Sound Familiar? Alabama Representative's secret list

[Naturist Mark]

U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus says he has a secret list of 17 socialists in the US Congress ...

Republican Rep. Bachus Makes List Of 'Socialists' In House Of Representatives (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/09/rep-bachus-17-house-members-are-socialists/)

Something about this "list" sounds oddly familiar ...

[Navigator]

In the article Bacchus says: "Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are Socialists."

I guess he thinks he's trying to shock his audience.

These days, he would have succeeded more "shockingly" if he'd said: "Some of the people I work with in Congress are Republicans."


While my view is that most Americans can't really define Socialism (or Bush Fascism)...here's what a recent U.S. pole on the issue has to say:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

[Fitz1980]

As some of our Canadian and European friends can attest to, these people have no idea what Socialism really is. In truth pretty much every mainstream American politician is somewhere between moderate and conservative.

Check out some of the comments people have left on the article; calling Democrats Stalinist Communists and terrorist loving traitors.

I mean seriously check this out. WHY IN THE HECK IS A CABLE COMEDY SHOW THE VOICE OF REASON HERE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey'>Baracknophobia - Obey</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:223862' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the +Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

[NudeAl]

As the great Yoggi once said, "It's like deja' vu all over again." As if times are not dark enough. I guess we all better start rehearsing our answer to the question, are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party. I can hear old Joe laughing.

[Fitz1980]

As the great Yoggi once said, "It's like deja' vu all over again." As if times are not dark enough. I guess we all better start rehearsing our answer to the question, are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party. I can hear old Joe laughing.

There has been a conservative push for the past decade or two there has been an effort in the radical right to reform McCarthy's image. Anne Coulter has been big on that. Here is she posing at his grave.

http://www.blackwashingtonmonument.com/files/images/coulter_mccarthy.jpg

[nakedstudent]

I want to go through the list that Stewart Presented in his monologue 1 by 1 because I think there are important differences to be seen there. They are also the most important features of the discussion.
1. Bush starting the bailouts. Almost every conservative talking head out there blasted Bush for these decisions. I remember listening to Hannity and Glenn Beck FUME about them for WEEKS. Glenn started a “March to Socialism” feature that started well before the November election. There were definitely mistakes made in the entirety of the Bush presidency. I’ve been saying that since 2005 and 2006. I had grown to see Iraq as a mistake by then and only support efforts to end the war in the correct way. We’ve committed so many sins in the M.E. in our history (without the benefit of hindsight) that it’s not funny. We have to put Iraq in a true position for success moving forward. Anything else would add more negativity to the region when (if we approach it the right way) we could do a lot of good.
2. “Nationalizing” AIG has been taken by both sides in a very myopic way. The liquidity and credit crisis was transcendent of the name of the company involved. There were so many dominoes that had to fall for AIG to be put under the situation it found itself in during the financial collapse of the past couple years. One of them was the housing bubble where people were defaulting on mortgages left and right. When this happened, the subsequent repossession caused significant price drops and left the bank on the hook for a lot of money. I’m not trying to say that AIG made all the best decisions, but any of the wrong ones it made were magnified by the mistakes in other sectors of the economy and also by the lack of willingness of congressional democrats to take a serious look at Frank Raines and James Johnson who were the same type of CEO’s that they constantly criticize for “extreme compensation.”
3. The drug entitlement program and NCLB are also things that most conservatives disagreed with Bush on since it was started.
4. As far as the wire tapping goes, I don’t think we’ll ever see a list of the occurrences during which wire taps were used. But foreign intelligence gathering against terrorists was authorized under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. Furthermore, I think it’s also important to note the lack of criticism of the “Protect America Act of 2007” that basically commuted the requirements that were in place for Bush and was passed by a democratically controlled house and senate. This bill was passed in a much more bipartisan way than anything that has been done in this administration.
5. GITMO is hardly a secret as Stewart suggested. The entire world knows about that base. The sad thing is that the press has twisted what goes on there so badly it isn’t even funny. I’ve read reports that show the average GITMO detainee gets treated better than a US citizen down there and that in all prisoners to have ever been held there, only 3 cases of “torture” or “inhumane treatment” were ever found. I’ve also seen the staggering percentage of released GITMO detainees who are re-arrested on the battlefield trying to kill US troops.

Furthermore, the fact that terrorists are not US citizens who are “at war” with us (Osama Bin Laden’s words not mine) makes them unlawful enemy combatants who are not subject to civilian courts or treatment of POW standards. According to definition, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant) an terrorist is defined as an unlawful enemy combatant. If they are arrested on the battlefield or in the US, obviously they are armed and engaging in violation of International Humanitarian Law. The Ex Parte Quirin case during WWII clearly states that unlawful combatants should not be given the right to a civilian court trial. If you want to dispute rights to counsel, etc, that’s an entirely different story.

6. I have yet to see any concrete evidence of any violation to the constitution committed in the “expansion of powers” committed by the Bush/Cheney administration. I actually have only heard of the 1 tie breaking vote that Cheney cast as legislative input. If you have direct sources regarding specific aspects of Cheney’s actions that you question, please inform me.

I am somewhat confused about a couple things. I would start to combat the John Stewart crowd by saying Bush hasn’t been fiscally conservative since at least 2002. The Dubai Ports deal, immigration reform, bailouts, foreign aid, and many other aspects of his presidency demonstrate this. I find it funny that some choose to lump all Republicans with criticisms of Obama into the same pot. Some conservatives have been the LOUDEST critics of George Bush. Look at Michael Savage if you need an example. He’s been calling Bush a “fiscal socialist” for 6 or 7 years now. It’s a major contributing factor to why Obama won the presidency. To just throw us all into his stereotypical view of how he thinks a Conservative should think or act is very irresponsible…

[MichiganMe]

As far as I know, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that makes capitalism the required economic system nor forbids socialism. Anyway, we already have socialism to a degree: social security, medicare, public schools, etc. Oh yeah, the Republicans did want to **** can social security and have us invest in the stock market. Had that gone through you know what the Republicans who have been demanding? They would have been demanding that we save the retirement investments. We also have a lot of corporate socialism -- tax dollars benefitting corporations without much requirement that they give something in back. Most other developed countries increase the taxation on corporations as they outsource jobs.

By the way, "The Dark Continent, Europe in the 20th Century", is a must read for anyone who thinks that unfettered laissez-faire is a good idea. In that book, the author shows that liberalism between the great wars contributed to the economic collapse of European economies. Extreme conservatism (fascism and nazism) were viewed as legitimate and viable alternatives to liberalism by many voters and intellectuals. (Liberalism back then meant little or no governmental involvement in the economy or in the lives of the citizens. Conservatism meant continuation or reinstallment of strong central administrations ala monarchies or dictators. The U.S. Constitution was and is a radically liberal document.) Present day conservatives, while supporting handouts to corporations, argue for little or no regulation of the practices of business. But is that really a good idea?

The upheavals of the early 20th century taught the European nations (outside the sphere of the Soviet Union) that there had to be some regulation of the economy to prevent boom and crashes and some economic safety net for the workers to prevent political upheavals. To label as socialist the regulation of banks and businesses to prevent the criminal excesses of the last few years (well, the excesses should have been criminal) is just foolishness. It makes people react emotionally against common sense.

To temporarily nationalize failed banks with the intent of making them again profitable and then selling them back to private investors is good business practice. The World Bank has repeatedly done that very thing in other countries throughout the world. It is what should have been done here. Who would buy the bad debt of a firm and leave the ownership (and the profitability) in the hands of those who mismanaged it? You either buy the whole firm or you let it fail. The government buying up only the bad debt is corporate welfare and is bad business -- bad for the taxpayers anyway.

[Fitz1980]

5. GITMO is hardly a secret as Stewart suggested. The entire world knows about that base. The sad thing is that the press has twisted what goes on there so badly it isn’t even funny. I’ve read reports that show the average GITMO detainee gets treated better than a US citizen down there and that in all prisoners to have ever been held there, only 3 cases of “torture” or “inhumane treatment” were ever found. I’ve also seen the staggering percentage of released GITMO detainees who are re-arrested on the battlefield trying to kill US troops.

He's not talking about GITMO. He's talking about a series of secret CIA prisons set up in other nations around the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe



Furthermore, the fact that terrorists are not US citizens who are “at war” with us (Osama Bin Laden’s words not mine) makes them unlawful enemy combatants who are not subject to civilian courts or treatment of POW standards. According to definition, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant) an terrorist is defined as an unlawful enemy combatant. If they are arrested on the battlefield or in the US, obviously they are armed and engaging in violation of International Humanitarian Law. The Ex Parte Quirin case during WWII clearly states that unlawful combatants should not be given the right to a civilian court trial. If you want to dispute rights to counsel, etc, that’s an entirely different story.


Here's my thing with that. If they are "at war" with us than why shouldn't they be treated as POWs? If they aren't POWs than shouldn't they be treated as criminals?


6. I have yet to see any concrete evidence of any violation to the constitution committed in the “expansion of powers” committed by the Bush/Cheney administration. I actually have only heard of the 1 tie breaking vote that Cheney cast as legislative input. If you have direct sources regarding specific aspects of Cheney’s actions that you question, please inform me.


I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking here? What Stewart was talking about was when Congress asked him to release some documents to them he refused citing executive privilege, but than also refused to disclose information regarding classified material his office had to the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office saying that the executive order requiring that did not apply to him because his office was part of the legislative branch (given his position as the President of the Senate) which seems somewhat dubious given that just a few years earlier he cited executive privilege.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/22/nation/na-cheney22

[nakedstudent]

Here's my thing with that. If they are "at war" with us than why shouldn't they be treated as POWs? If they aren't POWs than shouldn't they be treated as criminals?

Because they aren't the soldiers we've seen on a traditional battlefield. They have changed the way war is fought.

Obama did such a good job of saying "We're not at war with Islam." which is true. But he failed to differentiate between peaceful, moderate Islam and the radical elements of it.

These radical elements are not in a traditional army. They do however plot to destroy the west and the world as a whole if you look at Mumbai recently, Spain, 911, and countless other attacks they've carried out over the years. For this simple reason, they aren't soldiers in an organized army. It's a completely different type of war.



I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking here? What Stewart was talking about was when Congress asked him to release some documents to them he refused citing executive privilege, but than also refused to disclose information regarding classified material his office had to the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office saying that the executive order requiring that did not apply to him because his office was part of the legislative branch (given his position as the President of the Senate) which seems somewhat dubious given that just a few years earlier he cited executive privilege.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/22/nation/na-cheney22

Well I actually am pretty happy that classified documents are treated with such care. Many of them contain important security information and it would be a shame for any of that to be inadvertently leaked. ;)

At that point, Congress was after the heads of Bush and Cheney for so many reasons it wasn't funny. It honestly got a little ridiculous.

[Fitz1980]

Well I actually am pretty happy that classified documents are treated with such care. Many of them contain important security information and it would be a shame for any of that to be inadvertently leaked. ;)

WOW, it's amazing that you could be so flippant about someone in Cheney's office having committed treason and than getting off for it. I'm assuming that the wink was a reference to one of Cheney's aids doing something that should have landed him in jail.

People are calling Obama a traitor for some out of context, truncated quotes in Europe.

At that point, Congress was after the heads of Bush and Cheney for so many reasons it wasn't funny. It honestly got a little ridiculous.

At which point? He claimed executive privilege in 2002 when the Republicans were running the congress. He claimed to be a part of the legislative branch and exempt from having to archive his records, with the same people who kept Clinton Bush I, Reagen, Carter and Ford's records for posterity when it was an executive order from the Bush Whitehouse and none of it would come out for years anyway.

[nakedstudent]

WOW, it's amazing that you could be so flippant about someone in Cheney's office having committed treason and than getting off for it. I'm assuming that the wink was a reference to one of Cheney's aids doing something that should have landed him in jail.

People are calling Obama a traitor for some out of context, truncated quotes in Europe.


It was about the Plame case... Honestly? What are you advocating? I can't tell if you'd rather have classified documents declassified or remain classified?


At which point? He claimed executive privilege in 2002 when the Republicans were running the congress. He claimed to be a part of the legislative branch and exempt from having to archive his records, with the same people who kept Clinton Bush I, Reagen, Carter and Ford's records for posterity when it was an executive order from the Bush Whitehouse and none of it would come out for years anyway.

I think it all depends on the type of document in question personally... The Vice President clearly has power in both branches of the government. It's plain as day that this is the case in the constitution. Should an administration be accountable to congress? Absolutely it should. Do senators and other members of congress (like the Vice President may or not be depending on the day) have a right to classify information and keep other senators, congressmen, etc from blackmailing them with it, under an ideal situation no. But considering the level of corruption in the government of it's current form, I am not surprised at non disclosure habits the whole way around.

It's somewhat amazing to see every single senator pointing at someone else with all of this sub prime mess. The fact is that the people who are responsible are not held accountable because of a lack of term limits. If we let our politicians know that we care about how they view their time in Washington, a lot of our problems with government accountability would be solved. Until both sides of the aisle can look at politics and decide to only vote for those who care about how their time in DC is spent, we're not going to get anywhere with government accountability.

It is shocking that your complaint deals with the executive branch and not the congress members who aren't subject to the 2 terms that an executive member is. Some of the corruption that congressmen display is much worse than not disclosing a couple classified documents.

Barney Frank used his office to correct parking tickets for his boyfriend who was also running a prostitution ring out of their apartment.

Larry Craig has had similar allegations surrounding him over the past few years.

Ted Stevens has been embroiled in controversy and corruption.

The only reason these government officials do what they do is because we tell them that they can get away with it.

[Fitz1980]

It was about the Plame case... Honestly? What are you advocating? I can't tell if you'd rather have classified documents declassified or remain classified?

Are you really that obtuse? Word is that you teach high school, what subject again? I don't want the cover of an under cover CIA agent to be blown as a personal vendetta because her husband dared to actually tell the truth about yellow cake uranium.

As for the National Archives and Records Administration, what is your problem with them? Has there ever been a case of them releasing classified information in a manor that you describe. They have released classified information decades later which allowed historians to realize how corrupt certain things were in our history and how many lies were told to the American public.

OOPS

I just stumbled upon Cheney and his people's reason for wanting his stuff out of there.


But considering the level of corruption in the government of it's current form, I am not surprised at non disclosure habits the whole way around.

Given that Bush's administration was the poster boys for said corruption trying to cite that as an excuse for more corruption seems disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

[jon71]

I would wager that this "list" doesn't exactly exist. When McCarthy pulled tricks like this he was often only waving about a blank page or a grocery list or something like that. When he finally was pressed to give names he'd repeat the same name over and over again, include people who attended one meeting 20 years ago (communism looked good during the great depression because Russia's economy was booming then, the reverse of the case during the 40's and 50's) or who had long since renounced any belief in communism. He wanted the shock value of a big list is all. I'd say this clown is doing about the same thing without even bothering to put any effort into it. It's a shame that so many people don't have good working definitions for capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. This is both a cause and an effect of the far right tossing around these terms so casually. If McCain or somebody called Pres. Obama a socialist once and let it go it'd be called hyperbole and end there. Instead the right is so tone deaf and so lacking in self-respect they've stuck with it throwing away the remnants of credibility they have. For the record there is exactly one socialist in congress, Senator Bernie Sanders an Independent from Vermont.

[Naturist Mark]

For the record there is exactly one socialist in congress, Senator Bernie Sanders an Independent from Vermont.

And for the record, Bernie Sanders calls himself a "Democratic Socialist", I suspect mainly to disarm opponents who would attempt to smear him with the "S" word. <blockquote> "Yeah. I wouldn't deny it. Not for one second. I'm a democratic socialist."

Bernie Sanders can't leave it there. No no no.

"In Norway, parents get a paid year to care for infants. Finland and Sweden have national health care, free college, affordable housing and a higher standard of living."

He juts his chin at you. "Okay. Why shouldn't that appeal to our disappearing middle class?"</blockquote>But Sanders is not a classical socialist at all, he is more in the mold of a Western European center left "welfare state" social democrat.

His first elective office was mayor of Burlington Vermont - he won by 12 votes in a four way race. He became very popular after being credited with the revitalization of business in the deteriorating downtown (he was one of those "pro-business" socialists). Sanders lost several bids to become governor, but eventually was elected to Vermont's single seat in the House of Representatives in 1990. During his 8 terms in the House Sanders was a strong opponent of the Iraq war, and supports labor, protecting American industry from unfair "free trade", and universal health care. 10 years ago he began warning that there would be great danger to the economy if Investment Banks and Commercial Banks were not kept as separate businesses. Senator Sanders opposed the initial TARP bailout - Sanders is a champion of small business, but says that companies "too big to be allowed to fail" are "too big to be allowed to exist." He voted against the confirmation of Timothy Geithner as the new Treasury Secretary because he felt Giethner's history made him one of the people responsible for the economic collapse he was being tasked to fix.

Sanders' parents were Polish Jews who emigrated ahead of the Nazi holocaust - the rest of his father's family did not survive it. He was born in Brooklyn in 1941. His brother Larry Sanders is a British politician in the Green Party.

Exceedingly Social, But Doesn't Like Parties (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401124.html)
Who You Calling Socialist? (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=309033)
YouTube: Bernie Sanders "You're a socialist, Larry [Kudlow]" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkqb1pQrCcg)

[Naturist Mark]

From a Glenn Beck 912 Project Teabag Party in Fairlawn Ohio:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kwdOwgD5OsY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kwdOwgD5OsY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Highlights:

"In the early 50s our country was infiltrated by the communist party"
"This was a 50 year plan ... that come into culmination right now ... this is not something that happened just with Obama"
"George Soros is the man who put this plan together ... Obama is a puppet to this guy."
"Our media will not tell the truth ... the Fox network is the only one that will."
"They're doing everything they can to brainwash our public...This thing they're putting on our TVs ... it's a brainwash unit!"
"If you don't get serious about this, you're gonna perish. You gotta get serious."
"I'm not paying taxes anymore"
"Get your kids the hell out of college - they're brainwashing 'em!"
"Burn the books!"
"The ones in college, the brainwashing books, like the evolution crap."
"All right, Rock On!"

Perspective: Andrew Sullivan: The Tea Tantrum Movement (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/time-for-tea.html)
Rachel Maddow & Anna Marie Cox can't keep a straight face talking about all the tea bagging (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30145811#30145811)
Rachel tries again ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30160248#30160248)

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/41uoJfg7A3Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/41uoJfg7A3Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>