Ecofascist Disasters

[Libsmasher]

Errr....not quite.

According to Wikipedia on the history of "free speech zones":

The most prominent examples are those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.[3] While free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it has been during Bush's presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded.[4]​

As a wartime president during the worst assault on the american mainland since the War of 1812, by non-uniformed terrorist mass murderers, this is OBVIOUSLY nothing but prudent policy.

Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.

Note: in both those examples, it was a conservative administration clamping down on free speech.

You are completely not up to speed in this thread yet - those long-gone issues are small-change compared to the massive Pee See clampdown on free speech in american universities during the present time, all of it perpetrated by liberal administrators, liberal faculty, and various leftwing student fascisti.

Now, let's look at abortion protestors.

Uh, OK. Something tells me it'll be just as weak and confused.

According to this article:
High court to hear appeal from anti-abortion protesters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed today to use a long-running lawsuit over violence and harassment outside abortion clinics to clarify how an anti-racketeering law applies to all manner of demonstrations and civil disobedience.

The court said it would consider combined appeals from Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their business for 10 years.

Federal courts found that the anti-abortion protesters illegally blocked clinic entrances, menaced doctors, patients and clinic staff and destroyed equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit or stop abortions at several clinics. Since when has free speech meant the right to destroy property and threaten people?

The Supreme Court has already ruled in the same case that the National Organization for Women and abortion clinics could sue the anti-abortion protesters under RICO. The question now is whether the law was used correctly.

For example, the court will look at whether clinic blockades and violence amount to extortion under the law. It will also consider whether RICO allows private groups or individuals to ask for the kind of far-reaching ban on future conduct issued in this case.

A Chicago-based federal appeals court last year rejected arguments that the Operation Rescue protesters were merely exercising freedom of speech.

"Protesters trespassed on clinic property and blocked access to clinics with their bodies, including at times chaining themselves in the doorways of clinics or to operating tables," said a unanimous, three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Important note: "Ecofascists" who tresspassed and chained themselves to trees to prevent timbering were arrested. Their acts were not considered "free speech".

"At other times, protesters destroyed clinic property, including putting glue in clinic door locks and destroying medical equipment used to perform abortions. On still other occasions, protesters physically assaulted clinic staff and patients." Important note: "Ecofascists" who tresspassed and chained themselves to trees to prevent timbering were arrested for a crime. Their acts were not considered "free speech". ​

Entire article: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16112

I sense a powerful double standard in this free speech whining.

Must go, will address the rest of the blather later

The issue I raised is RICO - Can you try real hard to focus on that??

As to the outcome of the ten year fight with the NOW abortionists (from wiki)

NOW v. Scheidler, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a civil class-action lawsuit filed in the federal courts of the United States in 1986 by the National Organization for Women (NOW), representing the "class" of women seeking abortions, and various abortion clinics, representing the class of abortion providers. The suit was filed against Joseph Scheidler and other anti-abortion protestors and organizations which were members of the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), and was eventually consolidated with National Organization for Women et. al v. Operation Rescue. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on three separate occasions. In 2006 the Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Scheidler and PLAN.

The liberal fascist attempt to use RICO to shut down anti-abortion protest was turned down by the USSC, 9 - 0.

 

[Coyote]

As a wartime president during the worst assault on the american mainland since the War of 1812, by non-uniformed terrorist mass murderers, this is OBVIOUSLY nothing but prudent policy.

In other words, when it comes to protesting war - free speech should have limits. Right. There's a word for that ya know: hypocrisy.

You are completely not up to speed in this thread yet - those long-gone issues are small-change compared to the massive Pee See clampdown on free speech in american universities during the present time, all of it perpetrated by liberal administrators, liberal faculty, and various leftwing student fascisti.

Those long gone issues, as you put it - are not so long gone and entirely relevant today. They are also real, not twisted fabrications of paranoid rightwing persecution complexes.

Now, how about some concrete examples?

And, while you're at it Speedy - can you explain how it is that you regard destruction of property and assaults upon people as valid forms of free speech protected by the constitution? I'd like to hear more about that....

The issue I raised is RICO - Can you try real hard to focus on that??

You didn't read the article did you Speedy?

As to the outcome of the ten year fight with the NOW abortionists (from wiki)

The liberal fascist attempt to use RICO to shut down anti-abortion protest was turned down by the USSC, 9 - 0.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here Speedy, other then flinging around accusations of fascism.

The court found that RICO did not apply in this case, however it also found(according to Wiki) :

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal, though refused to consider free speech issues. In its 2003 decision, the court ruled that while the actions under consideration in the appeal might have been coercive, they were not extortive because the defendants did not "'obtain' property" from their victims (see National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393 (2003)). (The defendants did, however, according to the Court, interfere with the victims' ability to exercise their property rights.) Coercion is a less serious crime than extortion, and is not covered by RICO. The injunction was thus not supported by the RICO charges. The decision left open the question of whether the law generally entitled private parties to injuctive relief (as opposed to after-the-fact monetary damages) in RICO cases.​

What is more interesting however, is your feeling that property destruction and assault are valid forms of free speech (when it comes from a conservative side) but not when it comes from a liberal side. Also odd is the impression you give that assault and property damage are valid forms of free speech against abortion while peacefully protesting a war is not.

Interesting no?

 

[Andy]

Raising Cafe' Standards is way overdue. In Japan they boast an average of 45mpg. It's not that GM can't do it. It's that they can still sell without doing it so they're happy to sell what they already have. This is so obviously a case were regulation helps the consumer and the environment in the long run.

The types of cars in Japan that boast 45 MPG would never sell here. So that's pointless. People in America want bigger, more space, faster cars. Not wind-up toys.

BUZZ! Wrong answer. GM has not made money on small cars for many years. You may not know it, but GM has lost cash on every small car sold. It's a no-profit situation. The reason they keep selling them is to off set CAFE fines. Otherwise, GM and Ford both would have completely abandoned the small car market years ago. Why do you think both Ford and GM are in the red? Might be because they are not selling car they can make a profit on?

So the result is, the Chevy Aveo is made in South Korea. There the labor is cheap enough, they can afford to build it there and ship it here, and make money on the car. This is why Michigan is in a one state recession. Ultimately, this will drive more jobs overseas.

Come on dude... CVT transmissions... VVT variable valve timing... not to mention hybrid technology. You know there's tons of innovation that can greatly increase gas mileage. I have a Lexus that gets 20 city... 30 highway for Christ sake.

CVT does not increase gas milage. It's a marketing ploy. Out of the 3 industry research projects on them, all concluded a standard 4 speed with overdrive, will use less gas.

Hybrids are nice, but they don't save you money. The cost of hybrid technology is so expensive, that you will never actually save money. Now granted, you'll save a few gallons of oil, but never a penny. If you just compare a Honda Civic, to a Hybrid Honda Civic, it would take you 20 years to just break even. Chances are, if you keep the car seven years, you'll be lucky. Plus the first time you have an out-of-warranty repair, any possible savings is gone.

VVT, is also has less to do with saving gas, as it does with acceleration. Most average commuters will rarely ever push the pedal hard enough for VVT to even activate. It's use doesn't save gas, it's more for flooring it to pass someone.

I think that's the same thing they said about the Steal Bomber back in the 80's isn't it?
Oh that's right we've come a long way with strong light weight metals, carbon fiber, crumple zones, air bags. Funny how that Prius is up like 38% in sales last year, passed every test and gets great mileage. How does that happen I wonder?

I have no idea what the reference is to. Despite that, there are many strong light weight materials. Problem is, they are expensive. Air bags are fine, but useless if your car disintegrates around you. I have an 82 Buick Riviera. I was rear-ended by a Honda Civic. The entire front end of his car was smashed in, broke the radiator, messed up his hood. My chrome bumper still has no sign of the accident. Ever seen a Sentra wrap around a tree? There's nothing left. If you make it out alive, it's luck.

For the record, the Prius is a nice car, boring, but nice. I'll still save thousands over you by getting a Civic or similar car.

BTW, about your little tests. You should know that each class of car has it's own set of tests. As in, a Prius does not go through the same tests as a truck, SUV or Van (possibly even a full size sedan). In most cases a poorly rated truck, would still be better (safer), than the best rated passenger car.

I guess we're just the only country that can't pull it off... HUMMM?

I would have sworn that GM came out with a hybrid Yukon. Oh wait they did. Looked the same size as the old one... very strange.

No, we're the only country where people are so stupid, the companies can pull this off and get us to buy it.

Yukon Regular $34,600 MPG- 18 (20K miles / 18 MPG * $3.50/gal) $3,888/yr
Yukon Hybrid $50,000 MPG- 22 (20K miles /22 MPG * $3.50/gal) $3,181/yr
Difference in purchase price: $15,400. Difference is fuel cost: $707

So, let me get this straight... your brilliant strategy here is to spend an extra Fifteen Thousand, Four Hundred dollars.... in order to save seven hundred a year....? Right? This is a good idea? You realize it would take ($15,400 / $700) 22 years just to break even? Even at $4/gal it would still take 19.5 years just to break even. And Hondas and Toyotas are no better.

Yeah, Hybrid technology is great if you are an idiot with a lot of cash to blow. For the rest of us, buy a real car and save some money.

Ditto... I guess if you really really want to stay in vehicles that get 10-15 mpg with gas at $4.00 a gallon and up that's your choice. I have to say I think there's smarter decisions to make though.

Yeah, you can blow a ton of money to the auto company instead of the oil company. This is so sad that people actually are completely oblivious to how they are being manipulated. Between government and the companies.. you are convinced your saving money, while in fact losing it.

Farmers are business men. They try and do what makes them the most money. The farmers aren't the problem. As far as the windmills I can see you must be against any clean technology. If a windmill only generated enough power to supply that particular farm... or part of the farm. What a good thing. It doesn't have to light up New York City.

I know farmers are business men... Ted Turner makes millions on subsidies.

You have no clue about wind mills do you. I'm against that technology that does not work, but costs tons of money. Wind mills do not save a single ounce of Coal, a cubic foot of natural gas, or any Uranium. They do effectively, nothing... but cost us higher prices on our electric bill.

Come on get on the new technology green team a little. It'll be fine.

Show me something that actually works, and I'll join right up. Keep living in a fantasy fairy-tale land, and I'll pass.

 

[Andy]

Nope. Still would need to ship oil - a pipeline won't carry it everywhere and the oil in Alaska will only meet a fraction of our needs. Pipelines also run underwater and when they burst or leak, cause havoc equal to tankers.

Yummy.

Now I know one of us is messed up because I specifically remember how they were negotiating with Canada to run the pipe through their land... So I'll look that up later.

That is grossly inaccurate or perahps product of too much koolaid. The effects of Valdez are ongoing. Yes, there are bacteria that consume oil - but they are very limited and take a very very long time.

However, I'm sure it makes people feel better to subscribe to that belief rather than face reality because...well, facing reality woud mean facing the need to change wouldn't it? Much better to blame the ecofascists.

I notice an interesting trend here. Neocons love to apply fascist labels to those they don't like. You know, like Islamofascist, Ecofascist. Two important points emerge from this:

1. They haven't a clue what fascism is

and 2. Maybe we ought to start applying some labels here too to liven things up.

Any ideas?

I don't even know what a Neocon is. But as far as fascist, most liberals are in fact fascists. It's a fitting and deserved title. Fascism is support of a forced government control and dictation of society, often control of industry and commerce, and suppression of opposition. The hush Rush law was a liberal/fascist law. The McCain/Feingold was a Fascist/Liberal law. Government forced Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare/Social Security/HUD/Food Stamps, and the EPA... all are Fascist/Liberal, and ultimately Socialist policies.

Eco-Fascism, is simply the environmental movement, that originally had good reasons for their beginning, are now hijacked by fascists, bent on taking more government power, and controlling more of our lives from every direction possible under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

I have your two links saved, and I want to look up more on that later. Sorry but I am always suspicious of information from one source, and especially when that one source is government. Fascist typically get all their information from government, because... of course they support big brother government. I don't trust them, so I'm not take this from them alone.

 

[Andy]

Corn based ethanol is the problem. Using a food crop (and corn raised for ethonal even if it can not be utilized by animals for food - which I'm not at all sure of - is using acerage that would normally produce food) for ethanol is not the only way to make ethanol. It's an industry still in it's infancy and grasses and even trash are looked at as possible sources.

Everyone, particularly in the US jumped on corn.

Why?

Because corn is a powerful agricultural entity in the U.S. That's not a "liberal scam".

Yes and no. Other sources do exist, but the yield is far too low. The reason corn was chosen was because it's the best of the possible sources domestically available.

Ethanol from corn has a horrible enough yield, others are far worse. The only 'set up' from corn that I know of, is sugar cane... but last I checked the cost to grow sugar cain in the US would be even worse. That works in Brazil, but not here. So, better yield, but far worse cost.

BTW, I should have been more specific. The corn grown for Ethanol is livestock corn. Corn feed. It's not sweet corn that humans eat. So it is edible to animals... just you wouldn't buy it at the market. It's bland cow feed.

The reality is we have to start looking beyond petroleum to meet our energy needs and we have to diversify. We can sit on our asses in our SUV's pretending oil's going to keep on flowing or we can lay the groundwork for new technologies now before we have no choice (and no infrastructure in place) and it's much more expensive. Which option represents forthought?

I have no problem with new technology! I have no problem with companies like GM or Honda investing in whatever screwball idea they can find. I have no issue whatsoever with some university group developing whatever theory they have.

It's not like Ethanol is new... Ethanol was first created in 1796.. and was mass produced in 1828, and the first car to run on Ethanol was the Model T Ford in 1908. So come on... this technology is not exactly cutting edge.

Here's what I have a problem with. I have an issue with my tax money being used to support some dumb, lame, never going to work, "Freedom Car" or similar government money blow out that gives out public cash to anyone for any reason when we are 9 Trillion in debt (or more).

What I have a problem with is people whining about gas prices when we cause them with our stupid ignorant policy. When the wells all dry up, I won't have an issue. But as long as some people constantly say you can't drill here, can't explore there, can't build here, can't run a pipe there, can't refine here... and then start screaming when the prices go up, because we are forced into importing the oil... I will call you an ignore stupid liberal fascist fool. And rightly so.

Another thing to think about. What is driving up food costs? Not just ethonal - that really only affects a certain portion of the market. Rather - the cost of petroleum and a heavy reliance on petroleum based fertilizers.

Yeah, high prices caused by our stupid policies, that we inflicted on our selves. But, you are correct. Some of the cost increase is because of fuel cost. However, it should be noted that prices were increasing prior to the fuel cost hikes. So, Ethanol subsidies still obviously have a part in it.

 

[Andy]

Andy the issue is having enough arable land for growing the corn, one type versus another, and corn versus another type of crop. I would suggest a good first start would be to replace the high fructose corn syrup found in soft drinks with something else, and in place of that grow a crop that is able to make ethanol. Or create more farm areas.

I must be missing something. Since sugar is far more expensive.. why would anyone replace HFC syrup with sugar? Or are you planning a government take over of soda pop companies? And even then, if we are going to force import of sugar, why not import the sugar cane and use that to make Ethanol? Sugar cane has a higher yield of Ethanol than corn.

Besides this... HFC syrup is used in thousands of food products. Soda being the most known, but thousands on thousands more. As such, you would raise the price of thousands of other products in order to slightly reduce the effect on some others... this would seem to defeat the purpose to me.

But this is mute anyway. If the price of corn keeps skyrocketing, eventually it will become more expensive than sugar, and soda companies will switch to it naturally.

 

[Bunz]

Now I know one of us is messed up because I specifically remember how they were negotiating with Canada to run the pipe through their land... So I'll look that up later.

The pipeline in question is natural gas not crude oil. But Coyote you are somewhat incorrect on your notion of oil in Alaska. If the Chuckchi Sea offshore is developed there is 16billion barrels there, ANWR has at the low end of estimates a million barrels a day for 30 years. Then there is the currently undeveloped Pt Thompson Field, which sits outside of the ANWR 1002 area. Right now, the TAPS (trans-Alaska pipeline system) produces 900,000 barrels a day. Down from a production peak in 1987 of about
2.1mbpd. So if ANWR were to come online, it would then make it feasible to develop Pt Thomspon, and provide 35trillion(yes with a T)cubic feet of nat gas. 2.1million barrels of crude per day. At a cost savings of nearly 2billion a month in transportation cost from the middle east.

So there is enough oil and gas in Alaska, to actually make a difference, especially from what is being produced now.

 

[Bunz]

I must be missing something. Since sugar is far more expensive.. why would anyone replace HFC syrup with sugar? Or are you planning a government take over of soda pop companies? And even then, if we are going to force import of sugar, why not import the sugar cane and use that to make Ethanol? Sugar cane has a higher yield of Ethanol than corn.

Besides this... HFC syrup is used in thousands of food products. Soda being the most known, but thousands on thousands more. As such, you would raise the price of thousands of other products in order to slightly reduce the effect on some others... this would seem to defeat the purpose to me.

But this is mute anyway. If the price of corn keeps skyrocketing, eventually it will become more expensive than sugar, and soda companies will switch to it naturally.

I never said sugar, I said something else. Of which there are a few options. Either way, my point was targeting soft drinks. Not the thousands of other products. But the lions share of HFC I would bet is used in soda, so decreasing that demand would allow that corn to be used for something else.
Either way, to be honest, I say open ANWR, develop Pt Thomspon, and use domestic sources before laying in bed a minute longer than we need to with the Saudis.

 

[Andy]

I didnt notice this one before, and I realize that Coyote already did some response, but I will add in some extras.

Obviously you understand little of how that whole thing came about. So, in other words you are categorically wrong, incorrect and ignorant on the issue. The oil has to be put on a ship because that is the most efficeint way to get it to market. It goes from the north slope way in the arctic down the 800 miles pipeline to the ice free port of valdez.

Oh, pardon me your highness, I said I could be wrong. Forgive me for not having a perfect memory. I still remember reading that the oil companies where trying to build a pipeline and being stopped. If I am wrong, well I guess I am not as perfect some others here. That is why I asked a question.

This is the mot uninformed statement I have seen all day. At the height of the cleanup there were 10,000 workers going 24 hours a day on the efforts. Even to this day 19 years later, I can bring you to places where there is still oil. And lots of oil about a foot below the surface. If we depended on your micro organism theory there would be about 10million of the 11million gallons spilled. There would be zero salmon run in the region, whereas it is only just now recovering. There would be a completely destroyed ecosystem. But you obviously have no clue as to what Prince William Sound really is, or how oil is cleaned up when there is an industrial spill.

I didn't say that all the oil was completely gone did I? I said most of the oil was cleaned up by nature, and it was. More than 2/3rds of the oil was consumed by natural processes.

http://www.valdezalaska.org/history/oilSpill.html

The actual cleanup process was time consuming and ineffective in many ways....

Microorganisms that "ate" crude oil were sprayed onto some of the beaches...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5DC1538F931A15757C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Exxon has recovered about 31,000 barrels, or 13 percent of the oil spilled, but nature is doing better, according to the company. The biggest gains have come from evaporation (84,000 barrels, 35 percent of the amount spilled); burning (19,000 barrels, 8 percent); biological breakdown (12,000 barrels, 5 percent) and disintegration (12,000 barrels, 5 percent.) A barrel is equal to 42 gallons.

And my personal favorite, because it's one of your guys, is:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/oil_is_not_the_problem.html

John Robinson, was a former engineer for NASA, and a scientist that worked for NOAA, and a lead member of "Heal The Ocean". John was sent in to clean up Saddam's oil mess after the first Gulf war, and he was the the number one director of the government clean up of Exxon Valdez.

He recalled that he had specifically setup up 9 locations that were to remained untouched in order to research the effects of oil in the area. Here is his statement:

'For a period of years,' John says, 'those locations [that were left alone] were in much better shape than the locations that had been aggressively cleaned up.

'The very aggressive way we went about it — I have to fault myself on this, because I'm the one that directed it, turned out to be a much more serious problem than the oil was. We were killing more things — I mean we were really killing things with the steaming hot water that we were blasting on the shoreline; the oil wasn't anywhere near that effective at causing things to be killed, so that all of our sites were much better off for not having been cleaned up for a period of years.

'After a decade, things began to level out to where you weren't able to tell which area had been cleaned up and which hadn't; for a period of ten years though, the places that were cleaned up were in a lot worse shape.'

So, if you won't listen to me, perhaps the guy in charge of the cleanup?

 

[Bunz]

Where ever the above definition came from, it is bogus - with this definition, you couldn't distinguish fascism from communism.

Your right, that damn dictionary is bogus for sure! So to clear up any confusion, here is them both for comparison. But because this doesnt have the Rush Libsmaugh stamp of approval, I am sure you will have something to say about it how the Merriam Webster Dictionary is nothing more than a left wing liberal commie rag.

This is the link for the definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
— fas·cist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·tic \fa-ˈshis-tik also -ˈsis-\ adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb often capitalized





http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively

 

[Coyote]

I don't even know what a Neocon is. But as far as fascist, most liberals are in fact fascists. It's a fitting and deserved title.

You may not know what a neocon is but you sure as heck don't know what a fascist is.

Fascism is support of a forced government control and dictation of society, often control of industry and commerce, and suppression of opposition.

Wrong.

What you are describing also describes any number of authoritarian regimes, theocracies, dictatorships, communism etc.

The hush Rush law was a liberal/fascist law.

Exactly how?

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to here but I'm guessing it's the attempt by some to bring back the "equal time" air wave provisions for radio? If so...do you recall that they were originally created by a conservative administration to battle what was felt to be an overwelming liberal presence on the airwaves? Hmmmm.....?

The McCain/Feingold was a Fascist/Liberal law.

Exactly how?

Government forced Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare/Social Security/HUD/Food Stamps, and the EPA... all are Fascist/Liberal, and ultimately Socialist policies.

Exactly how?

Lets take a careful look at fascism before you thoughtlessly throw that term around.

According to Matthew Lyons:

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.

Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies--and elitist--in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.

Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.

Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.​

Eco-Fascism, is simply the environmental movement, that originally had good reasons for their beginning, are now hijacked by fascists, bent on taking more government power, and controlling more of our lives from every direction possible under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

Again, you don't know what fascism is. Just because there are extremists with an ideology you do not agree with - does not make them fascists.

Would anti-abortion extremists who hijack the pro-life movement, bent on taking more government power, and controlling more of our lives from every direction possible under the guise of 'saving unborn babies' be fascists?

I have your two links saved, and I want to look up more on that later. Sorry but I am always suspicious of information from one source, and especially when that one source is government. Fascist typically get all their information from government, because... of course they support big brother government. I don't trust them, so I'm not take this from them alone.

Fascists do not get all their sources from "government". They get their info from one main ideological source - whatever ideology they are wed to. "The Government" is a vague and amorphous term that means nothing in the context you are using. Just like fascists - there is no meaning because it is just a buzzword you are throwing around.

I can find - and I use - links from multiple sources. If these don't suit you, I'll find you some more. But there is no sense in discussing fascism if you are going to throw the term around to cover any extremist point of view with which you disagree with.

 

[Coyote]

What I have a problem with is people whining about gas prices when we cause them with our stupid ignorant policy. When the wells all dry up, I won't have an issue. But as long as some people constantly say you can't drill here, can't explore there, can't build here, can't run a pipe there, can't refine here... and then start screaming when the prices go up, because we are forced into importing the oil... I will call you an ignore stupid liberal fascist fool. And rightly so.

An I would call you an ignorant short sighted neocon fascist (just have to throw in the fascist label too) fool. And rightly so.

Why?

Becuase the environment can do just fine without us but we can't do very well without a healthy environment.

What we can drill for in the US - in environmentally fragile areas - is a drop in the bucket compared to our needs.

And what happens in disasters? It's not just oil mucking up beaches. It's entire industries and economies destroyed along with the environmental damages. And why? All because we want cheap gas now and we, as Americans, don't feel anyone has the right to tell us we should start conserving and start taking a long-range look at our energy needs. Geez. Countries like Japan and many European countries are doing that now and their gas prices are more then double ours.

When we had the gas crunch of the 70's it spurred a host of development into alternatives. Did it last though? No. Prices came down, and development into the non-petroleum energy sector slowed to a trickle. Now here we are at the same cross roads again and what do we hear?

Prices are too high (wah wah wah)

I have a RIGHT to drive my gas guzzling hummer (wah wah wah)

No one's going to tell me I have to conserve!

If you don't want to conserve - then swallow your whining and pay high prices.

In the meantime - confront the reality that the world's energy needs are growing - especially in newly developing countries - and the world's oil supply is finite.

Drilling in ANWAR is a bandaid and it avoids the real issue: we, as American's have to start changing our ethos and are patterns of consumption.

Are we man enough?

 

[Coyote]

I don't even know what a Neocon is. But as far as fascist, most liberals are in fact fascists. It's a fitting and deserved title.

You may not know what a neocon is but you sure as heck don't know what a fascist is.

Fascism is support of a forced government control and dictation of society, often control of industry and commerce, and suppression of opposition.

Wrong.

What you are describing also describes any number of authoritarian regimes, theocracies, dictatorships, communism etc.

The hush Rush law was a liberal/fascist law.

Exactly how?

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to here but I'm guessing it's the attempt by some to bring back the "equal time" air wave provisions for radio? If so...do you recall that they were originally created by a conservative administration to battle what was felt to be an overwelming liberal presence on the airwaves? Hmmmm.....?

The McCain/Feingold was a Fascist/Liberal law.

Exactly how?

Government forced Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare/Social Security/HUD/Food Stamps, and the EPA... all are Fascist/Liberal, and ultimately Socialist policies.

Exactly how?

Lets take a careful look at fascism before you thoughtlessly throw that term around.

According to Matthew Lyons:

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.

Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies--and elitist--in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.

Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.

Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.​

Eco-Fascism, is simply the environmental movement, that originally had good reasons for their beginning, are now hijacked by fascists, bent on taking more government power, and controlling more of our lives from every direction possible under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

Again, you don't know what fascism is. Just because there are extremists with an ideology you do not agree with - does not make them fascists.

Would anti-abortion extremists who hijack the pro-life movement, bent on taking more government power, and controlling more of our lives from every direction possible under the guise of 'saving unborn babies' be fascists?

I have your two links saved, and I want to look up more on that later. Sorry but I am always suspicious of information from one source, and especially when that one source is government. Fascist typically get all their information from government, because... of course they support big brother government. I don't trust them, so I'm not take this from them alone.

Fascists do not get all their sources from "government". They get their info from one main ideological source - whatever ideology they are wed to. "The Government" is a vague and amorphous term that means nothing in the context you are using. Just like fascists - there is no meaning because it is just a buzzword you are throwing around.

I can find - and I use - links from multiple sources. If these don't suit you, I'll find you some more. But there is no sense in discussing fascism if you are going to throw the term around to cover any extremist point of view with which you disagree with.

 

[Libsmasher]

In other words, when it comes to protesting war - free speech should have limits. Right. There's a word for that ya know: hypocrisy.

Complete and utter nonsense - it has to do with protecting the president in wartime.

Those long gone issues, as you put it - are not so long gone and entirely relevant today. They are also real, not twisted fabrications of paranoid rightwing persecution complexes.

You're hopelessly confused. Your giving an incoherent rant - how can anyone respond to it?

Now, how about some concrete examples?

If you're talking about the libfascist suppression of student rights NOW, a good place to start for the clueless would be david horowitz's site:

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

Another point you can consider is how conservative student journalists have been effectively driven off campus. Being a conservative journalism major at american universities is like being a human rights major at the University of Havana. Starting over 20 years ago, the conservative journalism students at Dartmouth, tiring of confronting the rock solid liberal journalism department at their school (almost all such departments are just one more element of the Liberal Media Establishment), founded the off-campus Dartmouth Review, so conservative opinion could see the light of day. Since then, using the Dartmouth Review as a model, many conservative journalism students have founded off campus student newspapers to give students an alternative view from the 100% lib establishment official student papers. What often happens when they try to distribute them on campuses is that leftwing student brownshirts will rapidly collect and destroy all copies, reminiscent of their book-burning nazi predecessors in 1930s germany. Conservative speakers, notably Horowitz, but others as well are frequently shouted down at speaking engagements on campuses. You need to read up, Megathink, and come back when you know something about the issue.

You didn't read the article did you Speedy?

You're still confused about the the thread, Megathink.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here Speedy, other then flinging around accusations of fascism.

You are pretty much floundering around - if you don't understand a thread, instead of bouncing around in it like a loose cannon, why don't you find a thread with a simpler topic so that you can contribute something other than thread entropy?

The court found that RICO did not apply in this case, however it also found(according to Wiki) :

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal, though refused to consider free speech issues. In its 2003 decision, the court ruled that while the actions under consideration in the appeal might have been coercive, they were not extortive because the defendants did not "'obtain' property" from their victims (see National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393 (2003)). (The defendants did, however, according to the Court, interfere with the victims' ability to exercise their property rights.) Coercion is a less serious crime than extortion, and is not covered by RICO. The injunction was thus not supported by the RICO charges. The decision left open the question of whether the law generally entitled private parties to injuctive relief (as opposed to after-the-fact monetary damages) in RICO cases.​

The 2006 appearance before the USSC dismissed all claims by NOW abortionists, including those left over from 2003. Let me scope it down for you. The abortionists have never ceased trying to stop even pro-life protest. They know that if the young women the abortionists prey on ever hear both sides, they'll lose. The main actions they wanted to stop was what the pro-life groups called street-corner counseling - ie approaching young women and eg asking them if the ever saw a photo of a six month fetus. This is the thing NOW wanted to stop - information other than pro-abortionist propaganda would be death for their movement. The times when clinincs were trashed, etc were a miniscule percentage of pro-life actions. But they used that to go after the pro-life people. Some shrewd abortionist lawyer noted that they would get people from a number of states to show up at a particular protest, so they came up with the ludicrous idea of using RICO, which had been designed to fight the MAFIA, to silence the pro-life people. NOW spent 20 years desperately pushing this idea through the courts, until the USSC slammed the door on it once and for all in the 2006 decision.

 

[Coyote]

Complete and utter nonsense - it has to do with protecting the president in wartime.

Obfuscation. If it were limited to war time (it isn't/wasn't) and if it were limited to war protests (it isn't/wasn't) and if it were applied evenly across the spectrum of political dissidents (it isn't/wasn't)- maybe I could buy it.

From Wikipedia:

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.​

You're hopelessly confused. Your giving an incoherent rant - how can anyone respond to it?

Easily, if one can read. Now lets take a critical look at what is really "incoherent" and "rant" here...

Here is what I said: Those long gone issues, as you put it - are not so long gone and entirely relevant today. They are also real, not twisted fabrications of paranoid rightwing persecution complexes.

In response to: You are completely not up to speed in this thread yet - those long-gone issues are small-change compared to the massive Pee See clampdown on free speech in american universities during the present time (what massive pc clampdown in universities - can you give some concrete examples that represent a substantial trend rather than extremist cases?), all of it perpetrated by liberal administrators, liberal faculty, and various leftwing student fascisti. (What is being perpetrated? What does fascisti mean here? Or is this another inaccurate and ignorant use of a term because you can't come up with facts?)

Which was in response to: Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.

The only reason they are "small-change" is because you happen to agree with the ideology behind that clamp down. Believe it me - it wasn't small change and those same clampdowns are occuring today in the guise of "free speech zones" and other methods to exclude or marginalize dissent against this administration and it's policies.

If you're talking about the libfascist suppression of student rights NOW, a good place to start for the clueless would be david horowitz's site:

What are libfascist? Again - look up fascism. How exactly does that relate here?

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

Interesting site. When it comes to sources - I like to check who they are and who funds them and I like to know if there is a hidden agenda. That includes liberal sources. So...what do we have here?

According to their own description, Students for Academic Freedom is a clearing house and communications center for a national coalition of student organizations whose goal is to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge.. In addition, SAF is an offshoot of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.




According to SourceWatch:

Horowitz started SAF in 2003 as a means of spreading his agenda of "intellectual diversity" on college campuses. He justified the need for such action based on two studies of college and university professors' political party affiliations which seemed to prove that university faculty were "disproportionately liberal," and thus posed a threat to balanced academic discussion. (ok, so we have here two studies that have nothing to do with how or what teaching actually occurs draws it's conclusions on political party affiliation? How Orwellian.)

SourceWatch also states:

Several "independent studies" were conducted by CSPC and other organizations in order to prove the existence of liberal bias in higher education. One of the first studies was conducted by Frank Luntz, Republican pollster and compatriot of Newt Gingrich during the 1994 election engineering. As reported by George Mason University's website, Luntz's survey came into serious question when it was found that "Luntz polled only liberal arts faculties and administrators. And even within the liberal arts, only 12 percent of the respondents were from the more conservative business and economics faculties."

According to Horowitz, similar studies "resulted in absurd majorities of leftwing professors on college faculties by ratios that range from 7-1 to 30-1."[1] However, the funding of the experiments Horowitz cites as well as the scientific methods of research used draw each into question. The latest study, published in late April 2005, was funded by the Randolph Foundation, supporter of the Independent Women's Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, and CSPC.


SourceWatch notes that:

In addition to the studies, Horowitz and SAF depend largely on first-hand student accounts of professor abuse, unfair treatment, and attempts at "indoctrination" in the classroom. SAF were quick to draw attention to the case of a University of Northern Colorado student who claimed to have received a failing grade on her response to a final exam question asking students to "explain why President Bush is a war criminal." The student received an F when she turned in a paper on Saddam Huissen’s war-criminal status instead. However, in its reporting, SAF failed to give the name of the student or any exact details of the case. As Media Matters reported in March, 2005, many of the details of the case were misconstrued by Horowitz and the case was handled internally by the University system.





So, is this a independent group of concerned students? Or an agenda?

At best - it's credibility is highly suspect.

Another point you can consider is how conservative student journalists have been effectively driven off campus. Being a conservative journalism major at american universities is like being a human rights major at the University of Havana. Starting over 20 years ago, the conservative journalism students at Dartmouth, tiring of confronting the rock solid liberal journalism department at their school (almost all such departments are just one more element of the Liberal Media Establishment), founded the off-campus Dartmouth Review, so conservative opinion could see the light of day. Since then, using the Dartmouth Review as a model, many conservative journalism students have founded off campus student newspapers to give students an alternative view from the 100% lib establishment official student papers. What often happens when they try to distribute them on campuses is that leftwing student brownshirts will rapidly collect and destroy all copies, reminiscent of their book-burning nazi predecessors in 1930s germany. Conservative speakers, notably Horowitz, but others as well are frequently shouted down at speaking engagements on campuses. You need to read up, Megathink, and come back when you know something about the issue.

I read up a bit more then you and, quite frankly your entire above rant is mostly a mish-mash of perjorative nonsensical language more reflective rightwing talking points then actual or factual debate. It's almost a rightwing wetdream:

include references to Nazi's
throw in fascism
book burnings
brownshirts
censorship through destruction of dissenting materials
thrown off campus...
forced to start independent papers (note - all student fringe groups who disagree with the main start their own papers, such as the student communists)

Now mix it all together but make sure you include no facts, dates, places or names - just generalizations, innuendos and all the right buzzwords.

Time for a reality check.

Certain fields attract certain mindsets and thus tend to be self-selecting (self selecting is not discrimmination no matter how badly you want it to be). Journalism has always attracted a more liberal type of mindset. Business and associated fields on the other hand are heavily conservative. Does this indicate persecution and discrimmination? Of course not. Those are simply the type of people attracted to those fields.

Now, why aren't you running around raging about ideological discrimmination in the business world eh?