Hitler and the Nazis

[Dumpy]

I guess it'd be alright to stock up the next administration with Harvard graduates. The very best of the academically qualified.

What of these people don't have a pulse and are out of touch with the American public?

You can hate Karl Rove, but he dropped out of college, and worked his way up. He's an incredibly smart human being. Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale, but he's a smart guy as well.

"smart" is the worst word in the english language. It has no meaning. As I said, there are different types of intelligence, and some people are good at one kind and some are good at other kinds. If you put Thomas Edison, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Beethoven, Garry Kasparov, Margaret Thatcher, Petere Ueberroth [for administrative skill] and Werner Von Braun in a room, who is "smarter?" It all depends on what use you're talking about. Again, the issue is what sort of person you want making executive decisions for the country. I know some really smart people, but most of them are ill-suited for that sort of position.

 

[Dumpy]

How did we start with overuse of the word Nazi and end up talking about Dan Quayle?

I think someone may have gone overboard in bashing democrats.

 

[Denny Crane]

Al Gore did pretty well as VP, too.

Bash! Bash! Bash!

(Equal opportunity basher)

 

[DennisRodman]

Neither Democrats or Republicans are Nazis. Sure you can draw some parallels, but the first thoughts of Nazism are anti-semitism, mass genocide, racism, and anti-handicapped peopleism.

 

[Dumpy]

Hillary did pretty well as VP, too.

Bash! Bash! Bash!

(Equal opportunity basher)

wow, that's something I never thought I'd read.

 

[Thoth]

Sorry, is that a federally elected position?

No. But you get cash which is just as good as money. lol.

As far as Denny's challenge in post 78, I would have thought it had to do w/ Liberals tending to be more theoretical & big picture and conservatives being more literal/hands on.

 

[MikeDC]

everyone with any intelligence knows that the SAT and IQ tests are worthless, and don't prove anything.

I wouldn't say IQ tests are worthless, they're accurate predictors of all sorts of things. That need not undercut your other point, however, that there are all sorts of really smart people I wouldn't want to be ruled by.

I'd gladly trade off some pure IQ for good judgement and a wealth of experience.

IQ is worthwhile, it's just that when you go across the line into making it determinative, you inevitably start crushing the humanity out of things. Which is ultimately why I'd put myself on the libertarian side of the spectrum. When push comes to shove, everyone has the right to do anything they can, and no law or authority ought to prevent them by saying they don't have the "tools to do the job". On the other side, you've got folks who bring up the "intelligence" of our elected leaders as if everyone ought to be doled out into their jobs based on some sort of IQ test.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

The president of Harvard had a plan for eugenics that involved testing people to separate those from the fast track to leadership positions in society and government and the fast track to being a blue collar worker.

The test he used is known as the SAT. The SAT had its origins in tests that were used to "prove" that black men and women were truly inferior to whites. That was the work of Carl Brigham.

Ronald Reagan used SAT scores as a unit of measurement in his State of the Union speeches. Is Reagan a believer in eugenics? If not, then he shouldn't be even bringing it up in the first place.

"Families stand at the center of our society. And every family has a personal stake in promoting excellence in education. Excellence does not begin in Washington. A 600-percent increase in Federal spending on education between 1960 and 1980 was accompanied by a steady decline in Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Excellence must begin in our homes and neighborhood schools, where it's the responsibility of every parent and teacher and the right of every child." (State of the Union, 1984)

"Confident in our future, and secure in our values, Americans are striving forward to embrace the future...We see it in the renaissance in education, the rising SAT scores for three years—last year's increase the greatest since 1963. It wasn't government and Washington lobbies that turned education around, it was the American people who, in reaching for excellence, knew to reach back to basics. We must continue the advance by supporting discipline in our schools; vouchers that give parents freedom of choice; and we must give back to our children their lost right to acknowledge God in their classrooms." (State of the Union, 1986)

 

[Denny Crane]

Two points.

He was a democrat (as well as union president)

Looks more like an attack on the Democrats' proclivity to pour good money after bad on the fire known as education.

(To mix metaphors nicely)

 

[lukewarmplay]

Nazis. I hate those guys.

 

[AEM]

^ Hear, hear! Goddamn Nazis!

 

[Thoth]

You can hate Karl Rove, but he dropped out of college, and worked his way up. He's an incredibly smart human being. Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale, but he's a smart guy as well.

Yet, Dubya made it through Yale. What in Skull & Bones is up w/ that?

Bill Gates, anyone?

 

[Thoth]

Thoth, I thought you should know I now have a copy of the book. As soon as I opened it, it began almost exactly the same as I had when I started this thread. That hooked me. Then I flipped forward to the chapter on Eugenics. So far, it's been a fun read. I'm not yet convinced that being pro-choice is synonymous with fascism directly. Eugenics, as described in the book, are mostly a mandate, not a choice (forced sterilizations of a perceived "inferior" genetic strain, banned abortions for some women but not others, etc).

Tell me what you think about the chapters on Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, & Hitler? I think less now of Teddy Roosevelt. Goldberg IMO was dragging JFK through the mud.

 

[Thoth]

I wouldn't say IQ tests are worthless, they're accurate predictors of all sorts of things. That need not undercut your other point, however, that there are all sorts of really smart people I wouldn't want to be ruled by.

I'd gladly trade off some pure IQ for good judgement and a wealth of experience.

IQ is worthwhile, it's just that when you go across the line into making it determinative, you inevitably start crushing the humanity out of things. Which is ultimately why I'd put myself on the libertarian side of the spectrum. When push comes to shove, everyone has the right to do anything they can, and no law or authority ought to prevent them by saying they don't have the "tools to do the job". On the other side, you've got folks who bring up the "intelligence" of our elected leaders as if everyone ought to be doled out into their jobs based on some sort of IQ test.

If memory serves, The USSR used to administer a test to kids in their ealrly teens to determinw whether they'd be a farmer or engineer... If that isn't Educational eugenics I don't know what is and by a far left political ideology.

 

[Thoth]

Nazis. I hate those guys.

What does that book tell you Dr. Jones? It tells me, "you goose stepping morons ought to try reading books instead of burning them."

 

[Thoth]

Where has our republican white house and congress (2000 -2004) brought us in terms of spending? What is our deficit look like now and 9 years ago? Who authorized the spending? where did that money get spent? Did the left wing spend that money?

There is no doubt W is a neocon. I like to tweak hardcore Republicans by saying W spends like a Tip O'Neill Democrat. It amazes me that paleoconservatives such as Rumsfeld & Cheney can tolerate W.

Under Reagan, The GOP was fiscally conservative and socially moderate and was a Big tent party. Then, during the reign of Daddy Bush, social conservatives/religious right started exerting more influence. Now, The GOP IMO is socially conservative & narrowly fiscally moderate. They spend like crazy and have expanded the size of government yet its the belief in Supply side policy and the tax cuts that save them from being fiscal liberals.

 

[Thoth]

Re: posts 41, 48, & 51.

Social conservatives favor "traditional values". I'll agree with the fact they like less Gov't. Only because IMO, they'd rather have their church acting as advisor rather than the Gov't acting as a nanny.

What bothers me about the GOP now is how they always trot out emotional wedge issues be it overturning Roe v Wade, Hatch's flag burning amendment, the fence on the southern border, etc...

For awhile, I thought Goldwater was a kook. Yet, it was about the time Ralph Reed, Falwell, etc... starting getting more political that I migrated from being a Republican to a Libertarian. I believe Barry was smeared.

In fact, I find it interesting how Ron Paul was marginalized as a nut during the primaries yet he is much closer to being a Libertarian then Bob Barr.

Speaking of Barr, How can anyone who started the whole Clinton impeachment process on a morals charge truly be a Libertarian? Is the GOP so worried that they have to send an agent provocateur in?

 

[MikeDC]

There is no doubt W is a neocon. I like to tweak hardcore Republicans by saying W spends like a Tip O'Neill Democrat. It amazes me that paleoconservatives such as Rumsfeld & Cheney can tolerate W.

Under Reagan, The GOP was fiscally conservative and socially moderate and was a Big tent party. Then, during the reign of Daddy Bush, social conservatives/religious right started exerting more influence. Now, The GOP IMO is socially conservative & narrowly fiscally moderate. They spend like crazy and have expanded the size of government yet its the belief in Supply side policy and the tax cuts that save them from being fiscal liberals.

I wouldn't put the blame entirely on the GOP. I look at it mainly as a big logrolling operation, and in truth it started well before W. Spending went up dramatically under Reagan as well, and I think the logic behind the spending increases with him and with the current government is pretty much the same.

Logrolling, for those of you who don't know, is the political science term for trading pet projects.

The typical line of thinking, especially in Libertarian circles, is that divided government causes spending to go down because the parties will block each other out. That's no hard and fast rule though.

Under Reagan, you had a Republican President who was more concerned about beating the Commies than reigning in spending. To get the Democrats in Congress to go along with the beating the Commies plan, it was expedient to spend more on the things they wanted.

I'd say 9/11 created similar conditions. Democratic support for the war has always been tenuous, and it's fairly obvious the Republicans simply agreed to hand over various prizes in order to secure support: increases in discretionary spending, a prescription drug bill, nationalizing and unionizing the vast, and fairly ridiculous airport security apparatus. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

 

[Vintage]

I've even heard people argue Reagan was a neocon, too.

 

[Thoth]

I've even heard people argue Reagan was a neocon, too.

RR was intially a Democrat.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

RR was intially a Democrat.

Why do Neocons admire him so much? I have read that a lot of them are "Reaganites".

 

[Real]

Why do Neocons admire him so much? I have read that a lot of them are "Reaganites".

Because they saw him as a successful, charismatic, strong President.

And so did a lot of people, so they use his platform to campaign on.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Because they saw him as a successful, charismatic, strong President.

And so did a lot of people, so they use his platform to campaign on.

RR was a charismatic, hollywood guy who used to be a Democrat. He thumps SAT scores, which Denny attributes to left wing eugenics. Are neocons Democrats in disguise?

 

[Real]

RR was a charismatic, hollywood guy who used to be a Democrat. He thumps SAT scores, which Denny attributes to left wing eugenics. Are neocons Democrats in disguise?

Well, under George Bush, spending has increased. The Republican party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

George Bush also ran on a conservative platform of no nation building. So I think that's a valid argument.

What Reagan and Bill Clinton had in common was they both wanted the line item veto to eliminate pork and wasteful spending, which I think is an excellent idea, even though Constitutional scholars will shudder at that idea. In my mind the only way to completely eliminate pork and wasteful government spending is to have a fiscally conservative President that has the line item veto with a sizable Republican majority, including a 60/40 majority in the Senate. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Denny Crane]

RR was a charismatic, hollywood guy who used to be a Democrat. He thumps SAT scores, which Denny attributes to left wing eugenics. Are neocons Democrats in disguise?

He ridiculed typical failed Democratic programs. It was a thumb in the eye.

Neocons. Neo. Conservative. New breed of "conservative." They talk about Reagan, but they don't walk his walk or talk his talk.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, under George Bush, spending has increased. The Republican party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

George Bush also ran on a conservative platform of no nation building. So I think that's a valid argument.

What Reagan and Bill Clinton had in common was they both wanted the line item veto to eliminate pork and wasteful spending, which I think is an excellent idea, even though Constitutional scholars will shudder at that idea. In my mind the only way to completely eliminate pork and wasteful government spending is to have a fiscally conservative President that has the line item veto with a sizable Republican majority, including a 60/40 majority in the Senate. That's just my opinion though.

GHW Bush wasn't a conservative. He was a liberal republican.

The only two republican presidents to start wars or get us into wars in the 21st and 20th centuries were the two Bushes.

Vietnam = JFK and LBJ
Korea = Truman
WW II = FDR
WW I = Wilson

 

[Thoth]

He ridiculed typical failed Democratic programs. It was a thumb in the eye.

Neocons. Neo. Conservative. New breed of "conservative." They talk about Reagan, but they don't walk his walk or talk his talk.

Reagan converted but was no Neocon IMO. He was the original Reagan Democrat. lol.

No progressive/neocon/socialist/? would have busted the Air Traffic Controllers union like he did. Further, he was against Big Government. He once said, "Government is the cause of not the solution to our problems."

 

[Thoth]

GHW Bush wasn't a conservative. He was a liberal republican.

The only two republican presidents to start wars or get us into wars in the 21st and 20th centuries were the two Bushes.

Vietnam = JFK and LBJ
Korea = Truman
WW II = FDR
WW I = Wilson

Very good point. Its militarism that is one of the leading indicators of Fascism which Liberals/Progressives can become. FDR & Woodrow certainly qualify.

 

[Denny Crane]

Reagan converted but was no Neocon IMO. He was the original Reagan Democrat. lol.

No progressive/neocon/socialist/? would have busted the Air Traffic Controllers union like he did. Further, he was against Big Government. He once said, "Government is the cause of not the solution to our problems."

I wasn't clear. Reagan was a conservative.

The others found Reagan like they found God. But they're not conservatvies.

 

[Thoth]

I wasn't clear. Reagan was a conservative.

The others found Reagan like they found God. But they're not conservatvies.

I knew what you meant & was clarfying for others who may have been confused about Ronnie's Ideology.

RR was a paleoconservative... I believe I recently used that term before.