Had to be a
RuPaul err, I mean, a Ron Paul guy!! Figures!
You're right, what I was referring to as "big government communism" was in this context dealing with strong state power and authoritarianism. On this front, Gingrich may well be the worst of the three! He is a strong proponent of strengthening the police state / secret police apparatus of the government.... a hallmark of communist governments built around powerful centralized state power:
I didn't find anything wrong with Gingrich's answer in that video (
he gave a good answer overall and a good rebuttal to Ron, I thought!) and I can't seem to make the giant leap that you can from that answer to, "
Why, he's a big government communist that would turn us into an authoritative police state!" Too late though, right? Prez. Hussein already signed a 4 year extension of the Patriot Act... Communist Police State here we come!!! Heh. Oh, but wait, uh, it has been in effect since 2001 (
at least, most provisions minus some that weren't knocked out by court-challenges) - why aren't we there already ? Perhaps it's not as extreme as it's being portrayed/characterized by its opponents ?
I think we ought to be able to talk about national security issues, that is, reasonable measures that can be taken to help thwart future terrorist plots without hysterical and/or hyperbolic charges that anyone who endorses such measures is a "communist" or comes "close" and that they would put us on a direct path towards becoming like the Communist Chinese government... Think we can do that or what ? This is a lazy way (intellectually) of discrediting an idea/policy, by simply trying to associate it with destructive, totalitarian movements/ideologies (e.g. fascists/communists, etc.) that have a lot of blood on their hands and at certain points in revolutionary times had to build walls to keep people (
read: workers/resources) from escaping... Ron Paul does this specifically in the next Freddie Mac video by equating a GSE to fascism (
which could be accurate actually). How about though just oppose it because the Federal government a) is trillions in debt, b) had to bail it out with almost a half a trillion ($400 billion) and c) probably shouldn't have created it in the first place (
I say 'probably' because whether it should exist or not is above my pay grade as citizen political commentator - Hehe!) RATHER than invoke images of swastikas or hammers&sickles? Make the case on the merits!
The problem is, after the Patriot Act, my life or that of the average citizen didn't change a single bit, so its effects can't be "felt" day-to-day. I cannot feel as offended as you are on the issue because the offense is more perceived than tangible (if that's the right way to explain it). For opponents, that presents a problem in convincing others as to its perceived dangers. The workaround to this problem is to to gin up hysteria by making wild-eyed accusations and extreme slippery slope type arguments as Ron Paul does in this video which prevent us from trying to thoughtfully analyze the issue. To effectively discredit the Patriot Act and its supporters given Newt's rebuttal, he throws around "police state," equates the measure to, "
Having a policeman and/or a camera in every house to prevent child/spousal abuse! Yes, you'll prevent and stop a lot of crime, but EVERYBODY will be a perpetual victim living in such a state!!" That is an emotional way-out-there argument that paints an extreme picture and of course few people would want that, but I cannot take the man seriously as a result and I don't see how one reaches that conclusion/warning from ANY of the provisions in the Patriot Act.
Highlights: Ron says, "Terrorism is a crime...and...we dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh!" and then channels Ben Franklin, "Don't sacrifice liberty for security!", etc.
Newt says, "Timothy McVeigh succeeded! That's the whole point. " As in, he blew up a Federal building killing 168, wounding 800, people etc... "I don't want a law that says after we lose an American city we're sure gonna come find you! I want a law that says, you
try to take out an American city, we're gonna stop you!"
I think Ron got owned... "We dealt with it rather well..." I mean, I understand, he's talking about how a criminal court was able to handle prosecuting McVeigh as opposed to say a military tribunal, which gets us into another debate, but still, to hold that aspect up in the face of the fact that ultimately McVeigh succeeded and this is more importantly about how to prevent things like that from happening again made him look foolish...
Taking your description of Gingrich's record of reducing government spending in the 1990s at face value, I would point out that having a large budget deficit is not an inherent feature in communist governments. Cuba currently operates at a modest budget deficit. Libya, under the Jahmahiriya regime, did not have a budget deficit nor a national debt.
Your full term was "big government communist" so at the very least, wrong guy to call a "big government" type assuming I take your liberal usage of "communist" out of it for a moment... Why do you say "taking his record at face value" ? Is there any question that the 90's GOP reduced the size of government and tried to change course after 40 years of democrat control ?? As for Cuba, it's an embargoed small island, I would think everything is small but I'm not an expert and that takes us off on yet another fruitless tangent. I don't think your liberal usage of "communist" was ever serious, but I've been arguing with you as if it was... It seems you throw it around at everyone that isn't as libertarian as Ron Paul. Are you taken seriously when you've done it elsewhere? I kinda doubt it...
The most destructive aspect of communism, in my view, in terms of the economy, is the ability for people in the government to decide winners and losers in the economy. It seems to me Gingrich has had a hand in this aspect of communist ideology as well:
I think given that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were $400 billion dollar debacles recently, this makes him look corrupt and I'm not sure I buy his explanation! A million bucks for how long of a consulting gig I wonder? I had heard about an Obama adviser James Johnson making off with $21 million, so this GSE seems rather generous with other peoples' money - not surprising...
Anyway, taking your additional dropping of "communist" into consideration again, if serious and not just used as an epithet, it technically fails to hold up. Supporting the concept of a GSE is, yes, supporting a government intervention into the economy, but not at a sufficiently extreme level that a true-blue communist would call for! This is technically somewhere in the fascist-socialist spectrum and to be clear, I don't use the latter terms in a bad way in this case.
Look, ideas/policies need to be judged on their merits, when NOT to intervene in the economy and decide that liberty works better in that situation, and when TO intervene to potentially prevent disaster in the worst case or to help improve society! One thing's for sure, it's the era of Laissez-faire capitalism that has long since been over (if it ever fully existed) thanks to incidents like the Great Depression and it's gonna stay that way for a long time! We have a mixture or influence of everything in our times and slapping fascist/socialist/communist labels on government interventions into the economy to deter/discredit them is only gonna go so far...
I'm really glad you responded NightWolve... I remember from your conversation in the fighting street thread saying that you had a Ronald Reagan avatar in the past... I hope you embrace the best of what Reagan stood for, not the worst. Reagan says here, at 1:48 , "those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course [toward totalitarianism]:
1) Embrace the best of what Reagan stood for by...voting for Ron Paul ?? His presidential bid did end in failure...again, BTW.
But if it makes you feel any better, forced into the choice of him versus any democrat, I'd vote for him any day of the week!
or
2) Embrace the best of what Reagan stood for by agreeing with you and Ron Paul on issues like the Patriot Act because if I don't a) "Thou hath embarked on a downward course towards totalitarianism... " and b) I'm likely a communist and stand for the worst of things to boot
That about right ?? Hehe!
Well, regardless, this kind of set up is rather unfair psychologically and not very constructive. If I dare to disagree with you, you've already given me your answer using a Ronald Reagan quote from one of his greatest speeches of all time. Using that, and say ole Ben Franklin's famous quote, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither!" which it's sort of based on, is a selective usage of quotes being applied to a modern situation. Ben Franklin isn't here and he didn't have to deal with Osama Bin Laden and threats like him. So how much or how little should we heed his warning ? How about no police and no military then ?? Well, I mean, if I want a police force, I'm sacrificing liberty for security, thus I deserve neither! You get where I'm going with that. Those quotes are useful to an extent, but they're not a part of some suicide pact and not necessarily applicable...
Finally, you really will have to classify me as a "communist" after reading this to remain credibly consistent and I've been called a great many things in my time, even fascist, but never a communist until now I guess!!! Who would've thought that I had moved so far to the Left on the political spectrum!!! Heh-heh!
Ah man, I'll have to avoid entertaining silliness like this in the future. I do
love you Ron Paul guys, I'll tell you that much!
@RegalSin: Thanks, kinda, for still getting back to what I originally wanted to talk about... I figured entertaining these distractions had derailed the thread for good.
Topic: "New York Senate Bill Seeks to End Anonymous Internet Posting!" (Read 588 times)