Seriously, these are examples of what you call "Nazi tactics?"

Apparently, you've not done your homework on Geobels.

Forgive me for being unimpressed

No, Eric you misunderstand me. My intent is not to impress you. You've long since demonstrated your ability to ignore any fact that doesn't run parallel to your own stunted worldview.

OK. So what you've pointed out here are what authoritarian regimes can have in common. But I see that you've conveniently left out any rightwing authoritarians and in fact have made the brazen assertion that Hitler was a socialist.

Add any you please; you'll have furthered, not lessened my point, albeit only insofar as tactics. The point you intentionally miss, however, is that the similarity the names I've listed share with Obama is heir socilaism. I can understand why you'd want to do that but dont think for a moemnt that your attempt to delink the two got by anyone.

your to dumb... .

you gimp... .

brainwashed little idiot you are...

liberally retard...

G.A., I'm sorry, but aren't you one of the ones in here who always complain that liberals call names because they have no real arguments?

In any event, regarding your inane assertions about Marxism and Fascism, you still don't know what you are talking about. My whole point was that people who are smarter than you or I and study this stuff all day, every day, make distinctions between Marxism, Fascism, Communism, et cetera because all of them are discreet philosophies and ideologies. You don't get to Marxism with fascist tactics--you get to Fascism with fascist tactics.

People like you don't care for these distinctions, of course, because to you it's all the same. Just lump it all together into an incoherent whole and blame liberals for it all is just too convenient for you to pass up. And of course it doesn't do any good to cite Bullock or Kershaw or any of those people who have devoted their lives to studying Fascism and Stalinism, because, after all, they're just liberal professors out to destroy America. Instead, be like Bit and cite fringe authors as authoritative, right?

onsider the reactions to Joe the Plumber. Consider the reactions to Jerome Corsi.
Conisder the reation to Stan Kurtz.
Consider the reaction to David Freddoso.
Consider the reaction to KYW-TV.
Consider the reaction to WFTV.

(Here, let me look all these up since you didn't bother to link to any of them...)

Seriously, these are examples of what you call "Nazi tactics?" Really? Forgive me for being unimpressed. Usually when someone claims someone or some group are like Nazis, I'm expecting examples like torture, illegal surveillance, abrogation of constitutional rights and checks and balances, concentration camps, et cetera (whoops... didn't see that coming, did ya?). Mere public dismissal and disdain of fringe authors whose work is discredited or of a journalist who conducted a clearly biased interview based on fringe rightwing talking points is laughable on its face. I wonder, if these are examples of liberals using Nazi tactics, I wonder what you must think of the real thing.

But of course, if someone asks Sarah Palin what newspapers she reads, that is clear evidence of Nazi "gotcha" tactics.

Are you getting the pattern, yet? This kind of nonsense has been employed by every socialist despot in history... Say, for example, Hugo Chavez and RCTV, or if you’d like a more historical point of view, Stalin’s use of the Cheka, to eliminate all opposition. There are others; Mao, Castro, Hitler are prominant among them. And yes, I include Hitler, since he was a socialist, like the rest.

And along comes Obama, who has lifelong connections to socialists, occasionally violent ones, such as Bill Ayers... and we're to expect anything less of him?

OK. So what you've pointed out here are what authoritarian regimes can have in common. But I see that you've conveniently left out any rightwing authoritarians and in fact have made the brazen assertion that Hitler was a socialist. That is of course a convenient rationalization in order to help you justify your warped world view. Hitler may have been many things, but a socialist he was not. But, please, don't believe me. Believe Bullock or Kershaw or any number of respectable historians who study this stuff.

It must be very satisfying to live in a fantasy world world where all that is good and green and beautiful is represented by the right and everything bad and evil is simply attributed to liberals despite what is commonly understood or factually known to be otherwise.

Hitler a socialist... ho-ho, that's one of your better ones, Bit.

Anjin, nobody in here claimed Mccain was the perfect choice.

Look bit, if you want to rationalize your support of the socialist McCain, that is your business.

MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Anjin, nobody in here claimed Mccain was the perfect choice. Just that given Obama, he's by far the better choice.

Every rational politician in modern American politics has supported redistribution of wealth, even Reagan.

I note your claim comes iwth no specifics attached. Someone offers up the earned income credit, but that falls over at the first logical hoop... that it was done to satisfy the Congressional Democrats.

By the way, since you are so confident that Democrats use Nazi tactics, perhaps you can come up with a few clear examples of this instead of merely asserting ....

Consider the reactions to Joe the Plumber. Consider the reactions to Jerome Corsi.
Conisder the reation to Stan Kurtz.
Consider the reaction to David Freddoso.
Consider the reaction to KYW-TV.
Consider the reaction to WFTV.

Are you getting the pattern, yet? This kind of nonsense has been employed by every socialist despot in history... Say, for example, Hugo Chavez and RCTV, or if you’d like a more historical point of view, Stalin’s use of the Cheka, to eliminate all opposition. There are others; Mao, Castro, Hitler are prominant among them. And yes, I include Hitler, since he was a socialist, like the rest.

And along comes Obama, who has lifelong connections to socialists, occasionally violent ones, such as Bill Ayers... and we're to expect anything less of him?

No, I suggest he's already shown hhis hand in the items I list, and more.

OK. So basically you've done what a high schooler writing his first term paper does: put together a few quotes and dictionary definitions out of context and try to pass them off as somehow coherent. Never mind what historians of Marxism or Fascism have to say, G.A. knows better.

lol the truth of what I say about you is what it is, that your to dumb to to understand it is your reason for denial and attack, you said I don't know why or what I meant, and I gave you prefect examples that even you could look up you gimp. they fit you, if you can't see that I know why and you never will is your problem.

The bottom line is that you fear both so you apparently don't feel the need to make any distinctions. Marxists? Fascists? Gay? Abortion?. Hate everything and lump it all together to tar your opponent with. Eric Martin hit this on the head today while talking about the Republican smear narrative:

And this is how much of a trained brainwashed little idiot you are, the play book misdirected bullshit, grow up, and think for your self, WTF are all you fools
of the same puny mentality?

I fear nothing But GOD and I only hate the sh-t you do and believe in, and when you are all of the above(and I don't think Ive ever lumped gay in at any time but in your case) I'm gonna tell you here or to your face. Yet as always you and your like repeat the stupidity of another gimp to argue with me.

But then again, you rightwing nutties never let the facts get in the way of a good smear, do you?

I know don't why I get so mad at the liberally retard, I fell bad now, please forgive me I know you can't help yourself and it's not your fault.

During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Implicitly, his "rich" definition

Sorry dude, that is just your spin. You can parse language, but no one else can? Obama has never said he will only raise taxes on "the rich", and to my knowledge, he has never said that he considers 250k a year to make one "rich". He is a bright guy, he knows that income is very nice for a resident of NYC, LA or SF, but it is not an income that makes one rich.

If you time is so valuable, run along and do something important. You posts don't really qualify as such so far.

Please, are you a serious poster or not? Until recently Obama has clung to the $250 figure as his tax breakpoint. Implicitly, his "rich" definition. If you want to sophomorically wordsmith save it for your fellows at the coffee shop.

If you want serious discourse, please engage. My time is valuable.

Obama has it implicitly at $250

That's your read, and it is not a very good one. Where did Obama say that 250k a year constitutes "rich" or that he intends to "only raise taxes on the rich"? Back it up or concede the point, that door swings both ways...

Yes, more than a million. (Although I think your characterization of "rich" is bizarre. Obama has it implicitly at $250......now $200K, Joey has it at $150K....is it Thursday yet?? On our way to $100K?????)

I hear about these exotic tax avoidance schemes all the time...........but somehow no one ever comes through with the details.

Usually, when pressed, you find out that the "tax avoidance" is really the realization of losses.
Well, losses are reductions in income. And unless the "new math" has changed our universe, a loss of a dollar offsets only 40-50 cents in tax. You are still out 50-60 cents. You won't stay in business very long under that math.

Give me specifics, or concede the point.

Let's qualify you. Do you have an income of over a million dollars a year? That would get you in on the bottom rung of "rich".

The people I am familiar with have net worth roughly in the 50 million dollar range. I do not know all the inner details of their taxes, but I have had discussion with them where they have talked about some of the creative (and legal) methods their accounting people use to reduce tax liabilities. And they all seem to think George Bush is Santa Claus.

From OTB lookup--->mostly.

What you think you want.

"The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society."

how your getting there.

"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."

"Meaning #1: relating to or consistent with or typical of the ideology and practice of Nazism or the Nazis"

OK. So basically you've done what a high schooler writing his first term paper does: put together a few quotes and dictionary definitions out of context and try to pass them off as somehow coherent. Never mind what historians of Marxism or Fascism have to say, G.A. knows better.

Marxism is a social and political theory, while Fascism is an ideology (i.e., it lacks any philosophical underpinning). Each operate on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Fascism, whether of the Nazi variety or the American variety (e.g., Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation) is a phenomenon of the right--got that, G.A.: A phenomenon of the right. The only thing that the two could have in common is that is that they both are authoritarian (at least Marxism in practice; in theory it doesn't have to be). Just because they share that trait does not mean you can get to one from the other.

The bottom line is that you fear both so you apparently don't feel the need to make any distinctions. Marxists? Fascists? Gay? Abortion?. Hate everything and lump it all together to tar your opponent with. Eric Martin hit this on the head today while talking about the Republican smear narrative:

This is the problem... it’s a problem for the entire wingnut noise machine. Obama is a Marxist Muslim Arab Jesus Black White Terrorist Technocrat Racist Do-Gooder Liberal FDR Stalin Hilter [me: Chamberlain!] Commie Fascist Gay Womanizing Naive Cynical Insider Noob Boring Radical Unaccomplished Elite Slick Gaffe-Prone Pedophile Pedophile-Seducing Liberation Theology Atheist Etc. & Anti-Etc. with a bunch of scary friends from - wait for it! - the Nineteen Hundred And Sixties. It makes no sense. It’s a jumble sale of fears and scary associations from 50 years of wingnut witch hunts and smear campaigns, a flea market of pre-owned and antique resentments, and if one does detect a semi-consistent 1960’s motif running through it all, that’s because that’s when most of these ideas were coined.

Does that encapsulate nicely what you fear, G.A? Did Martin leave anything out? Let us know ASAP, OK?

lol called me a yokel, and it's G.A. you new age NAZI gimp.

I always love how the rightwing loonies like to tar the left with the Nazi smears, when Fascism comes from the right. LOL!

I used to think just like most of you liberals when I was a dumb ass teenage atheist evolutionist who thought I new everything.

Another rightwing nuthouse chestnut: only kids and the immature are liberals. Adults and grownups are conservatives. LOL! Really? You're so much smarter than the rest of us youngsters, huh. Maybe we shouldn't be able to vote. Or maybe older people shouldn't vote. (So hard to resist the Nazi references, isn't it, G.W?

---->Mostly because it's so easy to compare the tactics of the Democrats to that of the nazis. And BTW, the reason your having problems, Eric, with the historical references, is you're talking goals and he's talking tactics.

Oh, great. The whole tactics versus strategy thing that you conservatives seem to get confused between all the time. Yeah, Bit, that's what it is. I'm just confused that I can't lump two totally different things together and pretend they're the same. By the way, since you are so confident that Democrats use Nazi tactics, perhaps you can come up with a few clear examples of this instead of merely asserting it to be true. I know Anjin has been asking you to do this for some time (i.e., actually support your arguments with facts), but maybe if I ask nicely you will do it this time. Pretty please?

But then again, you rightwing nutties never let the facts get in the way of a good smear, do you?

I am one of those "rich" you refer to. For over 10 years now I have had one of those "top 1%" incomes.

I have expensive professional accountants do my taxes. We talk about tax management alot.

I have no clue what you are referring to when you say "ducking" those taxes. In fact the opposite is true. Deductions phase out as income increases. Can you provide us with specific examples - specific - of how to "duck out" from those taxes?

Or are you like all the rest, just working your unit?

Your correlation of GDP growth and MTR's has several faults. (and I realize you caveat the notion) Most importantly, deductions in effect in the '50 - '60 time frame make the MTR a misleading statistic. Effective tax rate would be better.

Second, the 2000 - 2007 time period includes the combined effect of the recession and 9/11 early in the short measurement period.

In any event, absolute correlations of tax policy and GDP growth are very difficult, indeed. An obvious retort from the high tax apologists is the experience of the 90's. However, this ignores the fact that the Clinton administration enjoyed walking into office in the middle of recovery...and then was present (not a cause) during one of the greatest productivity booms in history, with the odd Y2K effect at the end.

And of course while riding out on his chariot, leaving imminent recession and a stock market bust that saw the Wilshire Index plummet 35%. Good luck, George, with your statistics!

Hence the data anlysis problems.

I happen to live in the world that would be called "small business." Investing, operating and owning $30 - $200MM revenue businesses. Having done this for 18 years now, the academic notion that increasing capital gains and marginal OI income rates will have no effect on employment and capital investment can only be described as bizarre. It may work in the ivory tower, but it fails miserably in the board room, and at the kitchen table of the entrepreneur.

I noted in a previous post that I am generally hesitant to pull rank, preferring to construct arguments from the ground up rather than make pronouncements. But 18 years of real life, practical experience in this arena informs me that Obama's tax policies, presented so sweetly and seductively as they are with a velvet glove, will not help the "little guy." No way. Not one bit.