arms was necessary because the states did not provide weapons for their militias. Each man had to bring his own rifle. This amendment became obsolete after a national army was formed. Before this past decade the Supreme Court did not view this right as an individual right. It was a right which applied to the states. Remember none of the amendments in te bill of Rights applied to individuals when they were written. They were only bars upon the actions of federal governments. Over time these right became individual rights which protected individuals from state action. The 1st Amendment was not applied against the states until 1926. This has been a process where rights have expanded.

and a free state was to be protected from what?

obsolete really

armwood said:
Remember none of the amendments in te bill of Rights applied to individuals when they were written.

You should ask Northeast Stamford Community College for you money back.

maybe protected against a overpowering central goverment?

armwood said quote ” remember none of the amendents in the bill of rights applied to individuals when they were written” what school did you go to, just want to know so my son doesnt go there

states could regulate more strictly yes, but the federal goverment could not regulate it

armwood said:

“When the constitution was ratified in 1789 there wasn’t a national army. Each state had a volunteer militia comprised of citizen soldiers who were civilians who could be called up to serve.

.

I don’t care how you libs wish to rewrite history and redefine terms, it doesn’t change the facts anymore than saying the word “bitch” is a word of endearment.

I love how you try to redefine words and their meanings.

Let’s look at the FF on the 2nd amendment and see if they thought it was necessary because they didn’t have an Army.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:

[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.

The Virginia delegation’s recommended bill of rights included the following:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

SAMUEL ADAMS

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . .

Now stop rewriting history.

cd ohio, he’s like that college douche in “Good Will Hunting”, the long hair in the bar that thinks he’s smarter than his audience. He reads some things from one writer, quotes same, and thinks he’s way smarter than the rest of us simpletons. I’m guessing that in reality, he’s a freshman idiot at some minor college.

federal bill of rights yes armwood, states could curtail those rights i know, but the federal goverment does make laws that curtail those rights in this day and age.

no, i believe he is book smart mr. papshmer, he just doesnt have any common sense or looks at the big picture, just his little pixel

Okay, so armwood, just what are your education credentials? Normally, I wouldn’t ask and don’t care, but you’ve made a big deal out of how smart you are. Being the case, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind telling us your name, showing us your transcripts, and any post papers that are relevant.

Did I see Maher was having Bill O Reilly on next week? Either O Reilly is having problems selling his book or Maher is trying to cozy up to the right.

armwood the fact you want to give up your rights (and mine) to the government by denying their existence in the first place, makes me hope you die in a fire. sooner the better…

Mr.Papshmer said:
You should ask Northeast Stamford Community College for you money back.

I did not go to community college and obviously you have studied neither political science or law.

armwood, obsolete really any of the others obsolete?

TheseCommentsSuck said:
armwood the fact you want to give up your rights (and mine) to the government by denying their existence in the first place, makes me hope you die in a fire. sooner the better…

What are you talking about? I said nothing about giving up rights. Have you ever studied jurisprudence? If you had you would understand what I am talking about. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It just involves understanding the case history of the U.S. Supreme Court as it relates to the application of the bill of Rights as a bar against state action.

exactly, it is how the supreme court has slowly but steadly been eating away rights and placing them in the federal jurisdiction

cd ohio said:
armwood, obsolete really any of the others obsolete?

The reason some legal scholars argue that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete is because its intended purpose no longer exists. We have state police forces which did not exist at the time of the nations founding and we have the national guard. All of these organizations are armed out of public funds. Therefore the original purpose of the amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” no longer exists. Many reasonable people disagree with this position.

I think that guns are a menace to society. We have a higher percentage of gun crimes here in America than any other developed country. Travel overseas. Wherever you will go one of the first questions you will hear and have to answer is why does America allow its citizens to have guns so easily. It is easier in America to get a gun, a weapon intended to kill, than to get a drivers license. Does this make sense? I think not. Ask anyone who like myself has lived, traveled or worked overseas. This is such a common question that one gets tired of responding to it.

armwood said:
I did not go to community college and obviously you have studied neither political science or law.

And you obviously didn’t study English. I usually don’t point that out, but, being the mental giant that you are, this must have passed you by as you’re contemplating the world.

Then again, doesn’t virtually every discipline require a working knowledge of communications and language arts? Hmm.. If you didn’t pay attention in one course….

Mr.Papshmer said:
Okay, so armwood, just what are your education credentials? Normally, I wouldn’t ask and don’t care, but you’ve made a big deal out of how smart you are. Being the case, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind telling us your name, showing us your transcripts, and any post papers that are relevant.

No i haven’t . Credentials do not necessarily mean that your policy positions are well thought out. My credentials however should be obvious to anyone who has read my posts here today.

armwood said:
My credentials however should be obvious to anyone who has read my posts here today.

Hang on just a sec…

Hahahahahahahaaa!!! What a stupid asshole!!!!

Sorry, you were saying?

armwood said:
I think that guns are a menace to society.

i think YOU are the menace to society and our freedoms. die in a (slow burning) fire, asshole.

so armwood to maintain the security of a “free state” the national guard and state police force are going to fight the federal goverment ie powerful central government

and by the way i respect your beliefs about guns, but dont agree, but do respect it

cd ohio said:
federal bill of rights yes armwood, states could curtail those rights i know, but the federal goverment does make laws that curtail those rights in this day and age.

The traditional axis of conflict in America has been between liberty interests and equality interests. Conservatives are more concerned with liberty interests. Liberals place more weight on equality. I recommend that you read Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia” for the conservative view and Ronald Dworkin’s ‘Taking rights Seriously” for the liberal view.

My perspective is that conservatives refused to acknowledge the structural inequality inherent in American society. They pretend that America is a level playing field of opportunity. Every sociologically measurable indice indicates that this view is false. On the other hand liberals often fail to give enough weight to the values arguments stressed by conservatives.

Bill Clinton is an example of a liberal who infuriated conservatives by co-opting many of their policy positions. That was his concept he called being “a new Democrat”. Tony Blair followed hid lead in the U.K. I am a liberal but I am not doctrinaire. I respect conservatives with whom I often disagree. I have watched and read George Will for over twenty-five years on at least a weekly basis.

My biggest problem with conservatives is their tolerance for bigotry, like the Islamophobia gripping our nation and the ant-immigrant sentiment. I assume that I am much older than most of the posters on this site. I know what it feels like to be on the receiving side of bigotry and violence. It is not pleasant. so i am intolerant of bigotry of any kind. Whether is be racial, religious, sexual persuasion or ethnic. it disgusts me.

armwood, people dont hate you because your some minority. they hate you because youre an asshole. denile aint a river in egypt…

anti- illegal immigrant yes, but what about the other people waiting to get in the country , following the rule, process, and the other jump in line, so your bigotry, anti-immigrant is wrong, that is a talking point, bigotry is bad granted, people have the right to believe what they want. other the other hand violence on those thoughts is wrong

armwood said:
I recommend that you read Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”

Awesome. I figured you for a know it all college kid, and I was right. Seriously, be critical, and ask,”sources for the opposing view?” If they won’t oblige, ask why.

and armwood you might think i am a bigot because of this but this is my opinion, racist is labeled way too much, example i cant whitey is holding me down, which should be whitey watch me do it . ie wwii pilots, rosa parks, mlk, equality should be a given, but sometimes its not i know that, but respect is earned and nobody can take that from you

cd ohio said:
so armwood to maintain the security of a “free state” the national guard and state police force are going to fight the federal goverment ie powerful central government

Ah’ you fell into the trap. This is essentially the gun issue. Do you want to commit treason and overthrow the U.S. government? This is the real basis of the pro gun lobby. Even if this position was justified in our constitutional democracy do you really think it is possible? Overthrowing the U.S. government is an insane idea. Look what happened to the Weathermen and Black Panthers. I was in Houston bu happenstance in 1970 when the city police violent took out a group of Panthers and Weathermen who had occupied the Third Ward where by grandmother lived. They shot and killed 12 of them in one night. They were assassinated.

Study the history of revolutions in western culture. To create a revolution you need a disaffected group, plus an intransigent elite but some significant event to create even the beginning of revolutionary action. In our constitutional democracy the elites will not remain intransigent for long. The electoral process allows us to change leadership based on pressure from disaffected groups. This is like a steam release valve on a pressure cooker. As a result the system adopts and changes before the elites are viewed as totally intransigent by a significant portion of the population. Since the Civil War America has been able to change and adapt to social stress. Look how we adopted to the protests and demands for change prompted by de-jure and de-facto segregation. The system adapted and assimilated the positions of the disaffected African Americans. I will never forget watching President Johnson addressing the American people saying “and we shall overcome” adopting the anthem of the civil rights movement. It brought tears to my young eyes.

The belief that the 2nd Amendment protects you from an over bearing federal government is a naive and dangerous myth. Look at Waco. The government will squash you like an insect. We need gun control to insure our safety from criminals and nuts. This is the reality as i see it.

cd ohio said:
and armwood you might think i am a bigot because of this but this is my opinion, racist is labeled way too much, example i cant whitey is holding me down, which should be whitey watch me do it . ie wwii pilots, rosa parks, mlk, equality should be a given, but sometimes its not i know that, but respect is earned and nobody can take that from you

I do not disagree with you on this point at all. The goal is to overcome adversity. Most people experience some adversity in their lives. It’s not the cards we are given but how we play our hand. I think we agree.

cd ohio said:
anti- illegal immigrant yes, but what about the other people waiting to get in the country , following the rule, process, and the other jump in line, so your bigotry, anti-immigrant is wrong, that is a talking point, bigotry is bad granted, people have the right to believe what they want. other the other hand violence on those thoughts is wrong

The Angle adds and the recent Arizona statute which encourages racial profiling irritates me. In Texas a bigoted police officer stopped and deported to Mexico an American citizen who had a valid Texas I.D, If you are interested I will provide you with the cite. This type of thing is a natural and predictable outcome of this type of bigotry.

cd ohio said:
anti- illegal immigrant yes, but what about the other people waiting to get in the country , following the rule, process, and the other jump in line, so your bigotry, anti-immigrant is wrong, that is a talking point, bigotry is bad granted, people have the right to believe what they want. other the other hand violence on those thoughts is wrong

You can think of a more clever insult than that, can’t you….maybe not.

no, i understand your point, and yes that is the gun lobby point. no way that shit will happen here in this day and age ( i hope) but when you start declaring things obsolete, what other amendments could or would follow. I know liberty does not exist in a vaccum

and i’m sorry i called you a bigot, and a fool. when people can discuss issues and not just insults its cool

that wasn’t meant as a insult, either comment

Mr.Papshmer said:
And you obviously didn’t study English. I usually don’t point that out, but, being the mental giant that you are, this must have passed you by as you’re contemplating the world.

Then again, doesn’t virtually every discipline require a working knowledge of communications and language arts? Hmm.. If you didn’t pay attention in one course….

There is a difference be tween English skills and typing skills. I come from a generation where there were no typing or keyboard classes in school. I admit that my typing is horrible. I make a lot of mistakes and miss them but i think the meaning of my posts is clear, Unfortunately this WordPress based blog does not have an edit feature for posts. There really should be one. Many sites have this feature.

cd ohio said:
no, i understand your point, and yes that is the gun lobby point. no way that shit will happen here in this day and age ( i hope) but when you start declaring things obsolete, what other amendments could or would follow. I know liberty does not exist in a vaccum

That is the danger. I agree with your point. I do not want anyone tampering with the constitution. I was just playing devil’s advocate with my statement about the 2nd Amendment being obsolete. Leave it alone. I do not really want any amendment tampered with, not at all.

notsofast said:
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . .

John Adams

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States” 3:475 (1787-1788).

armwood said:
John Adams

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state,

Thanks for pointing out Adams was for personal ownership of guns.

He was, as were apparently all of the founding fathers. There was really no other reasonable position. There was no such thing as a police force nor was there a state militia with government supplied arms. The state militia was a on call militia, akin to a volunteer fore department except that you brought your own equipment. You had to bring your own gun.

fire I hate that i can’t type well!

Mr.Papshmer said:
No, but those traits are commonly associated with right wing politics by those on the left.

I usually refrain from providing links, because almost always they’re simply propaganda, but this one is a very good video explaining the political spectrum and American politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRQ76FYvw7M

Thats it??? This is where you get your education and your telling me about not going to school??

You’ve just proven to me you have “no” Idea what you are talking about.

No Government is not Right Wing, Its Anarchy! Look it up school boy! Jeeeez…

Jack Burns said:
Thats it??? This is where you get your education and your telling me about not going to school??

You’ve just proven to me you have “no” Idea what you are talking about.

No Government is not Right Wing, Its Anarchy! Look it up school boy! Jeeeez…

I do not need to look it up. You have not studied political science, Anarchists and/or Nihilists can come from either the extreme left or right. Both groups are in opposition to the state as an institution. Germany has tended historically been an incubator of these philosophies. Friedrich Nietzsche is often looked upon as a intellectual father of nihilism and he was a right winger. Anarchism has been often a term associated with the left but there have been extreme libertarians who have adopted an anarchist philosophy. I hate to tell you that I have know then stuff longer than you have lived.

armwood said:
I do not need to look it up. You have not studied political science, Anarchists and/or Nihilists can come from either the extreme left or right. Both groups are in opposition to the state as an institution. Germany has tended historically been an incubator of these philosophies. Friedrich Nietzsche is often looked upon as a intellectual father of nihilism and he was a right winger. Anarchism has been often a term associated with the left but there have been extreme libertarians who have adopted an anarchist philosophy. I hate to tell you that I have know then stuff longer than you have lived.

By the way, no government was the ultimate end of Karl Marx’s dialectical view of history. Simplistic notions of political philosophy demonstrate an immaturity of understanding. You cannot put political philosophies into nice neat boxes. You are really looking at a spectrum of ideas, a range of ideas and practices that have often been labeled after the fact as one thing or another. Let’s stop the childish insults and engage in an intelligent policy discussion. Trading insults becomes boring very quickly for me. How about you?

Jack Burns said:
Thats it??? This is where you get your education and your telling me about not going to school??

You’ve just proven to me you have “no” Idea what you are talking about.

No Government is not Right Wing, Its Anarchy! Look it up school boy! Jeeeez…

By the way who ever produced that video does not know what he is talking about. I posted earlier on the difference between the left and right. The producer of this video is taking an extremely distorted view of the “totalitarian model” which was developed in the 1950s. This is not an accepted mainstream view. You could not get a job teaching at a major university spouting that model. You could never successfully defend a dissertation in political science using that model. All i can say is take a political science class or talk to someone who has studied it on the graduate level. Call up the Poli Sci department at a university near you. Do not believe every video you see on YouTube. Look for peer reviewed sources for your information. This is not one.

armwood said:
I do not need to look it up. You have not studied political science, Anarchists and/or Nihilists can come from either the extreme left or right. Both groups are in opposition to the state as an institution. Germany has tended historically been an incubator of these philosophies. Friedrich Nietzsche is often looked upon as a intellectual father of nihilism and he was a right winger. Anarchism has been often a term associated with the left but there have been extreme libertarians who have adopted an anarchist philosophy. I hate to tell you that I have know then stuff longer than you have lived.

Anarchy

No rulership or enforced authority.

A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people.

Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere

Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission… The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this.

The left or the right Believe in squelching anarchy so they can keep their tyrannic rule.

Can’t get much simpler then that.

Libertarians are not Anarchist. We believe in limited Government (Not Small or no Government) We believe that Government works for and is controlled by We the people of these United States….

The only thing you have shown me are you and Mr.Papshmer wasted you tuition money on an poor education….

armwood said:
By the way who ever produced that video does not know what he is talking about. I posted earlier on the difference between the left and right. The producer of this video is taking an extremely distorted view of the “totalitarian model” which was developed in the 1950s. This is not an accepted mainstream view. You could not get a job teaching at a major university spouting that model. You could never successfully defend a dissertation in political science using that model. All i can say is take a political science class or talk to someone who has studied it on the graduate level. Call up the Poli Sci department at a university near you. Do not believe every video you see on YouTube. Look for peer reviewed sources for your information. This is not one.

No Shite!!! So why you giving me Grief! Mr. Mr.Papshmer is the one who posted that link and telling me about his great schooling.. Jeez…. What is it with you kids….

Jack Burns said:
Anarchy

No rulership or enforced authority.

A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people.

Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere

Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission… The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this.

The left or the right Believe in squelching anarchy so they can keep their tyrannic rule.

Can’t get much simpler then that.

Libertarians are not Anarchist. We believe in limited Government (Not Small or no Government) We believe that Government works for and is controlled by We the people of these United States….

The only thing you have shown me are you and Mr.Papshmer wasted you tuition money on an poor education….

You are looking at definitions on the internet which are gross oversimplifications. Anarchy is one view of the absence of government. Communism is another. If you have read Karl Marx you understand what I am talking about. You think you understand these concepts by reading simplistic definitions from the internet. If you are serious about this read some scholarly journals or texts on the subject. We may disagree but at least we will be both working from more than a superficial understanding of the topic.

Jack Burns said:
No Shite!!! So why you giving me Grief! Mr. Mr.Papshmer is the one who posted that link and telling me about his great schooling.. Jeez…. What is it with you kids….

Kids, how old are you. I have not been a kid since probably two or maybe three times your lifespan. You may be young but i am not. I am probably at least your parents age or maybe older. You should not make comments like that unless you are sure where you stand. It’s OK though. You didn’t know.

armwood said:
Kids, how old are you. I have not been a kid since probably two or maybe three times your lifespan. You may be young but i am not. I am probably at least your parents age or maybe older. You should not make comments like that unless you are sure where you stand. It’s OK though. You didn’t know.

I’m 59

Th

Jack Burns said:
I’m 59

Then we are a year apart. Hello fellow old timer. I am two months short of 58.

armwood said:
You are looking at definitions on the internet which are gross oversimplifications. Anarchy is one view of the absence of government. Communism is another..

Communism involves an absence of Government??? Tell me you misspoke. Otherwise I can clearly see I am just wasting my time arguing with an individual that has no concept of Government Rule. Be it Communist, Socialist, Capitalist or an Monarchy. All involve an proactive Government.

Have you ever studied Marxism and Karl Mark’s analysis of history? He predicted Communism would come after governments “withered away” Did the Soviet Union Ever call themselves a Communist state? Did China ever call itself a Communist state? The answer is no. They called themselves socialists states. What was the official name of the Soviet Union? The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. From an accurate academic perspective you cannot have a communist state. The very idea is a tautology, a self contradiction.

Jack Burns said:
Communism involves an absence of Government??? Tell me you misspoke. Otherwise I can clearly see I am just wasting my time arguing with an individual that has no concept of Government Rule. Be it Communist, Socialist, Capitalist or an Monarchy. All involve an proactive Government.

It is obvious that you never studied political science in college. You are confusing popular terms like communism which are used in the popular vernacular from their actual meaning. I do not mean to confuse you but you can easily verify the veracity of what I am seeing. There is nothing novel here.

Marx’s theory of history

The Marxist theory of historical materialism understands society as fundamentally determined by the material conditions at any given time – this means the relationships which people enter into with one another in order to fulfill their basic needs, for instance to feed and clothe themselves and their families. [1]. In general Marx and Engels identified five successive stages of the development of these material conditions in Western Europe.[2]

Private Property

To understand Marx’s theory one must first understand the Marxist concept of private property. “Private property” in the terminology of Marx’s time, for Marx himself, and for Marxists today, does not mean the simple possessions of a person, but the ownership of productive property or property which produces a profit for the owner, such as corporate ownership, share ownership, land ownership, and, in the case of slave society, slave ownership, since the slaves worked the land, mines and other means of producing the material means of existence.
[edit]The stages of history

Marx saw that each stage or epoch created a new class or invention that would lead to its downfall. However the downfall would not be an automatically negative event, since with each step humanity at large would benefit. Each passing stage would therefore raise the standard of living of the masses while at the same time be doomed to its own downfall because of internal contradictions and class conflicts.
Only the last two epochs are spared from this fate. With socialism the final oppressive class is overthrown and society is put under the tyranny of the majority and thus advances into communism.
The first three stages are not given particular attention, since by Marx’s time they had long come to pass. As such, he does not provide the principles of these stages as he does for capitalism and the stages that follow. However these epochs have common characteristics nonetheless.
[edit]Primitive Communism
The First Stage: is usually called Primitive Communism. It has the following characteristics.
Shared property: there is no concept of ownership beyond individual possessions. All is shared by the tribe to ensure its survival.
Hunting and gathering: tribal societies have yet to develop large scale agriculture and so their survival is a daily struggle.
Proto-democracy: there is usually no concept of “leadership” yet. So tribes are led by the best warrior if there is war, the best diplomat if they have steady contact with other tribes and so forth.
The primitive communism stage most likely begins soon after the dawn of humanity itself, at the stage where fire is developed, and communal living therefore becomes more convenient. Primitive communist societies tend to be very small, consisting of a maximum of a few hundred members, with size being dependent upon the environment. In this stage humanity is no different from any other animal, in that it has not yet found ways to bend nature to its will.
This stage ends with the development of private property, especially with the development of large scale agriculture. This in turn produces productive property, such as cattle and slaves.
[edit]Slave Society
The Second Stage: may be called Slave Society, considered to be the beginning of “class society” where private property appears.
Class: here the idea of class appears. There is always a slave-owning ruling class and the slaves themselves.
Statism: the state develops during this stage as a tool for the slave-owners to use and control the slaves.
Agriculture: man learns to cultivate plants and animals on a large enough scale to support large populations.
Democracy and Authoritarianism: these opposites develop at the same stage. Democracy arises first with the development of the republican city-state, followed by the totalitarian empire.
Private Property: citizens now own more than personal property. Land ownership is especially important during a time of agricultural development.
The slave-owning class “own” the land and slaves, which are the main means of producing wealth, whilst the vast majority have very little or nothing. The propertyless included the slave class, slaves who work for no money, and in most cases women, who were also dispossessed during this period. From a Marxist perspective, slave society collapsed when it exhausted itself. The need to keep conquering more slaves created huge problems, such as maintaining the vast empire that resulted (i.e. The Roman Empire). It is ultimately the aristocracy born in this epoch that demolishes it and forces society to step onto the next stage.
[edit]Feudalism
The Third Stage: may be called Feudalism it appears after slave society collapses. This was most obvious during the European Dark Ages when society went from slavery to feudalism.
Aristocracy: the state is ruled by monarchs who inherit their positions, or at times marry or conquer their ways into leadership.
Theocracy: this is a time of largely religious rule. When there is only one religion in the land and its organizations affect all parts of daily life.
Hereditary classes: castes can sometimes form and one’s class is determined at birth with no form of advancement. This was the case with India.
Nation-state: nations are formed from the remnants of the fallen empires. Sometimes to rebuild themselves into empires once more. Such as England’s transition from a province to an empire.
During feudalism there are many classes such as kings, lords, and serfs, some little more than slaves. Most of these inherit their titles for good or ill. At the same time that societies must create all these new classes, trade with other nation-states increases rapidly. This catalyzes the creation of the merchant class.
Out of the merchants’ riches, a capitalist class emerges within this feudal society. However there are immediate conflicts with the aristocracy. The old feudal kings and lords cannot accept the new social changes the capitalists want for fear of destabilizing or reducing their power base, among various other reasons that are not all tied to power or money.
This proto-capitalist and capitalist classes are driven by the profit motive but are prevented from developing further profits by the nature of feudal society where, for instance, the serfs are tied to the land and cannot become industrial workers and wage earners. Marx says, Then begins an epoch of social revolution (the French Revolution of 1789, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, etc) since the social and political organization of feudal society (or the property relations of feudalism) is preventing the development of the capitalists’ productive forces. [3]
[edit]Capitalism
Marx pays special attention to this stage in human development. The bulk of his work is devoted to exploring the mechanisms of capitalism, which in western society classically arose “red in tooth and claw” from feudal society in a revolutionary movement.
Capitalism may be considered the Fourth Stage in the sequence. It appears after the bourgeois revolution when the capitalists (or their merchant predecessors) overthrow the feudal system. Capitalism is categorized by the following:
Free Market economy: in capitalism the entire economy is guided by market forces. Supporters of laissez faire economics argue that there should be little or no intervention from the government under capitalism. Marxists, however, such as Lenin in his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, argue that the capitalist government is a powerful instrument for the furtherance of capitalism and the capitalist nation-state, particularly in the conquest of markets abroad.
Private property: the means of production are no longer in the hands of the monarchy and its nobles, but rather they are controlled by the capitalists. The capitalists control the means of production through commercial enterprises (such as corporations) which aim to maximize profit.
Parliamentary democracy: the capitalists tend to govern through an elected centralized parliament or congress, rather than under an autocracy. Capitalist (bourgeois) democracy, although it may be extended to the whole population, does not necessarily lead to universal suffrage. Historically it has excluded (by force, segregation, legislation or other means) sections of the population such as women, slaves, ex-slaves, people of color or those on low income. The government acts on behalf of, and is controlled by, the capitalists through various methods.
Wages: in capitalism, workers are rewarded according to their contract with their employer. As a result of market forces, wages converge to an equilibrium at which workers are paid for precisely the value of their services. Insofar as there is competition in the market, it is impossible for long-term under-compensation (“exploitation”) of workers to exist, as workers are generally free to seek work elsewhere should they be dissatisfied with their employers. Moreover, all transactions in capitalism are mutually agreed upon; therefore, so long as each party has sufficient information and competition is present, neither party can be exploited. This does not include transactions pertaining to employment.
Warfare: capitalism spreads from the wealthiest countries to the poorest as capitalists seek to expand their influence and raise their profits. This is done directly through war, the threat of war, or the export of capital. The capitalist’s control over the state can thus play an essential part in the development of capitalism, to the extent the state directs the warfare or other foreign intervention.
Financial institutions: Banks and capital markets such as stock exchanges direct unused capital to where it is needed. They reduce barriers to entry in all markets, especially to the poor; it is in this way that banks dramatically improve class mobility.
Monopolistic tendencies: the natural, unrestrained market forces will create monopolies from the most successful commercial entities.
In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom, work for the capitalists for wages. The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez faire practices around the world. In the capitalist-controlled parliament laws are made to protect wealth.
But, according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings – inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall. The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the “grave digger” of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces. The rest is surplus value – the capitalist’s profit, which Marx calls the “unpaid labour of the working class.” The capitalists are forced by competition to attempt to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates conflict between the classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class. The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class.
In the view of classical Marxism, the struggles of the working class against the attacks of the capitalist class lead the working class to establish its own collective control over production – the basis of socialist society. Marx believed that capitalism always leads to monopolies and leads the people to poverty; yet the fewer the restrictions on the free market, (e.g. from the state and trade unions) the sooner it finds itself in crisis. Marx is rather vague in his explanation of how the working class will come to consciousness, however is elaborated upon by later authors such as Lin Biao, who posits in his Long Live the Victory of the People’s War that they must be driven into harsh conditions for them to realise class consciousness – but also argues that this is not possible in the first world, and thus the third world is the only source of genuine revolution.
[edit]Socialism
After the working class gains class consciousness and mounts a revolution against the capitalists, socialism, which may be considered the Fifth Stage, will be attained, if the workers are successful.
Lenin divided communism, the period following the overthrow of capitalism, into two stages: first socialism, and then later, once the last vestiges of the old capitalist ways have withered away, stateless communism or pure communism.[4] Lenin based his 1917 work, The State and Revolution, on a thorough study of the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx uses the terms the “first phase” of communism and the “higher phase” of communism, but Lenin points to later remarks of Engels which suggest that what people commonly think of as socialism equates to Marx’s “first phase” of communism.
Socialism may be categorized by the following:
Decentralized planned economy: without the market, production will be directed by the workers themselves through communes or workers’ elected councils.
Common property: the means of production are taken from the hands of a few capitalists and put in the hands of the workers. This translates into the democratic communes controlling the means of production.
Council democracy: Marx, basing himself on a thorough study of Paris Commune, believed that the workers would govern themselves though system of communes. He called this the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, overthrowing the dictatorship (governance) of capital, would democratically plan production and the resources of the planet.
Labor vouchers: Marx explained that, since socialism emerges from capitalism, it would be “stamped with its birthmarks”. Economically this translates into the individual worker being awarded according to the amount of labor he contributes to society. Each worker would be given a certificate verifying his contribution which he could then exchange for goods.
Marx explains that socialist society, having risen from a self conscious movement of the vast majority, makes such a society one of the vast majority governing over their own lives:
“ The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. [5] ”
Now the productive forces are truly free to develop, but in a democratically planned way, without the vast waste of anarchic capitalist society, its wars and destruction of the planet. One of the primary tasks of the workers in the socialist society, after placing the means of production into collective ownership, is to destroy the “old state machinery.” Hence the bourgeoisie’s parliamentary democracy ceases to exist, and fiat and credit money are abolished. In Marx’s view, instead of a dictatorship of capital, in which rulers are elected only once every few years at best, the state is ruled through the dictatorship of the proletariat with the democratically elected workers’ commune to replace the parliament:
“ The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class…. The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen’s wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves…. Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests…. The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence… they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable.[6] ”
The commune, in Marx and Engels’ view, modeled after the Paris Commune, has a completely different political character from the parliament. Marx explains that it holds legislative-executive power and is subservient only to the workers themselves:
“ The Commune, was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time…Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business. [6] ”
Marx explained that, since socialism, the first stage of communism, would be “in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”, each worker would naturally expect to be awarded according to the amount of labor he contributes, despite the fact that each worker’s ability and family circumstances would differ, so that the results would still be unequal at this stage, although fully supported by social provision.
Fiat money and credit whose values were determined by anarchic market forces are abolished. Instead, in his Critique of the Gotha programme, Marx speculated schematically that from the “total social product” there would be deductions for the requirements of production and “the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc” which latter deduction “grows in proportion as the new society develops”, and, of course, deductions “for those unable to work, etc”. After these deductions the workers could divide up the wealth produced by their labor and everyone could be simply given a “certificate from society”, which could then be exchanged for products. This schematically introduces a means of exchange (“the same principle” i.e. money) in socialist society but with the speculative element removed.
In this way, each worker is paid according to the amount of labor contributed to society, in other words according to the agreed difficulty, length of time, and intensity of his labor. All goods (such, for instance, as housing) are priced in a greater degree according the amount of labor required to produce them, which the individual worker can buy with his labor voucher.
“ What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form. [7]
”
Only if this new socialist society manages to end the destructiveness of capitalism and leads to a higher quality of life for all will socialist society be successful. As socialism raises everyone’s quality of life above the precarious existence they knew hitherto, providing decent health care, housing, child care, and other social provision for all without exception, the new socialist society begins to break down the old inevitably pecuniary habits, the need for a state apparatus will wither away, and the communist organization of society will begin to emerge. Socialism, in the view of Marxists, will succeed in raising the quality of life for all by ending the destructive contradictions which arise in capitalism through conflicts between competing capitalists and competing capitalist nations, and ending the need for imperialist conquest for the possession of commodities and markets.
[edit]Communism
Some time after socialism is established society leaps forward, and everyone has plenty of personal possessions, but no one can exploit another person for private gain through the ownership of vast monopolies, and so forth. Classes are thus abolished, and class society ended. Communism will have spread across the world and be worldwide. Eventually the state will “wither away” and become obsolete, as people administer their own lives without the need for governments or laws. Thus, stateless communism or pure communism, which may be considered the Sixth Stage, is established, which has the following features:
Statelessness: there are no governments, laws, or nations any more.
Classlessness: all social classes disappear, everyone works for everyone else.
Propertylessness: there is no money or private property, all goods are free to be consumed by anyone that needs them.

In The Communist Manifesto Marx describes communism as:
“ When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. [5] ”
Few applications of historical materialism, the philosophical system used by Marxism to explain the past progressions of human society and predict the nature of communism, account for a stage beyond communism, but Marx suggests that what has ended is only the “prehistory” [8] of human society; now, for the first time, humankind will be no longer be at the mercy of productive forces (e.g. the free market) which act independently of their control. Instead human beings can plan for the needs of society, inclusively, democratically, by the vast majority, who now own and control the means of production collectively. By implication, then, only now does the real history of human society begin.
[edit]

This was obviously a pre-Freud philosophy which totally misconstrued human psychology and motivation as well as the growth of bureaucracy as well as the rise of the middle class, He failed to understand the human capacity to adapt and evolve.

timzank said:
Anybody else out there believe gibbersome is a Harvard grad making $1.5mil a year at Goldman and has the time and inclination to make comments on this blog on a Saturday morning?

Hell No

armwood said:
We need gun control to insure our safety from criminals and nuts

How dare you put me and my family more at risk by advocating more gun control. We already have laws against criminals and nuts from obtaining guns, but just like illegal immigration laws, they are not enforced.

What am I supposed to protect my family with if gun wielding thugs invade my home- a hammer? a golf club?

The first thing a gun control nut thinks about when they’re being robbed is – I wish I had a gun.

because we dont live in a vaccum, peoples faults will alway intrude

SmartAlec said:

In reality have you ever been robbed? Most guns end up being used in the heat of passion to injure relatives and friends,

Maher needs to get his facts straight. This really is a moronic story (and on the day that I’m reading from the UK about the “rally to restore sanity”!

Around 7,000 babies were given the name Mohammed (or a variant of it) in the UK last year.

700,000 babies were born.

1 percent of British babies were named Mohammed.

Islam is taking over the UK?

szamko said:
Maher needs to get his facts straight. This really is a moronic story (and on the day that I’m reading from the UK about the “rally to restore sanity”!

Around 7,000 babies were given the name Mohammed (or a variant of it) in the UK last year.

700,000 babies were born.

1 percent of British babies were named Mohammed.

Islam is taking over the UK?

Mohammed is most popular name for baby boys in London (Telegraph.Co.UK
The Islamic name overtook traditional choices like Jack, Thomas and Daniel to become the number one name in the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the North West, as well as in the capital, in 2008.
The figures emerged in a detailed regional breakdown of figures published last week by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

It is the first time that the Muslim name has been shown to the top choice for parents in any part of the UK. In previous years no regional figures were disclosed, only nationwide totals.
When various spellings of the Islamic prophet are added together – including Muhammad, Mohammad, Mohamed and Muhammed – the name is now more than twice as popular in London as the capital’s second-ranked boys name, Daniel. There were 1,828 baby boys given the name Mohammed, including varients, in 2008, compared with only 844 who were called Daniel.
London is not the first European capital to see Mohammed become the number one name for baby boys. In Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo the name has already gained the top slot.
The way in which the true figures emerged, days after the official publication, will fuel claims that Government statisticians tried to play down the increasing popularity of the Muslim name. The official announcement by the ONS, which does not take varient spellings into account, states that Mohammed was only the third most popular name in London.
In the West Midlands, 1,399 baby boys were given the name Mohammed last year, including varient spellings, almost twice as many as the next most popular name, Jack, with 768.
In the North West 1,337 boys were named Mohammed, including varients, beating Jack into second place with 1,154. And in Yorkshire and the Humber there were 1,255 babies registered with the name Mohammed, including varients, with Jack again second with 854.
Throughout England and Wales Mohammed, including its varient spellings, was the third most popular name, with 6,591 newborns given the religious name, behind Jack with 8,007 and Oliver with 7,413.
Nationwide the most popular name for baby girls was Olivia, with 5,317 given the name, followed by 4,924 named Ruby and 4,874 called Emily.
In recent years the ONS has refused to divulge regional lists of popular baby names. It is likely that Mohammed has been the most popular choice in the capital for a number of years already, but it has never been demonstrated conclusively until now.
Experts believe that internationally around 15 million people are called Mohammed, making it the most popular male name in the world.
Murtaza Shibli of the Muslim Council of Britain said he was not surprised to find Mohammed had become the most popular boys name in parts of the country.
“People choose it because of their love of the prophet Mohammed, and they believe the name will bring happiness and abundance,” he said.
“Also because of its meaning – the praised one. Also there is a belief that if you do name your children Mohammed they will follow the good example of the prophet.
“There are so many spellings because it is an Arabic name and there are different ways of translating it into English.”
Other ONS data from its July to September 2008 Labour Force Survey shows the Muslim population is growing 10 times faster than the rest of the population. Last year more than 2.4 million people identified themselves as Muslims, according to the survey’s findings, up more than 500,000 in four years. In the same period the number of Christians fell by more than 2 million, to 42.6 million.

The Guardian.Co,UK

The importance of being Mohammed
Mohammed – all variants combined – beat Oliver as Britain’s most popular baby boy’s name in 2009. What does that tell us?

He’s commonly nicknamed Mo in Britain, Momo in France, and Moha in Spain: “Muhammad” is de facto as European a name as Jack and Oliver. According to unmistakably alarmist reports, the name has been steadily rising in the rankings of most common names for newborn males in Britain, ultimately surpassing Oliver as the nation’s most popular baby name for 2009.

Actually, “Mohammed” – the most common spelling of the name – is ranked in 16th position but it rises to the top if the 3,300 babies named Mohammed last year are lumped together with alternative spellings: 2,162 Muhammads, 1,073 Mohammads and 980 called Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed or Mohammod.

Whether in Europe or in Muslim-majority countries, Mohamed (allow me to display my personal spelling bias here) is by far the most common Muslim male name of all, across linguistic groups and social classes. From the king of Morocco (Mohammed VI) to Bangladeshi Nobel peace prize winner Muhammad Yunus, via the current and former Egyptian presidents (Muhammad Hosni Mubarak and Muhammad Anwar El Sadat) as well as six members of the Egyptian national football squad (along with seven Ahmeds – another name derived from the same Arabic root), the popularity of the name is unequalled globally. That it consistently ranks among the most popular names in Britain is, therefore, far from surprising.

In every Muslim family there is probably at least one. In fact, looking at my own family, three of my first cousins are Mohameds. Even less creatively, there are probably five people in my extended paternal family with whom I share my full name, including my uncle, whose business cards I used to “borrow” as a child and hand out to friends as my own. Having an extremely common name comes in handy sometimes.

Many parents will explain their choice of the name by referring to a saying attributed – probably wrongly – to the prophet Muhammad: “The best names are those based on h-m-d and a-b-d.” The root h-m-d, in Arabic, means “praise” or “gratitude” (to God), and is the basis for such names as Mohamed, Ahmed, or Hamed; a-b-d signifies “worship” and is the prefix of Abdullah, among many other names.

Use of the name, though, does not necessarily evoke thoughts of early Islamic history any more than Christopher or a Christina evokes JC on a crucifix. Simplistic as this may sound, it is important to keep in mind as we read some of the comments on the latest statistics.

Beyond the general popularity of the name, another consideration for Muslim parents in the west – including my own – is that less common but otherwise equally traditional names might contain Arabic, Urdu/Hindi or Farsi characters and sounds that are more difficult to pronounce by the community they live within, and the people the child would interact with. Consequently, the familiar-sounding Mohamed may also be a choice of facility.

Compare the latest statistics with the popularity of the name Mary, for instance. Mary, another religious name, has consistently been the favourite choice for baby girls in some parts of the world – and this isn’t limited to Christians. In 2009, Maryam (the Arabic and Farsi equivalent of Mary) was the most popular baby girl’s name in Iran.

The popularity of Mary has evolved over time: US statistics for the past 100 years show it has topped the charts 46 times – more than any other name – but not since 1961. Is it possible that Mohamed could eventually follow the same downward trend, particularly in the European context? I believe it is.

As for the ranking and what it means … not much. It merely reflects the overwhelming popularity of a particular name within a sub-section of the British population.

Also, the rise of one name in the rankings does not necessarily reflect an absolute rise in numbers but may reflect a relative loss of popularity by other frontrunners. That seems indeed to be the case here: 8,007 Jacks and 7,413 Olivers were born in 2008, as opposed to 7,090 Jacks and 7,364 Olivers in 2009. Thus, Oliver overtook Jack at the top in 2009, despite a drop in total numbers.

But perhaps more surprisingly, fewer baby Mohammeds were born in 2009 (3,300) than in 2008 (3,423). Is the popularity of the name already in decline? Conclusion: don’t take rankings at face value. But to all the discussion about what name ranks first, I am tempted to paraphrase William (ranked eighth) Shakespeare:

What’s in a name? That which we call a child

By any other name would smell as sweet.

armwood said:
Have you ever studied Marxism and Karl Mark’s analysis of history? He predicted Communism would come after governments “withered away” Did the Soviet Union Ever call themselves a Communist state? Did China ever call itself a Communist state? The answer is no. They called themselves socialists states. What was the official name of the Soviet Union? The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. From an accurate academic perspective you cannot have a communist state. The very idea is a tautology, a self contradiction.

What was the Soviet ruling party called? Here’s a hint. What is the ruling party in China called? Here’s a hint. And here’s your sign.

armwood said:
In Texas a bigoted police officer stopped and deported to Mexico an American citizen who had a valid Texas I.D, If you are interested I will provide you with the cite.

I’d like to see that, since deportation is a federal matter not a state matter. I’d like to see how a Texas cop deported an American citizen.

Pablo said:
I’d like to see that, since deportation is a federal matter not a state matter. I’d like to see how a Texas cop deported an American citizen.

MSNBC 9-16-10

Wrongfully deported American home after 3 month fight
U.S. birth certificate wasn’t enough to persuade border authorities

A Texas-born U.S. citizen who was detained, questioned and deported to Matamoros, Mexico, in the middle of the night has been allowed to re-enter the United States, ending a nearly three-month ordeal.
Luis Alberto Delgado, 19, was carrying his American birth certificate, Social Security card and Texas ID when he was pulled over in a routine traffic stop on June 17, according to Houston immigration lawyer Isaias Torres, who represented him in his legal battle for repatriation.

A South Texas sheriff’s deputy who apparently believed the documents were not authentic handed Delgado over to U.S. border agents. After eight hours of questioning, Torres said, Delgado felt pressured to sign a document agreeing to voluntary removal from the country and waiving his right to a lawyer. The Border Patrol then drove Delgado to Matamoros and left him, he said.
He was finally able to return home over the weekend, Torres said.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection service said it could not comment specifically on Delgado’s case. But in a statement it said, “When an individual requests and is granted a voluntary return, they sign a notice of rights where they are admitting to being in the U.S. illegally and give up their right to a hearing in Immigration Court.”
Delgado was born in Houston, but spent much of his childhood in Mexico with his mother after she divorced his father and returned to her native land. Delgado, who speaks remedial English, did not speak to msnbc.com for this story. But Spanish-language newspapers have quoted him as saying that he believes he was discriminated against because of his poor language skills.
More U.S. news
Yemeni lawyer: Female suspect being set up
The lawyer representing a Yemeni woman arrested Saturday over suspicions she was involved in sending explosive packages to the U.S. said Sunday that she was being set up. Full story
Dems blast GOP ‘front groups,’ but use them too
Jury weighing Gitmo ‘child soldier’ sentence
NYT: Battle for Senate down to last few days
Stewart-Colbert rally draws tens of thousands
According to Torres, Delgado and his brother, 21, were pulled over by the deputy in Elsa, Texas, about 15 miles north of the border, purportedly for a seatbelt violation. When they were turned over to the border agents, Delgado’s brother was released, apparently because he had additional documentation — registration for Selective Service and a receipt for a U.S. Passport application, he said.
But Delgado was questioned from about 4 p.m. until around midnight, when he agreed to sign the waiver in the mistaken belief that he would be able to return to the border city of Brownsville to solve the misunderstanding, Torres said.
“They kept saying, ‘These are not your documents. You’re lying to us. You’re going to go prison for 20 years’,” Torres said. “They basically wore him down. He’s a 19-year-old kid.”
While staying with cousins in a town near the border, Delgado tried to plead his case. When he was unsuccessful, his brother located immigration lawyer Torres, who took the case pro bono.
His mother traveled 600 miles from her home in Michoacan, Mexico, to be interviewed in support of her son, according to the Houston Chronicle, which first reported Delgado’s story on Monday.

Torres said Delgado’s case is unusual because he had proper documentation with him.
“I’ve had residents who were deported because they didn’t have their green cards (on them), but not a U.S. citizen,” Torres said. “This was basically a language thing. They thought he was lying because he doesn’t speak English well.”
But he said he anticipates this kind of situation will become more common because many U.S.-born kids are now being raised in Mexico.
“A lot of these kids born here are getting raised over there because their parents have been deported or they left because of the economy or whatever,” said Torres.
Delgado is planning to file a tort claim for negligence on the part of the federal officials, Torres said, but in the meantime he’s looking for work.
He lost his construction job when he disappeared suddenly, Torres said, adding that several people have e-mailed him offering jobs to Delgado since his story appeared in the Chronicle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39180275/ns/us_news-immigration_a_nation_divided/#

Pablo said:
What was the Soviet ruling party called? Here’s a hint. What is the ruling party in China called? Here’s a hint. And here’s your sign.

You either do not understand the issue we were discussing pr you are intentionally trying to change the topic. The issue was can there be in Marxist terms a communist government. The answer is clearly no. No one was talking about a communist party. Let’s be intellectually honest here. Don’t try to score shot by taking a cheap shot which is not even part of the issue discussed. I made that comment explaining actually what the term communism means which is a part of Marx’s view of history. It is the last stage in which the state has “withered away”. Obviously you have not studied this so why not do some homework and then comment.

Pablo said:
I’d like to see that, since deportation is a federal matter not a state matter. I’d like to see how a Texas cop deported an American citizen.

Houston native wrongly deported for 85 days
Immigration attorney says client is considering lawsuit
By SUSAN CARROLL
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Sept. 13, 2010, 11:40PM

Nearly three months after U.S. immigration officials dumped Luis Alberto Delgado in Mexico despite his insistence that he is a U.S. citizen, the 19-year-old was permitted to re-enter the country last weekend with the U.S. government’s blessing.
Delgado said U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents cleared him to return to the United States on Friday, roughly 85 days after he was detained by immigration officials and pressured to sign papers that cleared the way for his removal to Mexico.
Steven Cribby, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, declined to comment on Delgado’s case.
On Monday in Houston, Delgado said he was pondering a lawsuit against the U.S. government, calling his case “an injustice.”
U.S. Border Patrol agents detained Delgado after a traffic stop in South Texas on June 17 and held him for eight hours, questioning him about his citizenship.
Delgado said he gave immigration agents a copy of his birth certificate showing he was born at Houston’s Ben Taub Hospital, a state of Texas identification card and a Social Security card.
Lack of fluency
But Delgado, who was raised in Mexico after his parents divorced, said immigration agents were suspicious of him because he did not speak English well, and insisted the paperwork he carried belonged to someone else.
Delgado said he eventually signed paperwork that resulted in his removal to Mexico because he wanted to be released from immigration custody, and thought he could fight his case from Houston.
“I believe (the agents) discriminated against me because I didn’t speak English,” he said. “If you don’t speak very well, I think they just assume you’re Mexican.”
Isaias Torres, a Houston immigration attorney who took Delgado’s case pro bono, said he believes the U.S. government was “at best, very negligent” in its handling of the case.
U.S. immigration officials have faced scrutiny in recent years over allegations that they have deported U.S. citizens, including a high-profile case of a mentally disabled Los Angeles man who was lost for months in Mexico in 2007.
Estimates of the number of U.S. citizens deported from the U.S. vary widely, and such statistics are not officially tracked by U.S. immigration officials, who recently adopted guidelines designed to prevent such deportations.
Torres said the government should not tolerate discrimination against U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who do not speak English fluently.
“I don’t believe this is an isolated incident,” Torres said.
He said such cases will become increasingly common because the U.S. government is deporting parents with U.S.-born children. Between 1998 and 2007, the United States removed 108,434 illegal immigrants with U.S. citizen children, according to a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report.
Delgado said he does not speak English well because he and his brother moved to Mexico with their mother after she divorced their father, who lived in Dallas. Delgado moved back to Houston about three years ago.
“This is not an anchor baby,” Torres said. “He was born here and his mother moved back to Mexico.”
Mother interviewed
Torres said he decided not to file a formal lawsuit after Delgado was removed in June because he was concerned that it would slow down the case. Instead, Torres and attorney Lionel Perez worked with U.S. officials to resolve the case administratively.
Delgado’s mother, who lives in Michoacan, Mexico, came up to the border on Thursday for an interview with U.S. immigration officials and provided them with extra paperwork, including a copy of her own Mexican birth certificate.
Job is lost
Delgado said immigration officials told him Friday that he was cleared to return to the United States.
The next day, he packed up his clothes at his cousin’s home in Reynosa and crossed the border through the Hidalgo port of entry.
He arrived at the Houston apartment he shares with his brother to learn that his construction job is gone, he said.
Now Delgado is searching for work, he said, and hoping to take classes to improve his English.
susan.carroll@chron.com
___________________________
Pablo, obviously the federal immigration authorities carry out the actual deportation but the illegal arrest, an arrest made without probable cause and purposeful ignoring of his identification was done by the bigoted Texas deputy sheriff. He will be sued along with the State of Texas and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. All three are legally responsible for the deportation.

sarainLaLaLand says:
“CNN SHOCK INTERVIEW: RADICAL MUSLIM CLERIC DESCRIBES VIOLENT ISLAMIC VISION”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-radical-muslim-cleric-describes-islam-for-cnn/

I knew Beck’s twisted version of “news” wouldn’t be straight telling of this interview, and I was right. Throwing in that piece from Obama’s speech at the end was gratuitous and completely unrelated.

Beck is to news what violence is the peace (the opposite).

Sara, all of your URLs that I have chased down come from the fictional world of extremist perspectives on the far, far right. You live in, your understanding of the world, is an alternative from the real world.

What Spitzer said to him was right on: this reactionary Muslim should be jailed for his actions. What the right seems to miss is that liberals are as concerned about Islamic jihad as anyone else. Liberals are just not going to join a chorus of paranoia and mix all Muslims into the same bowl.

After all, this is the same man who got his previous show Politically Incorrect cancelled when he asserted that the 9/11 attackers were “not cowardly.”

Wrong. The last episode of Politically Incorrect was in June 2002. That’s 9 months. That’s longer than Conan O’Brien’s entire run on The Tonight Show.

In Texas a bigoted police officer stopped and deported to Mexico an American citizen who had a valid Texas I.D, If you are interested I will provide you with the cite.

The proof of this?

Nearly three months after U.S. immigration officials dumped Luis Alberto Delgado in Mexico…

And it’s me that doesn’t understand? No, armwood. You may have read a lot, but you don’t seem to process information well.

He will be sued along with the State of Texas and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. All three are legally responsible for the deportation.

Let me know how that works out. They’d better make sure the jury doesn’t read this:

U.S. Border Patrol agents detained Delgado after a traffic stop in South Texas on June 17 and held him for eight hours, questioning him about his citizenship.

You’re not very good at this, armwood.

armwood said:
You either do not understand the issue we were discussing pr you are intentionally trying to change the topic. The issue was can there be in Marxist terms a communist government. The answer is clearly no. No one was talking about a communist party. Let’s be intellectually honest here. Don’t try to score shot by taking a cheap shot which is not even part of the issue discussed. I made that comment explaining actually what the term communism means which is a part of Marx’s view of history. It is the last stage in which the state has “withered away”. Obviously you have not studied this so why not do some homework and then comment.

That’s just dumb and not worth rebutting.

pakatak said:
Admittedly I was over-generalizing with that statement, but I was referring to the general Right-wing stance on social issues like Abortion or Gay Marriage. I think it’s ironic since it makes them fall in line more with the social laws of Islam… if Republicans really wanted to stick it to the Muslims, they should be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. :D That said, there was nothing else in my post you wanted to discuss, Pablo?

Islam is against gay marriage and abortion by penalty of death!

Pablo said:
The proof of this?

And it’s me that doesn’t understand? No, armwood. You may have read a lot, but you don’t seem to process information well.

Let me know how that works out. They’d better make sure the jury doesn’t read this:

You’re not very good at this, armwood.

Obviously you know nothing about law. If you had studied law you might not make the foolish statements you made. It is irrelevant why he was stopped. You do not understand evidence rules. This is a very good case.

Pablo said:
That’s just dumb and not worth rebutting.

It’s dumb because the subject matter is beyond your understanding. If you would not be so lazy and study a little more you might find out that it is you who is ignorant but not necessarily dumb. You might want to find out the difference between the two words. You are operation on emotion without a theoretical understanding of the topic. That is why you resort to name calling and not attempting to rebut my points. That is an intellectual dishonest approach. If you don’t understand something call it dumb. Stop being so lazy. Learn something Pablo. You might like knowing more. It’s good for ones self esteem.

How does this weasel get away with saying something like this? Oh yeah, he’s an America-hating, socialist loving liberal. No problems then.

hillrom said:
How does this weasel get away with saying something like this? Oh yeah, he’s an America-hating, socialist loving liberal. No problems then.

I love America and have contributed to making it a better place. Your rhetoric and childish name calling demonstrates that you do not the positive spirit required for such an undertaking. You have apparently a sense of entitlement which allows you to think it is alright to simply label pople instead of intelligently dealing with issues they raise. Or maybe it is simply because you do not have the intellect, discipline or determination for such a task. It takes more than the lazy childish route of a schoolyard punk calling others names when he doesn’t understand what they are saying. Grow up Hillrom!

Hoover is absolutely correct in stating that Sharia has been given some ability to act as a parallel legal system in Great Britain. The conservative press has covered this relatively well. Frankly, I’m concerned, although not surprised, that Maher, had no idea that this was true. I’ve known about this for more than one year. The problem seems to be continuing unabated, as GB seeks to appease, rather than asserting its own unique identity, and insisting that citizens adopt British mores, or move elsewhere.

Of course, Maher is right, like a broken clock that is right twice a day. This means that there is hope, once liberals see gays stoned to death, or women wearing revealing garments accused of various violations of Sharia, they will extremely slowly, come to a realization that their unquestioning support of Islam is a mistake. True there are many within Islam who would rather be peaceful, and would not wish to promote traditionalism or Sharia. Unfortunately, those individuals do not seem influential in this religion. We need to remember that Islam does not distinguish between religious and political doctrine.

Bill Maher overslept again.

Make a new pot. Arabian.

gibbersome said:
Proud of Bill Maher for saying that all Muslims are evil? You’re about as pathetic as he is. Bill Maher’s comment was as prejudicial as it comes. Just because someone’s name is Mohammad does not mean they will grow up to be extremist or come from an extremist background. Bill Maher’s comment was racist because most people who are Muslim come from a certain part of the world. And if he believes he is only targeting the religion when he condones anti-Islam dialogue, he is lying to himself.

but i won’t look so good in a burqua…

armwood said:
I am not making an excuse for bill Maher. My point is that I believe ethnic or racial bigotry is much more invidious than a general questioning and fear of religion. Bill Maher does not like religion based upon his understanding of science. That is an intelligent position. Labeling all Muslims as terrorists and especially thinking someone dressed in muslim garb might be a terrorist is dumb. come on. Is a terrorist is a Muslim going to announce with his clothing”Hey look, I am a Muslim”. Did the abortion doctor terrorist where a huge cross announcing”I am a Christian”, Of course not. That type of bigotry is just plain dumb. Anyone who has lived in a large American city and interacted with a multicultural populations knows how ignorant these prejudices are. It simply an issue of exposure. Conservatives tend to lack wide exposure. They travel less and interact with people who are just like them. I have never met a conservative yet who when traveling to a non western country stays in the homes of natives of that country. This is the problem. When they do travel the recreate their own narrow experience overseas. They cannot handle being in a situation where no one speaks English. They are uncomfortable. This narrow type of experience limits there experiences and worldview.

mymymy,, so how is life in your ivory tower?? asshole.

justanotherconservative said:
mymymy,, so how is life in your ivory tower?? asshole.

Better than living in the gutter than someone crude and ignorant like you. I don’t want to catch your fleas.

Say what you want about Bill Maher, but he’s the most courageous atheist in any medium. Thank you very much Mr. Maher. I’m an atheist too and I wish all of my fellow atheists had the courage to stand up to Islam. There are those who applaud a pile of shit formed in the image of Jesus and call it art, yet if you say anything negative about Muslims these same people will cry and call you racist and intolerant. I have no real love for any religion but the only one I fear is Islam. I know of no Christians at this moment that want me dead just because I live in a free country.

Powerslave said:
Say what you want about Bill Maher, but he’s the most courageous atheist in any medium. Thank you very much Mr. Maher. I’m an atheist too and I wish all of my fellow atheists had the courage to stand up to Islam. There are those who applaud a pile of shit formed in the image of Jesus and call it art, yet if you say anything negative about Muslims these same people will cry and call you racist and intolerant. I have no real love for any religion but the only one I fear is Islam. I know of no Christians at this moment that want me dead just because I live in a free country.

I am a Christian but i fear narrow minded Christian fundamentalists more than I fear radical Islam. You ask me why? I do not fear that our society will become like those of Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. We shouldn’t paint all of Islam with a broad brush. Unlike most people on this board I have visited a Muslim country twice, Malaysia which is a multi-cultural society. I have seem Muslim men and women there in Muslim garb with their cell phones tinging with “Santa Clause is coming to town”. I am confident that American values are stronger and better than theocratic values. The real threat in America are fundamentalists like the Southern Baptists and other rabid right wingers. These are Americans who do not value the separation of church and state. The Southern Baptists are reformed segregationists and they still are homophobes. They are a far greater danger to american values.

notsofast said:
Why is that bigot Maher still on? Because libs love bigotry.

No we don’t, but Maher does tell some amusing dick jokes -which we do like.

*fingers crossed* Maher doesn’t bring back Reihan Salam to the show. He was so indignant he was actually shaking. He was angry and accusatory; It was uncomfortable to watch. In my humble opinion, he was a terrible guest. PS – Reihan Salam, if you read this…dude, seriously, if you want to make an impression except fear, shape your eye brows…you look like an evil cartoon character.

I’ll bet there are more Bills.
Maher’s show is great fun, but I’ve never liked his religious views, or lack of them to be more accurate.
Now we find out he’s a closet racist.
That’s a closet with a very loose door.
Come on Bill, you’re a pot-head, a liberal, and a comedian.
‘Racist’ should not be included in that resume’.