posted May 05, 2006 08:20 PM              

Blueroamer, I'm sure you're a lovely man but that comment was truly below the belt.

posted May 06, 2006 01:14 AM              

Mr. Bungle was someone here at LL in disguise, but oddly enough he used many of the same expressions as the real person so it was quite obvious who he was to anyone who is observant about people. The disguise amounted to being a sniper which is truly a cowardly act. If I had something to say to someone I would just say it instead of hiding behind a lame disguise. But then again I don't have any phoney personna I want to protect either.

The real person behind the disguise was using the disguise to reinforce her manipulation to make others think that certain people here, myself included, was "a mean woman." But she had an axe to grind with Fayte so Fayte was her primary target. When a few people here at LL, oddly enough Pidaua was one of them, let Mr. Bungle know that the disguise was obvious and not working he disappeared. Pid my dear, that is probably the real reason you are being a target now on various threads.

posted May 06, 2006 01:59 AM              

I wish we could discuss here without all the arguing and labeling and personal attacks. Though I hate labels, if we have to use them, I feel that the conservatives or those on the right are just as dedicated to their beliefs and what they feel is the truth as those of us on the left are to ours. I think we have a common ground that we should start recognizing in each other and that is that we ALL love the U.S.A. We ALL want what is best for this country and the world we just have different ideas about how to go about it and we have different ideas of what we feel is really best for America and the world.

Honestly, no one should be called an America hater just because their views are different than yours. Nor should they be labeled as traitors, communists, socialists, marxists, and on and on.

When others come in and jump on Pidaua for what she said to them or what she said to so and so, you have to realize that a lot of what Pidaua said was in self-defense. Not of anything that goatgirl said because she was trying to be civil, but in what some of those who jumped into this thread said to her. Don't call someone names if you don't want to be called names in return.

posted May 06, 2006 03:50 AM              

And how are young people supposed to feel welcome here when they get accused of being someone else..... and they are accused of being phoney or liars...how do you think he would feel reading your post?

This is awful......I felt that guy was well lonely and of bad mothering....thats how I read it anyway....and then he got crushed because he couldnt spell well.

What a shame he was frightened away and how do you know that he wont go and tell his friends about the way he was treated here....they will then be put off....

So who do you "claim" Mr/Ms Bungle is then Mirandee ?
I am curious too of your theory...or should that be Dr Holmes?

posted May 06, 2006 03:56 AM              

A mind that studies 100s of languages, scripts, cultural idioms of almost every human race should not be disrespected but held in high esteem, even if his personal opinions are disagreeable in any way.

posted May 07, 2006 03:29 PM              

Some yes..but definitely not all!

Cut the bulls-it and stick to politics!
And mr,bungle did go at me in a most abnormal fashion for a newbie. That matter takes it all back to some of the atttacks going on here that are not based on Democratic or Republican viewpoints but only a chance to attack not discuss.

GG and pidaua
were dicussing and yes it got hot, that is the nature of many political debates!
But it was "not" getting ugly until personal issues not to do with politics or even from Democrats and Republicans came into the picture.
Rant over!

posted May 07, 2006 04:00 PM            

I thank you for seeing things as they really are and that I am not someone that is "out to get" people. As TINK said, I do call it as I see it - and yes, I can be disgustingly conservative at times (hee hee.... yet I try to stay open to other's beliefs). I don't hate people for what they stand for, I enjoy a good debate and when people post their well thought out opinions and facts.

Mr. Bungle was a troll. He attacked people for no reason (Actually, he went after 2-3 people after having only been here for a month or so). He did not have long enough to form any relevent opinions, but felt it necessary to attack the women for reasons that are only clear if one knows his / her other screen names. He acted like he was ignorant and wanted people to feel sorry for him, but many saw through the charade.

Still, there are those that hate others so much, even with the truth before them they will take the troll side. To me, that speaks volumes about their character. I have had arguments with some from here, but when I have seen them attacked for no reason, I am the first to jump in and defend them.

There has to be a line drawn when it comes to wrongful attacks. If we are debating politics and question the other persons opinion, yes it can get heated, but rarely do we see enemies.

Personally, I have issues with others communication style as they do with me. I understand they aren't evil and I may not care for them in a friendly manner, but I would never wish ill will towards them. In a time of Crisis we all still band together. Some of my so-called GU enemies have wished me love and light when I was going through a horrid break up with a psychopath at the same time I felt heartbroken for them when they had to endure loss and pain in their own lives.

Sometimes we do see cliques come and go, it's sad but true. Again, I find it facinating that some feel the need to glob onto to each other in order to reinforce that they are well liked. I imagine the worst thing for them would be to stand up for something knowing that it may go against the grain. LMAO.... I'd love to see them in my shoes at time.

I am not a victim, hell, with my Aries moon I have always seen myself more of a warrior than anything. I am not bragging because one cannot be a warrior all the time. Compassion, empathy and old fashioned gentle words are all needed when the time is right. Sometimes a hug solves a conflict more than weilding my sword (and in some cases when my words cut like a sword).

My hackles will always be raised when I see someone trying to protray how enlightened they are all the while they are leading viscious attacks on others. It reminds me of that picture of the wolf in sheeps clothing... "Come to me my children and I will show you the path". Yet, no one sees him / her salivating while the sheeple gather around waiting for tid-bits of insight.

People like that pray on those that are trying to find answers in their lives. People that are in crisis or are seeking approval through esoteric means. They are also the ones most likely to seek out pseudo psychics that tell them to come back for repeated sessions and cleansing - yet they charge them their lifes savings over the process. (I am going to qualify what I said about psychics, I am not talking about real psychics / gurus, but those that extol their own praises, pretend to be in touch with some psychic pipelines, yet behind closed doors they are lining their pockets with their victims gold).

Do I feel that I am more special than anyone else? Hell no!!! We are all here to learn and LL is one of the best places to learn everything from political leanings to Universal pathways..etc....

For the people that have to jump in to defend anyone I may have a converstation with or jump on the bandwagon against me at all times - More power to you!!! I am flattered that you feel the need to justify why I am such a horrible person and why everyone else (mr. bungle included) need YOU to defend them. My point is proven again and again when that happens and people are smart enough to see the trends.

I love LL and I will continue to be a contributor here - whether it is in soul unions, Astrology, Astral realms, FFA or here. Little cliques never managed to get me to leave before and it won't happen now or in the future.

Those times when I felt that I had crossed the line or hurt someone's feelings, I am quick to apologize and I usually edit my posts. No need to hurt someone and leave it up there for all to see.

Again, I appreciate your words Mirandee, Fayte... et. al. Banding together to expose a troll (like bungle) is completely different that coming together to attack someone we "just don't like".

Love and lIght,

posted May 07, 2006 04:22 PM              

Yes..I agree! It is truly disgusting!

posted May 07, 2006 04:24 PM              

Respect and Love for ALL. ...

posted May 07, 2006 05:33 PM              

Honest people are always consistent rather others like it or not. They speak their mind without caring what flak they may get for doing so. They are their own people. Phonies, liars, charlatans, and manipulators are always contradicting themselves. That is how they are easily spotted. That and they are always telling others what they are like. Wouldn't people just come to know what you are really like without you telling them? Manipulators like to jump in and paint themselves as being a better person and a more spiritual person than the object of their attack as we have seen here on this thread and other threads. The "I am so nice and that person is so mean" manipulation.

Tink asked who Mr. Bungles was and I told her. How did I know he was someone else in disguise? I am very perceptive and observant. I noticed he phrased things the same way that another person does here at LL. He used the same expressions. Then there was the timing. He came on the threads the day after someone else who had an axe to grind with Fayte left and went directly at her. He used things that he knew about Fayte and applied them to his own mother. What a coincidence! He also went out of his way to manipulate others into believing that both Fayte and myself were "mean women" and I only had one conversation with him. That is how I was certain who Mr. Bungles was.

posted May 07, 2006 09:57 PM              

blah blah blah

posted May 07, 2006 10:48 PM              

There was some question about the author himself. Here is a summary on William Blum:

Name: William Blum
Summary:

William Blum is a controversial political writer and book author whose writing is critical of American foreign policy. In his written work, he attempts to bring attention to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and its work around the world, which he sees as a force for evil. Blum's general theme revolves around the concept that the U.S., as the world's dominant and sole superpower, uses military force, political assassinations, and other unethical means to get what it wants.

Blum formerly worked for the U.S. State Department until his dissillusionment and opposition to American policies in Vietnam caused him to resign from the State Department in 1967.

He previously worked with Philip Agee, another critic of the CIA, and once attempted to turn his book, "Killing Hope," into a movie. His work with movie director Oliver Stone on this project fell through in the 1980s.

Blum founded Washington Free Press and is the author of a monthly newsletter titled "The Anti-Empire Report."

In January 2006, Osama bin Laden released an audio tape threatening the U.S. and quoting William Blum while recommending that Americans read Blum's Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. This 'free advertisement' caused a huge increase in sales of "Rogue State."

Blum says he is a Socialist and counts himself as a supporter of Ralph Nader's Green Party and Independent presidential campaigns.

Occupation: Political writer

Career History: U.S. State Department, independent political writer, author

Bibliography

See M. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1952, rev. ed. 1981); J. K. Galbraith, American Capitalism (1952, repr. 1982); J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1983); R. L. Heilbroner and L. C. Thurow, Economics Explained (1987); C. R Sunstein, Free Markets and Social Justice (1997).

There you go. That answers the question of the political affiliation of Mr. Blum and tells something about him.

Something was also brought up regarding Noam Chomsky. Here is a brief biography:

Noam Chomsky considers himself to be a Libertarian Socialist

Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics
Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language

Biography

Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His undergraduate and graduate years were spent at the University of Pennsylvania where he received his PhD in linguistics in 1955. During the years 1951 to 1955, Chomsky was a Junior Fellow of the Harvard University Society of Fellows. While a Junior Fellow he completed his doctoral dissertation entitled, "Transformational Analysis." The major theoretical viewpoints of the dissertation appeared in the monograph Syntactic Structure, which was published in 1957. This formed part of a more extensive work, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, circulated in mimeograph in 1955 and published in 1975.

Chomsky joined the staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1955 and in 1961 was appointed full professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (now the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.) From 1966 to 1976 he held the Ferrari P. Ward Professorship of Modern Languages and Linguistics. In 1976 he was appointed Institute Professor.

During the years 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was in residence at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, NJ. In the spring of 1969 he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford; in January 1970 he delivered the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at Cambridge University; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, and in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden, among many others.

Professor Chomsky has received honorary degrees from University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad Nacional De Colombia. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.

Chomsky has written and lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs and U.S. foreign policy. His works include: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax; Cartesian Linguistics; Sound Pattern of English (with Morris Halle); Language and Mind; American Power and the New Mandarins; At War with Asia; For Reasons of State; Peace in the Middle East?; Reflections on Language; The Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. I and II (with E.S. Herman); Rules and Representations; Lectures on Government and Binding; Towards a New Cold War; Radical Priorities; Fateful Triangle; Knowledge of Language; Turning the Tide; Pirates and Emperors; On Power and Ideology; Language and Problems of Knowledge; The Culture of Terrorism; Manufacturing Consent (with E.S. Herman); Necessary Illusions; Deterring Democracy; Year 501; Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture; Letters from Lexington; World Orders, Old and New; The Minimalist Program; Powers and Prospects; The Common Good; Profit Over People; The New Military Humanism; New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind; Rogue States; A New Generation Draws the Line; 9-11; and Understanding Power.

posted May 07, 2006 11:08 PM              

So what exactly is socialism?

Socialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.

In a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.

The Early Theorists

Socialism arose in the late 18th and early 19th cent. as a reaction to the economic and social changes associated with the Industrial Revolution. While rapid wealth came to the factory owners, the workers became increasingly impoverished. As this capitalist industrial system spread, reactions in the form of socialist thought increased proportionately. Although many thinkers in the past expressed ideas that were similar to later socialism, the first theorist who may properly be called socialist was François Noël Babeuf, who came to prominence during the French Revolution. Babeuf propounded the doctrine of class war between capital and labor later to be seen in Marxism.

Socialist writers who followed Babeuf, however, were more moderate. Known as “utopian socialists,” they included the comte de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen. Saint-Simon proposed that production and distribution be carried out by the state. The leaders of society would be industrialists who would found a national community based upon cooperation and who would eliminate the poverty of the lowest classes. Fourier and Owen, though differing in many respects, both believed that social organization should be based on small local collective communities rather than the large centralist state of Saint-Simon. All these men agreed, however, that there should be cooperation rather than competition, and they implicitly rejected class struggle. In the early 19th cent. numerous utopian communistic settlements founded on the principles of Fourier and Owen sprang up in Europe and the United States; New Harmony and Brook Farm were notable examples.

Following the utopians came thinkers such as Louis Blanc who were more political in their socialist formulations. Blanc put forward a system of social workshops (1840) that would be controlled by the workers themselves with the support of the state. Capitalists would be welcome in this venture, and each person would receive goods in proportion to his or her needs. Blanc became a member of the French provisional government of 1848 and attempted to put some of his proposals into effect, but his efforts were sabotaged by his opponents. The anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon and the insurrectionist Auguste Blanqui were also influential socialist leaders of the early and mid-19th cent.

Marxists and Gradualists

In the 1840s the term communism came into use to denote loosely a militant leftist form of socialism; it was associated with the writings of Étienne Cabet and his theories of common ownership. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels later used it to describe the movement that advocated class struggle and revolution to establish a society of cooperation.

In 1848, Marx and Engels wrote the famous Communist Manifesto, in which they set forth the principles of what Marx called “scientific socialism,” arguing the historical inevitability of revolutionary conflict between capital and labor. In all of his works Marx attacked the socialists as theoretical utopian dreamers who disregarded the necessity of revolutionary struggle to implement their doctrines. In the atmosphere of disillusionment and bitterness that increasingly pervaded European socialism, Marxism later became the theoretical basis for most socialist thought. But the failure of the revolutions of 1848 caused a decline in socialist action in the following two decades, and it was not until the late 1860s that socialism once more emerged as a powerful social force.

Other varieties of socialism continued to exist alongside Marxism, such as Christian socialism, led in England by Frederick Denison Maurice and Charles Kingsley; they advocated the establishment of cooperative workshops based on Christian principles. Ferdinand Lassalle, founder of the first workers' party in Germany (1863), promoted the idea of achieving socialism through state action in individual nations, as opposed to the Marxian emphasis on international revolution. Through the efforts of Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, Lassalle's group was brought into the mainstream of Marxian socialism. By the 1870s Socialist parties sprang up in many European countries, and they eventually formed the Second International. With the increasing improvement of labor conditions, however, and the apparent failure of the capitalist state to weaken, a major schism began to develop over the issue of revolution.

While nearly all socialists condemned the bourgeois capitalist state, a large number apparently felt it more expedient or more efficient to adapt to and reform the state structure, rather than overthrow it. Opposed to these gradualists were the orthodox Marxists and the advocates of anarchism and syndicalism, all of whom believed in the absolute necessity of violent struggle. In 1898, Eduard Bernstein denied the inevitability of class conflict; he called for a revision of Marxism that would allow an evolutionary socialism.

The struggle between evolutionists and revolutionists affected the socialist movement throughout the world. In Germany, Bernstein's chief opponent, Karl Kautsky, insisted that the Social Democratic party adhere strictly to orthodox Marxist principles. In other countries, however, revisionism made more progress. In Great Britain, where orthodox Marxism had never been a powerful force, the Fabian Society, founded in 1884, set forth basic principles of evolutionary socialism that later became the theoretical basis of the British Labour party. The principles of William Morris, dictated by aesthetic and ethical aims, and the small but able group that forwarded guild socialism also had influence on British thought, but the Labour party, with its policy of gradualism, represented the mainstream of British socialism. In the United States, the ideological issue led to a split in the Socialist Labor party, founded in 1876 under strong German influence, and the formation (1901) of the revisionist Socialist party, which soon became the largest socialist group.

The most momentous split, however, took place in the Russian Social Democratic Labor party, which divided into the rival camps of Bolshevism and Menshevism. Again, gradualism was the chief issue. It was the revolutionary opponents of gradualism, the Bolsheviks, who seized power in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and became the Communist party of the USSR. World War I had already split the socialist movement over whether to support their national governments in the war effort (most did); the Russian Revolution divided it irrevocably. The Russian Communists founded the Comintern in order to seize leadership of the international socialist movement and to foment world revolution, but most European Socialist parties, including the mainstream of the powerful German party, repudiated the Bolsheviks. Despite the Germans' espousal of Marxist orthodoxy, they had been notably nonrevolutionary in practical politics. Thereafter, revolutionary socialism, or communism, and evolutionary, or democratic, socialism were two separate and frequently mutually antagonistic movements.

Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism took firm root in European politics after World War I. Socialist democratic parties actively participated in government in Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and other nations. Socialism also became a powerful force in parts of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. To the Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders of independence movements, it was attractive as an alternative to the systems of private enterprise and exploitation established by their foreign rulers.

After World War II, socialist parties came to power in many nations throughout the world, and much private industry was nationalized. In Africa and Asia where the workers are peasants, not industrial laborers, socialist programs stressed land reform and other agrarian measures. These nations, until recently, have also emphasized government planning for rapid economic development. African socialism has also included the revival of precolonial values and institutions, while modernizing through the centralized apparatus of the one-party state. Recently, the collapse of Eastern European and Soviet Communist states has led socialists throughout the world to discard much of their doctrines regarding centralized planning and nationalization of enterprises.

Bibliography

See G. D. H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought (5 vol., 1953–60); J. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (3d ed. 1950, repr. 1962); G. Lichtheim, A Short History of Socialism (1970); M. Harrington, Socialism (1972); W. Lerner, A History of Socialism and Communism in Modern Times (1982); A. S. Linemann, A History of European Socialism (1984); H. Davis and R. Scase, Western Capitalism and State Socialism (1985); D. Sassoon, One Hundred Years of Socialism (1997).

What's Capitalism?

cap·i·tal·ism (kãp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm)
n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

capitalism, economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare. These principles were most notably articulated in Adam Smith's treatise, The Wealth of Nations (1776), in which he opposed the prevailing theory of mercantilism. Capitalism has existed in a limited form in the economies of all civilizations, but its modern importance dates at least from the Industrial Revolution that began in the 18th cent., when bankers, merchants, and industrialists—the bourgeoisie—began to displace landowners in political, economic, and social importance, particularly in Great Britain. Capitalism stresses freedom of individual economic enterprise; however, government action has been and is required to curb its abuses, which have ranged from slavery (particularly in Britain and the United States) and apartheid (in South Africa) to monopoly cartels and financial fraud. Capitalism does not presuppose a specific form of social or political organization: the democratic socialism of the Scandinavian states, the consensus politics of Japan, and the state-sponsored rapid industrial growth of South Korea while under military dictatorship all coexist with capitalism. Yet despite the capitalist ideal of “hands–off” government, significant government intervention has existed in most capitalist nations at least since the Great Depression in the 1930s. In the United States, it exists in the form of subsidies, tax credits, incentives, and other types of exemptions. Though private production plays a major role in the economies of Germany and Japan, both nations have centrally planned industrial policies in which bankers, industrialists, and labor unions meet and seek to agree to wage policies and interest rates; these countries reject the idea of letting the market wholly determine the economy. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe (1989–91) left those countries with a heavy burden and an uncertain future, and represented a substantial retreat in the power of capitalism's traditional economic opponent, socialism. Also uncertain is the future course of China's economy, in which small-scale capitalism is increasingly allowed within a strictly Communist political framework.
Bibliography

See M. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1952, rev. ed. 1981); J. K. Galbraith, American Capitalism (1952, repr. 1982); J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1983); R. L. Heilbroner and L. C. Thurow, Economics Explained (1987); C. R Sunstein, Free Markets and Social Justice (1997).

Both definitions come from the Columbia University Press

We can see how socialism has changed through the years so if socialism has changed through the years doesn't it stand to reason that capitalism has also changed through the years?

Isn't this definition of capitalism more the type of capitalism we have today?

cro·ny cap·i·tal·ism

noun

Definition:

enrichment of well-connected: the flow of wealth to a small group of people who are already wealthy and well connected

Well, maybe it's cross with fascism because under the first 2-3 years of the Bush administration the U.S. met all 14 points of fascism:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and antigay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. (My note: aka Homeland Security )

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

My opinion is that the government we have today under the leadership of G.W. Bush is a cross between crony capitalism and fascism.

This country was never intended under the U.S. Constitution to be Capitalistic either. It was designed by our founding fathers to be a Republic.

It will take a revolution by the people to make it a Republic again. I see it coming in the future too when the common man/woman are oppressed enough to rise up but that won't happen in the lifetime of most of us here.

posted May 07, 2006 11:36 PM              

quote:

---

Mirandee..it's time to look in the mirror sweetie..enough is enough..
blah blah blah

Love and Respect for ALL. ...

---

Lotus, since I am part of the ALL here at LL should I thank you for the love and respect you showed to me in your comments?

Some people just don't see their flagrant hypocrisy do they?

I mean, here's you, Lotus, and you constantly do this, you come on to a thread and tell someone in so many words that they are the worst human being on the planet and then you always sign it off with "Love and Respect to ALL."

posted May 07, 2006 11:50 PM              

and yes

posted May 08, 2006 12:47 AM              

What are your opinions on those things, Lotus?

Surely you must focus on something else besides starting arguments all the time.

And yes I read what I write. In fact, I wrote it so I know what it says. And in what I wrote I stated that if you don't want to be called names don't call anyone else names. Which applies to be insulted as well. You insulted me and now you are upset because I insulted you back. Tough. Consider it instant karma, Lotus.

posted May 08, 2006 09:42 AM              

Also I would like to remind you Mirandee..
this site is called LindaGoodman.com LindaLand..Have you read Star Sign's or Gooberz?
Linda Believed in re-incarnation..Osiris and Isis..and Mary Jesus and Mary..

what do I think of the post..it's about the past..and we can't change the past..it's our future I'm worried about..and unveiling the Truth. ...

Love and Respect for ALL..

posted May 08, 2006 10:27 AM              

quote:

---

she(goatgirl) was not personally under attack

---

Really? Let's go back over some of your recent statements to me.
I wonder if you act this way in public or if you reserve it for the warm comfortable womb of the faceless internet.

quote:

---

Impressionable idiots then read this crap, without looking into all the facts, but instead memorize and spew forth the perverted diatribe as fact.
It really only makes that person as well as the author look like a person devoid of intellect.

---

You have just described every major religion known to humankind. I was unaware that this was a religious issue for you.

quote:

---

See, this is where you are showing your true hateful colors.

---

No, I show those “colors” only when needed. Here's a sample: Fu2k 0ff you jack booted, goose stepping, propaganda spewing, fascist pig. Your mother's pu22y schtaanks like carpet cleaner. (See how I've cleverly obfuscated the profanity so as to save the children? Here's a hint...I put numbers in place of letters!!!! SHHHHH...don't tell anyone. It's almost as clever as Caesar's Hash!)

quote:

---

Oh yeah, here is another point for you and your USA hating friends...

---

Assumption number one: You have a point.
Assumption number two: I hate the USA.
Assumption number three: My friends hate the USA.
Wrong on all three counts. (Especially number one)

quote:

---

Now I am sure you "googled" theory to try and throw a monkey wrench in my post and makes(sic) yourself look intelligent

---

Why are you so “sure”? Is there some reason that you assume that I am not aware of the distinctions and minutae of generally accepted scientific methodology? Do YOU have to “google” common terminology to use it properly? Let us hope for the public safety and health of your community that this is not the case.
By the way, I don't generally need to do much of anything to “makes” myself “look intelligent.” This is the sort of behavior resorted to by those who are not intelligent.

quote:

---

her example was poor as it was from a summary she found during a quick google session.

---

What example? Which google session? If you are making reference to the e-coli bioassay technique that you had used as an example, I just happen to know the individual developing this technology.

quote:

---

It was her intention to try to throw dirt on quick explantion(sic) on how one can take numerous sources, include them all in a bibliography, but never quote any of them and instead still come up with their own theories.

---

Here I will say it again. Research (including lab work or source work) supports or refutes hypotheses not theories. NOT THEORIES. (This bears repeating.) An individual with a liberal arts or (especially) science education, or, he77(there I go with that clever obfuscation, again), just an education, should understand this distinction. Hypotheses only become theories after a community (read “a whole bunch of qualified individuals”) of researchers has come to consensus (read “reasonable agreement”) on the matter. “Padding your bibliography” is generally discouraged within the realm of legitimate research endeavors. Of course, having that “East Coast University” education, you already knew all of that. Silly me, I only have a higher education and degree from one of the nation's top ten private colleges. What do I know? It's not like other people out in the world have the capability to THINK, or KNOW, right?
That being said, How do you know what my “intention” was? Did they teach you how to read minds at that “East Coast University”?

quote:

---

My other major point was that you cannot use the source in question to back up the source in question as that creates bias.

---

quote:

---

Too bad there aren't any facts and each "intervention" is reduced to a simple paragraph.

---

quote:

---

So, she counters with an attack on my background.

---

quote:

---

It is an endless battle because topics aren't addressed when there are more attacks on the person, background and on semantics.

---

Indeed. This does seem to be how you have handled this exchange thus far. What a beautifully concise summary!

posted May 08, 2006 10:27 AM              

She seemed to me to be a very intelligent woman with a beautiful soul. I do not agree with everything that Linda Goodman said in her writings. Nor do I have to.

Linda Goodman traveled her own spiritual journey in life. You are traveling your own spiritual journey, Lotus. But I have my own journey to travel. From what I have read and know of Linda Goodman, she felt the same way about each of us having our own unique spiritual journey to travel.

I do not have to think like Linda Goodman and take all that she says as gospel to appreciate her for what she was, Lotus. I told you before that it's fine with me if other people believe in reincarnation. I don't. Nor do I have to believe in that to be a spiritual person. Just as others do not have to believe in Jesus as the Christ or any religion to be a spiritual person. I studied theology for 4 years that is the direction my spiritual journey has taken me. You studied Linda Goodman. Fine with me. But I do not have to think and believe as you or anyone else does.

Linda Goodman would be the last person to want someone like you to make a deity out of her.

It was my impression that LL was a learning site where we could learn from each other, Lotus. Not a site for you to tell us how it's all supposed to be done and how to think.

I know that you think this is your own personal site, Lotus because you think you are Linda Goodman reincarnated. That's your delusion.

Frankly, I would not even be talking to you, Lotus because I know it does no good and only encourages you to continue on but just because you are ill does not mean that the rest of the world or those of us here at LL have to put up with your bull crap.

Frankly I have had a very rough week in my personal life. My husband's brother passed away from cancer last Thurs., my husband has been in Calif. for that reason and I miss him, could not be with him to comfort him when his brother passed as I have to be here tending to my grand children, I am very tired and have not been feeling well and I am not in the mood for your stuff.

And once again, Lotus in your sad attempt at getting attention you are disrupting those of us who wish to move on and get back on goatgirls topic. Either respect goatgirl enough to contribute to the topic or go find something more constructive to do, Lotus.

posted May 08, 2006 10:35 AM              

twisted and turning things
and then you lie..you don't know me
your judgements are made out of fear
and I forgive you. ...

posted May 08, 2006 11:20 AM              

quote:

---

..twisted and turning things
and then you lie..you don't know me
your judgements are made out of fear
and I forgive you. ...

---

Well if you forgive me then why don't you just let it go, Lotus? Doesn't sound like forgiveness to me. You talk the talk, Lotus, but you don't walk the walk.

Nor do YOU know ME, Lotus yet you have judged my spirituality, you just judged my compassion in this last post, you have judged my soul and you feel it is okay for you to judge me but not for me to judge you? Do you see what a friggin' hypocrite you are, Lotus. Cause I'm sure everyone else here at LL can see it.

You show me where I have lied or shut the hell up, Lotus. You stated that you were Linda Goodman on a thread here, LL. I didn't pull that out of the blue. That I have any fear of you at all is just another one of your delusions of grandeur, Lotus. I fear you about as much as I fear a gnat and like a gnat to me you are no more than a pest.

I have no compassion or patience for stupidity, judgemental people, and hypocrisy, Lotus. So you are right. I have little compassion for you outside of the feeling that you are ill and possibly can't help acting as you do.

I hope you are on medication for the sake of your daughters, Lotus. And for your own sake. If not you need to seek help.

This is the last I am going to say to you, Lotus because you can't argue with a sick mind. It's a waste of time and energy.