Ecofascist Disasters

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.

Anti-choice advocates felt they had a right to force their choices on other women by any means possible including physically and verbally assaulting them, intimmidating them, threatening their privacy, preventing them from getting into a clinic, destroying equipment, destroying property, and even committing murder - all under the supposed protection of "free speech".

Your right to free speech ends when you enroach upon my space.

They know that if the young women the abortionists prey on ever hear both sides, they'll lose.

What makes you think they don't know both sides? That appears to be a common point of arrogance and ignorance among some of the more extremist anti-choicers (or, to use terminology that might appeal better to you - antichoicenazi's? pro-some-life-fascists?)

And, since when has "hearing both sides" meant assault and obstruction?

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 majority of abortions occur well before 6 months for one thing. For another - they typically refuse to take "no" for an answer. Do you seriously think these women come in for abortions like a stroll in a park - that they aren't already torn up with a difficult choice? Do you seriously think that some of these abortion clinics don't offer a range of choices besides abortions including contacts for adoption should that be desired? And what exactly are these self-described "street corner counselors" offering? Precious little beyond deception. Deception first off that they are actually being inhibited. They aren't - they just have to maintain a reasonable personal distance that any of these women can easily cross if they wish to be "counseled".

Again - your right to free speech stops short of my personal space. You have no right to assault me either physically or verbally in the guise of free speech. And that is not limited to anti-choice activists either - I feel the same way towards PETA demonstrators.

The times when clinincs were trashed, etc were a miniscule percentage of pro-life actions.

Really? You mean like aborting 6 months and beyond is a miniscule percentage of abortions but you like to use photographs of those fetus (which are typically of miscarriages or medically necessary abortions but you pretend otherwise)?


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.


They only slammed it on using RICO. Not on other laws - for example the following:

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/feb/26/law-would-curtail-some-anti-abortion-protests/

If anti-war protesters and anti-torture protesters have to abide by some laws I see no reason why anti-choicers feel they should be exempt. Do you?
 
Werbung:
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?

If you can't even provide a valid definition of fascism how can you possibly expect to have a logical debate on "ecofascists"?
 
You mean like these designated "free speech zones"? http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Oops...those are conservatives squashing free speech. My bad

Do you remember Glenn and Patricia Mendoza? Or William Kelly?

Clinton Rejects Freedom of Speech

In the summer of 1996 Glenn and Patricia Mendoza attended A Taste of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois. An event which President Clinton was also attending. Mrs. Mendoza allegedly yelled, "You suck! And those boys died."

At any rate, 15 minutes after Clinton departed the event, Mrs. Mendoza was arrested for her comments. "You might need a lawyer!" her husband Glenn shouted, then found himself in cuffs as well.

In 1993, William Kelly of Chicago was arrested for shouting to Clinton asking where was the middle class tax cut.

Let's not forget the real breaches of freedom of speech. It has little to do with a right to go anywhere and yell a bunch to disrupt a gathering... but rather...

The right to question government in your own venue. The Hush Rush law, that thankfully failed. McCain/Fiengold that embarrassingly passed. These are the real fascist attacks of the left on our freedoms. Far more than anything of the whiny ambiguous claims about phone taps.
 
Do you remember Glenn and Patricia Mendoza? Or William Kelly?

Clinton Rejects Freedom of Speech


Let's not forget the real breaches of freedom of speech. It has little to do with a right to go anywhere and yell a bunch to disrupt a gathering... but rather...

The right to question government in your own venue. The Hush Rush law, that thankfully failed. McCain/Fiengold that embarrassingly passed. These are the real fascist attacks of the left on our freedoms. Far more than anything of the whiny ambiguous claims about phone taps.

I am not the one making the argument that only one ideological viewpoint is squashing free speech while ignoring the other.

You bring up one example - and it's a pretty puny example compared to all the ones going on now - do you have any others? You also ignore the the fact that the "equal time provision" (which you call Hush Rush) was intended to hush liberal view points when it was originally proposed - or the attempts to force a conservative slant through "equal time" on public radio stations - which I suspect means you think it's ok for liberals to be hushed but not conservatives.

I actually don't support equal time provisions. But unlike you, I don't limit it to one ideology.
 
You may not know what a neocon is but you sure as heck don't know what a fascist is.

(pre-post: I am not your enemy)
I do not agree with the version of 'fascism' that you posted. That must be where our disconnect is.

Fascism

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

a nationalistic and anti-Communist system of government like that of Italy 1922-43, where all aspects of society are controlled by the state and all criticism or opposition is suppressed

Now, I honestly have no clue what is 'anti-communistic' about Fascism. Perhaps you can explain it. Stalin suppressed all criticism and opposition. Stalin, controlled the media with censorship. Stalin had complete socioeconomic control. Stalin instilled nationalistic pride. That's where 'Mother Russia' came from.

Mao in China was exactly the same. So were a huge number of Socialist/Communists. So how Fascism and Communism/Socialism is different I don't know.

All those government programs are direct socioeconomic controls on the public. This to me, is in fact Fascism. Government control of our lives.

As far as the Hush Rush law goes, as it's nick name implies, is an attempt to control the media and suppress opposition. So is McCain/Fiengold. If I have 1 million, and have the ability to buy ad time on TV, I should be allowed to do so without government intervention. This is exactly what Freedom of speech is about. If I want to put up a bill board in my front yard, I can. If I want to hold rallies, I can. If I want to pay for ad, flyers, pamphlets or whatever, I can. If I can get a radio station to put me on the air so I can complain about whatever the government is doing, I can.

What can not happen is, my rating are zero and yet somehow I force the radio station to keep me on the air... no. I can't force my way into someone else's meeting where they are exercising their freedom of speech, and disrupt it.

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?

Of course. I however just believe murder is wrong. So I'm not trying to get government control, I just want them to enforce the already accepted laws. It's human... right? It's alive... right? It's innocent... right? Innocent, so killing it isn't justified. What do you call the unjustified killing of a human? Murder comes to mind. I wager you'll say something about it being medically necessary. I don't buy it. Funny how some of the simplest animals on our planet will give their lives for their children, while us intelligent humans find any excuse to murder ours. No thanks.
 
(pre-post: I am not your enemy)
I do not agree with the version of 'fascism' that you posted. That must be where our disconnect is.

Dictionary definitions are useful but only provide a superficial definition - particularly if you are talking about political ideologies or for that matter religions.

Now, I honestly have no clue what is 'anti-communistic' about Fascism. Perhaps you can explain it. Stalin suppressed all criticism and opposition. Stalin, controlled the media with censorship. Stalin had complete socioeconomic control. Stalin instilled nationalistic pride. That's where 'Mother Russia' came from.

Mao in China was exactly the same. So were a huge number of Socialist/Communists. So how Fascism and Communism/Socialism is different I don't know.

All those government programs are direct socioeconomic controls on the public. This to me, is in fact Fascism. Government control of our lives.

First: problem is you are confusing authoritarianism with fascism. Fascism is authoritarian. Communism as practiced by Mao and Stalin is authoritarian. But - monarchies are authoritarian, certain theocracies are as well as a host of other types of right and leftwing dictatorships.

All fascism is authoritarian but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist.

You point out that:
Stalin suppressed all criticism and opposition.
Stalin, controlled the media with censorship.
Stalin had complete socioeconomic control.
Stalin instilled nationalistic pride.

Of those - the first 3 are characteristics of virtually all authoritarian regimes. Stalin instilled nationalistic pride - and that has more in line with fascism but that does not make it fascism. The problem with defining ideologies is that there is often overlap and adhering to a simple left/right axis of defiition is very flimsly.

Extremist authoritarian regimes have more in commen with each other then they do with the more moderate adherents of their ideologies.

The difference between fascism (and what makes it rightwing) and authoritarian communism (and what makes it leftwing) is it's core philosophies.

Government control of various aspects of society or economy does not by itself make it "leftwing" or "fascist". All societies with central governments have some degree of government control over individuals and over markets whether they are left or rightwing.

Most of the similarities you see are due to their authoritarian applications.

A few ideological differences (and there are more but I'll stick to a few for now) between Communism and Fascism are in:

Equality: Communism believes that the total of all people will eventually be achieved. Fascism believes in the inherent and natural inequality of people and that equality can never be achieved and is not even a desirable end.

Ownership of means of production: Communism believes in cooperative worker ownership of means of production (industry, farms); Fascism believes in corporatism or as was practiced in Italy and Germany - ownership by a small elite aristocratic group. The fact that there was a degree of state control in both cases has more to do with the authoritarian axis rather than left/right. In Fascist Italy and Germany, there was far less state control then in communist China or USSR.

As far as the Hush Rush law goes, as it's nick name implies, is an attempt to control the media and suppress opposition.


So is McCain/Fiengold. If I have 1 million, and have the ability to buy ad time on TV, I should be allowed to do so without government intervention. This is exactly what Freedom of speech is about. If I want to put up a bill board in my front yard, I can. If I want to hold rallies, I can. If I want to pay for ad, flyers, pamphlets or whatever, I can. If I can get a radio station to put me on the air so I can complain about whatever the government is doing, I can.

What can not happen is, my rating are zero and yet somehow I force the radio station to keep me on the air... no. I can't force my way into someone else's meeting where they are exercising their freedom of speech, and disrupt it.

I think you are mixing up things here - you are listing a bunch of different things as if they were the same.

What constitutes free speech? Does money constitute speech? That's a pretty modern notion and there is far from complete agreement on it and it's constitutionality. Everyone has an equal right of free speech but if money IS free speech then any equality disappears.

The rest of the items you mention I agree with - it's free speech.

You also totally avoid an issue: The "Hush Rush" law was devised and implemented originally to hush liberal voices that were thought to dominate the media - or as you put it: control the media and suppress opposition. Ironically, no one seems bothered by that - only bothered that now it appears some liberals want to revive that same law (in their favor this time).

I don't agree with it - airwaves are public property - I don't agree with any "equal time" provisions being forced on any of the airwaves.

Of course. I however just believe murder is wrong. So I'm not trying to get government control, I just want them to enforce the already accepted laws. It's human... right? It's alive... right? It's innocent... right? Innocent, so killing it isn't justified. What do you call the unjustified killing of a human? Murder comes to mind. I wager you'll say something about it being medically necessary. I don't buy it. Funny how some of the simplest animals on our planet will give their lives for their children, while us intelligent humans find any excuse to murder ours. No thanks.

Right now - it's not considered murder legally. Laws are enforced. Until it's changed that's the way it is. I'm not going to argue abortion here though - that's another thread. But I find it annoying how flippently, inaccurately and prejudicially the term "fascist" is thrown around.

It's not about government control - it's about a specific ideology.
 
I am not the one making the argument that only one ideological viewpoint is squashing free speech while ignoring the other.

You bring up one example - and it's a pretty puny example compared to all the ones going on now - do you have any others? You also ignore the the fact that the "equal time provision" (which you call Hush Rush) was intended to hush liberal view points when it was originally proposed - or the attempts to force a conservative slant through "equal time" on public radio stations - which I suspect means you think it's ok for liberals to be hushed but not conservatives.

I actually don't support equal time provisions. But unlike you, I don't limit it to one ideology.

The constitutionalist view point I support does not believe in legislative restrictions on freedom of speech. I don't see any non-liberals that support restricting freedom of speech. Yes McCain is a liberal. Yes, Bush is very liberal.

As far as equal time, yes I know Nixon originally support that screwed up law. But there is a reason it's called the Hush Rush law now.

I think a problem here is, I don't subscribe liberal/conservative labels based on who, or what party supports it. Just because the communist chinese government is allowing free market and private ownership of businesses, doesn't mean that those are no longer Capitalist or Conservative points of view. Nor does it mean that PRC is a completely Conservative Capitalist government that isn't socialist at it's core.

Another problem is that liberal/conservative labels have been screwed with so much, they are almost meaningless. That's why I prefer the term Constitutionalist.

To me, such free speech violating laws are liberal views. Because liberals, which are socialists (mostly), support more government, bigger government, more government controls. Like all socialist/communist systems, it can not survive with a free speech, free media, free press. Even if you can point to a person who is 'generally' conservative, who supports these laws, to me the concept is still liberal. It's just a screwed up conservative foolishly supporting a liberal law. Just like Bush might be a little conservative on a few things, like national safety and a strong military... but he still supported a liberal Amnesty bill.
 
Andy;36709]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.



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 beg to differ and I've been building show cars and Harleys for years. Very familiar with the car business & have owned 2 body shops. Americans do like big cars but that isn't the point. The point is gas will continue to become more expensive the way it always has and we need to and are adjusting. FACT: Prius sales up 38% last year alone. Also smaller cars can be great. My girlfriend just bought a brand new Wolfsburg addition Jetta and it's an absolutely great car. Big inside... highway mileage low to mid 30's.

FACT: American car companies have profit margins built into there small cars (the Aveo is not the only small car... Colbalt... Focus... there are many and you know that.) American small cars just aren't up to the competion from Japan & Germany yet... but they could be.

The rest of what you say is apples to oranges. CVT does save gas over a regular automatic. VVT saves gas overall also. And Hybrids will come down in price as they become more available.. and there has been tax write offs in place to boot.




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.

Again you just seem bitter and off base. Small cars can be fine safe & affordable cars. I cite the Jetta yet again. By your reasoning no car is a safe car because WOW they might get hit by something bigger... like a Semi. As vehicles across the board get smaller the regular cars on the road start matching up just fine. How many 62 Cadillacs out there now compared to say a Camry or Taurus? :)

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

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.

And again you miss the point. I was pointing out hybrid technology can be moved upward to larger vehicles. The Yukon is not your run of the mill hybrid. It's still a big boat. Why live in the past. There are plenty of good gas mileage vehicles out there. My Lexus for example. Total luxury... big 5 passenger car... 30 mpg highway. The days of the 17 mpg highway car is toast my friend... need to adjust.


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.

WOW dude... windmills have been used for hundreds of years to do things without electricity. And now there are wind farms that charge batteries that produce electricity... where have you been.

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

I'll tell you what won't work. Thinking you'll just continue forever to drive a gas guzzler and not evolve from early 20th century thinking. Hey have you seen these new things they have out now? These little boxes about half the size of a pack of smokes. You talk into them and people somewhere else can talk back to you... it's AMAZING!!! :D
 
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

The operative entry as the root word for ecofascism is number two in the fascism definition, the tendency, and the EPA is certainly the most dictatorial element of the US government. Incidentally, they handled the two definitions relatively poorly - note how the fascism definition (number 1 entry) relates to how fascists really were in practice, whereas the definition given for communism is a dryly theoretical one.
 
Dictionary definitions are useful but only provide a superficial definition - particularly if you are talking about political ideologies or for that matter religions.

First: problem is you are confusing authoritarianism with fascism. Fascism is authoritarian. Communism as practiced by Mao and Stalin is authoritarian. But - monarchies are authoritarian, certain theocracies are as well as a host of other types of right and leftwing dictatorships.

All fascism is authoritarian but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist.

You point out that:
Stalin suppressed all criticism and opposition.
Stalin, controlled the media with censorship.
Stalin had complete socioeconomic control.
Stalin instilled nationalistic pride.

Of those - the first 3 are characteristics of virtually all authoritarian regimes. Stalin instilled nationalistic pride - and that has more in line with fascism but that does not make it fascism. The problem with defining ideologies is that there is often overlap and adhering to a simple left/right axis of defiition is very flimsly.

Extremist authoritarian regimes have more in commen with each other then they do with the more moderate adherents of their ideologies.

The difference between fascism (and what makes it rightwing) and authoritarian communism (and what makes it leftwing) is it's core philosophies.

Government control of various aspects of society or economy does not by itself make it "leftwing" or "fascist". All societies with central governments have some degree of government control over individuals and over markets whether they are left or rightwing.

Most of the similarities you see are due to their authoritarian applications.

A few ideological differences (and there are more but I'll stick to a few for now) between Communism and Fascism are in:

Equality: Communism believes that the total of all people will eventually be achieved. Fascism believes in the inherent and natural inequality of people and that equality can never be achieved and is not even a desirable end.

Ownership of means of production: Communism believes in cooperative worker ownership of means of production (industry, farms); Fascism believes in corporatism or as was practiced in Italy and Germany - ownership by a small elite aristocratic group. The fact that there was a degree of state control in both cases has more to do with the authoritarian axis rather than left/right. In Fascist Italy and Germany, there was far less state control then in communist China or USSR.

Ok so that would be where I'm not connecting. The two distinguishing features are ownership of means of production, and equality.

First, I can't seem to find that in any definition. After checking a number of dictionaries, and of course wiki. None make these distinctions. In fact, some argue, and I would say rather convincingly, that Fascism is a form of Socialism.

For example, you say that under Communism the state owns the means of production. But under fascism, the state doesn't own it... however the state dictates what is made, who is hired, how much is paid, and in some cases how much the product is sold for. How is that any different than Communism? Just someone supposedly private, owns it. But the government controls everything.

This is how the Nazis operated. Sure you can run this company, but you must not hire these people, you must hire these people, you must pay them this much, you must make this product, and you must sell it to us for this amount.

As far as equality goes, I'm sure that is what Communism says externally... however in reality it's no different. The rich, political elite live in vast luxury, while the Jews and other oppressed live in Gulags. The wealth aristocrats in PRC live in opulence, while pauper farmers earn $2 a day walking through rice patties. (not anymore, but that's how it was prior to '78).

How different is that in reality? Aristocrat business owners or Aristocrat government officials? Not that big a difference to me. Both are completely unequal in function, just not in form. One says different words, but the results are the same.

What constitutes free speech? Does money constitute speech? That's a pretty modern notion and there is far from complete agreement on it and it's constitutionality. Everyone has an equal right of free speech but if money IS free speech then any equality disappears.

Ah I see another issue between us. I don't believe in equal speech, just the Constitutions right of free speech. The right of Free Speech, is the idea that you have the right to call Bush a Fascist or whatever else, and not be sent to prison, or threatened by the government over it. That is the equal right to not be oppressed for speaking against the government whether by a TV ad, or a bumper sticker.

However, there is no right to equal speech. Just because I can buy an ad, doesn't mean everyone should be able to. There is no right to equal speech, just a right to be free to do it if you can without being intervention.

Equal speech is a silly notion anyway. Since Matt Lauer has a 30 minute free speech, so everyone in the entire country has a right to a 30 minute news cast? Or Oprah? Or any number of others? That's silly.

As a Constitutionalist, I never supported any Hush Rush law, or similar, regardless of whom it was originally intended. The law is incompatible with my ideology.
 
I beg to differ and I've been building show cars and Harleys for years. Very familiar with the car business & have owned 2 body shops. Americans do like big cars but that isn't the point. The point is gas will continue to become more expensive the way it always has and we need to and are adjusting. FACT: Prius sales up 38% last year alone. Also smaller cars can be great. My girlfriend just bought a brand new Wolfsburg addition Jetta and it's an absolutely great car. Big inside... highway mileage low to mid 30's.

FACT: American car companies have profit margins built into there small cars (the Aveo is not the only small car... Colbalt... Focus... there are many and you know that.) American small cars just aren't up to the competion from Japan & Germany yet... but they could be.

The rest of what you say is apples to oranges. CVT does save gas over a regular automatic. VVT saves gas overall also. And Hybrids will come down in price as they become more available.. and there has been tax write offs in place to boot.

First, let me tackle the tax write off. I completely disagree with tax breaks for rich people. That's what this is. If we are equal under the law, then there should be no exception where one person pays a tax and another does not. If I get a tax break, you should. If you do, I should. If I do not, you should not. It's amazing to me how we talk about equality, and how rich don't pay enough taxes, and yet here you are advocating exactly that. Just because someone else has more money than me, and can afford to buy an expensive car, then he should get a tax break? If you believe that, don't ever complain about rich not paying taxes again. You are the cause of it.

Sorry, but 10.9% drop in sales of the Prius hybrid over last year.

I never said small cars can't be great. That's all nice and peachy. I may buy a Jetta if they come out with the Diesel. 50 MPG and it's no more expensive than a regular car, I may go for.

GM loses money on every Cobalt last I read. If you can find otherwise, please post. I wager the Focus is the same.

CVT does not save gas. I went to college for automotive technology, I worked through a GM training course, I worked for 2 years at a Cadillac dealership. The information I got straight from GM was CVTs do not save gas. Nor does VVT which is old tech as well. You bought into a marketing gimmick.

If Hybrids do come down in price, great. Remember, companies do not offer options unless they can make serious cash from those options. If they made the same profit margin on a regular car as a Hybrid, why offer the hybrid? So they are going to charge you coin for it. Further, Hybrids require expensive parts, expensive batteries, expensive regen brakes. So major cost cutting break through will have to come about in order for the price to decrease.

But as a warning, I wouldn't put money on that. Very dreamy optimistic people have been saying that about a lot of thing, and it doesn't work out that way. Like the NickelMH battery that Hybrids use... people said oh the price of that will drop as more become available. Oop... the price of Nickel has skyrocketed. The opposite is happening. They said the same about Solar panels, and they haven't come down in price either. They said the same about tons of things, and most have not turned out that way.

Again you just seem bitter and off base. Small cars can be fine safe & affordable cars. I cite the Jetta yet again. By your reasoning no car is a safe car because WOW they might get hit by something bigger... like a Semi. As vehicles across the board get smaller the regular cars on the road start matching up just fine. How many 62 Cadillacs out there now compared to say a Camry or Taurus? :)

You seem off base. Look at history. When the CAFE standards were imposed, there were huge safety issues all across the board. After years and years, we finely got it manageable where cars are not 'complete' death traps. Now we are increasing the CAFE standard. I would wager, those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

The only other possibility I see is for GM and Ford to almost abandon North American plants, and move operations for all of these type of autos overseas.

And again you miss the point. I was pointing out hybrid technology can be moved upward to larger vehicles. The Yukon is not your run of the mill hybrid. It's still a big boat. Why live in the past. There are plenty of good gas mileage vehicles out there. My Lexus for example. Total luxury... big 5 passenger car... 30 mpg highway. The days of the 17 mpg highway car is toast my friend... need to adjust.

Ok... good point. A over priced, under performing, fiscally inept technology, can be adapted to larger vehicles where it will exemplify the same negative qualities. Oh please please sign me up. With all due respect, if living in the past, means making wise money saving choices, I'll live there for a long time.

WOW dude... windmills have been used for hundreds of years to do things without electricity. And now there are wind farms that charge batteries that produce electricity... where have you been.

The wind mills I'm talking about are the government subsidized connected to the grid, not really helping much, but costing tons of money, useless mills. Not farmer bob with a wind mill charging up his old tractor battery. That's fine. I'm not paying for farmer bobs mill. I am paying for the useless mills.

I'll tell you what won't work. Thinking you'll just continue forever to drive a gas guzzler and not evolve from early 20th century thinking. Hey have you seen these new things they have out now? These little boxes about half the size of a pack of smokes. You talk into them and people somewhere else can talk back to you... it's AMAZING!!! :D

Nor will factually ignorant posts, devoid of logic or reason, work on convincing me. Auto technology will continue to evolve. But until something that actually works comes about, I'll keep the 82 Buick :)
 
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.

Hemp. Better yield than corn, grows anywhere in just about any soil, 2 crops/year in many areas. Also, there are always sugar beets (will grow ANYWHERE).
 
Ok so that would be where I'm not connecting. The two distinguishing features are ownership of means of production, and equality.

First, I can't seem to find that in any definition. After checking a number of dictionaries, and of course wiki. None make these distinctions. In fact, some argue, and I would say rather convincingly, that Fascism is a form of Socialism.

The problem - in part here is I am not pulling this from any one simplified definition - what you get in a dictionary for example is extremely limited. You have to look at historical references and specifically at the father of fascism himself:

Mussolini, his origins (in the socialist movement), his fascist manifesto (which was heavily socialist in certain aspects such as universal suffrage, minimum wage, etc.) and then jump from that to what happened in practice once Mussolini achieved power: all of that was abolished, socialism was rejected - specifically, as anachronistic - all unions were abolished, as was any concept of "workers rights". Indeed, in practice the only acknowledged rights were those of the corporate owners.

In terms of history and fascism in practice historically - I find this definition more compelling and accurate (Mussolini despised communism and most fascist regimes were set up in response to fears of Communist expansion) - I know I posted it before but I'll do so again:

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.

Note: I do not believe Communism actually rejects democracy, it can operate within a democracy (unless of course it's a totalitarian regime). Fascism can not. It specifically repudiates democratic ideals.

For example, you say that under Communism the state owns the means of production.

Under the Communist ideology - Marxism - the "people" (workers) own means of production.

Under Communism as was practiced in authoritarian USSR - there was a pretense of cooperative ownership by "the people" but the reality was the authoritarian state and an elite within it controlled all. In that sense it is like fascism in appearance because it is authoritarian. All authoritarian states tend to resemble one another because they are authoritarian, but the means in which they get to that end may differ.

Under Fascist ideology - there is NO ownership by the people - implicit or explicit - the state sets the rules and ownership is by a corporate elite working under state guidance.

But under fascism, the state doesn't own it... however the state dictates what is made, who is hired, how much is paid, and in some cases how much the product is sold for. How is that any different than Communism? Just someone supposedly private, owns it. But the government controls everything.

It's different because even though the state sets the rules - it does not own the company. In communism - all property is communally owned by "the people" (in theory - in practice, under an authoritarian government, you see something rather different). Socialism - by definition - requires worker ownership and control of the means of production.

For example - we have rules and regulations regarding product safety and quality that come from the Federal government - but that does not mean that the government owns those entities.

This is how the Nazis operated. Sure you can run this company, but you must not hire these people, you must hire these people, you must pay them this much, you must make this product, and you must sell it to us for this amount.

In Nazi Germany - an elite of private capitalist individuals owned the means of production. They in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. In leftwing socialist ideologies like communism - ownership is by the workers. They in turn maybe controlled to greater or lesser degrees by the state as in fascism but the core principle of ownership is different and that is one significant difference between right wing authoritarian states and left wing authoritarian states. Where it becomes impossible to see much difference is when the state is authoritarian, you have to look at their underlying ideologies.

As far as equality goes, I'm sure that is what Communism says externally... however in reality it's no different. The rich, political elite live in vast luxury, while the Jews and other oppressed live in Gulags. The wealth aristocrats in PRC live in opulence, while pauper farmers earn $2 a day walking through rice patties. (not anymore, but that's how it was prior to '78).

How different is that in reality? Aristocrat business owners or Aristocrat government officials? Not that big a difference to me. Both are completely unequal in function, just not in form. One says different words, but the results are the same.

I actually agree - when it comes to authoritarian states there is little difference between right and left, communist or fascist - in practice.

Fascism is the authoritarian extreme of the right while Communism is the authoritarian extreme of the left. They are both more similar to each other then they are to the moderate socialist governments of say the Scandinavian goverments or to the American form of democracy and capitalism.
 
Ah I see another issue between us. I don't believe in equal speech, just the Constitutions right of free speech. The right of Free Speech, is the idea that you have the right to call Bush a Fascist or whatever else, and not be sent to prison, or threatened by the government over it. That is the equal right to not be oppressed for speaking against the government whether by a TV ad, or a bumper sticker.

However, there is no right to equal speech. Just because I can buy an ad, doesn't mean everyone should be able to. There is no right to equal speech, just a right to be free to do it if you can without being intervention.

Equal speech is a silly notion anyway. Since Matt Lauer has a 30 minute free speech, so everyone in the entire country has a right to a 30 minute news cast? Or Oprah? Or any number of others? That's silly.

As a Constitutionalist, I never supported any Hush Rush law, or similar, regardless of whom it was originally intended. The law is incompatible with my ideology.

I think we may be in agreement there. I have never supported Hush Rush" legislation on the airwaves...I just find it ironic that those who scream the loudest have conveniently forgotten the origin of that law - an origin that was not a liberal one.

But I also do not agree that currency is "free speech". Effectively - it means the wealthy have more free speech then the poor and it gives a great deal of power to special interest groups out of proportion to their representative size.
 
Werbung:
blaming biofuels for the fact some people don't have food is just dumb. People did not food 10 years ago or 20 as well

True, but no one said that all people had food 10-20 years ago.

What was said is that some people who did have food 10-20 years ago don't have it today, largely because of biofuels.

The reason for this is that biofuels policies have basically merged the food and energy markets. Now, as long as energy prices are higher than food prices, farmers have an incentive to convert food to energy until the two reach a rough equilibrium -- which means food prices go up and people can't afford it anymore. All that corn and grain that would normally feed people is being turned into an inefficient product for which there is no demand, kept alive only artificially by government mandates and subsidies.

Couple this with China's mass-purchase of rice in an effort to liquidate its USD holdings and you have a recipie for famine on your hands.
 
Back
Top