Myths on DU and facts

[redeye]

There are a few myths that people on DU seem to propagate endlessly as if they were facts. So, just FYI:

Myth 1: Ariel Sharon is a fundamentalist
Fact: Ariel Sharon is a hawk, a nationalist, and a fiscal conservative on the verge of corporate crook, but is not a fundie (he's actually pretty secular).

Myth 2: Darwinism is equal to Social Darwinism and is thus conservative and capitalistic
Fact: Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest defines fit only as "able to survive and produce multiple offspring." Social Darwinism twists this by misusing the word fit and defining it in terms of social power, even though it's impossible to use this defintion in evolution.

Myth 3: Prescott Bush was a Nazi
Fact: Prescott Bush traded with the Nazis, but so had the Soviet Union before Germany invaded Russia. From what it seems, the Bushes have never been Nazis, because Nazism is a fanatical ideology whereas the Bushes' sole ideology is money.

Myth 4: Gore won Florida
Fact: Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida, but the election was certified with Bush winning the state nonetheless. While Katherine Harris' disenfranchisement of black people definitely goes against the spirit of the 15th amendment, it doesn't go against its letter because disenfranchisement was based on similarity in personal data with convicted felons rather than directly on race (in that sense, it's constitutional to disenfranchise all people whose family names are Cohen, Levy, Stein-something, Something-stein, Freedman, Freeman, or any Spanish name). Anyway, the Supreme Court decides whether something is constitutional, and for obvious reasons it decided that using this loophole in the 15th amendment is constitutional.

Myth 5: Liberalism is based on Christianity
Fact: Liberalism is based on Locke's writings, which are part of the inherently anti-fundamentalist to the point of anti-religious Enlightenment. Liberalism borrows a few moral maxims from Christianity ("do unto others" and questionably "thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness"), but I don't see people arguing that Christianity is based on Celtic religions because of Halloween and Christmas.

[skip2mylou]

1. Let me add another myth

here is a link

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

[Blitz]

8. I'd be careful

That story may be true and it may not. While Judge Merrit may be convinced, his sources still need to be verified. Give it time.

[redeye]

9. Besides...

...we are supposed to take Merrit's word - I think the situation is kinda similar to a hypothetical one in which Scott Ritter gives fairly specific details concerning WMD that Saddam had had right before Gulf War 2, because no real evidence is offered except that we have to take Merrit's word for it. Taking Merrit's word is a little problematic, because a) I don't know how credible he is, and b) his dealings with Russia's judiciary casts him in negative light, because Russia is still not considered a full democracy (The UN gives it a score of 5 on both civil and political rights, on a scale of 1-7 where 1 is the best and 7 is the worst).

[Brian Sweat]

11. There also the little issue of

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladden being diametrically opposed.

There is no evidence that Iraq supports Al Qada and no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. There is evidence to suggest just the opposite.

[skip2mylou]

13. All that is not at issue...

inthe article, I do no believe.

[skip2mylou]

10. If True...

would that back up the rethug argument that OBL and Saddam were working together?

[Brian Sweat]

15. Anyone can print up a fake newspaper

just as easily as they can create fake documents to show that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Nigeria.

[skip2mylou]

18. So, you are implying, that...

The Tennessean is a fake newspaper? Intereseting.... For now I am going to accept that the newspaper and the articles contained within are valid, until I am shown otherwise.

[sangh0]

21. Even better

You should watch TV. They have real TV stations, so you can be confident that what they say is true.

[skip2mylou]

24. TV stations and newspapers...

existing is different from truthful product that we would like for them to put out.

Try and keep on the subject, thanks.

[Brian Sweat]

26. No, I am not saying that the Tennessean is a fake newspaper

The article is about a supposed copy of a newspaper printed by Uday Hussein. Supposedly, all of the copies of this newspaper were retrieved by the Iraqi government and this copy just happened to slip through the crack. It is a very convenient story.

If no one else is Iraq remembers this issue of the newspaper, we need not be concerned, because it was pulled from the racks and they actually went door to door to retrieve copies that had already been sold.

[MrPrax]

44. And Anyone can Print Up Fake Intelligence

Ask Galloway--he was linked to Saddam once upon a time

snip
On April 25, the Monitor said it had been given documents discovered in the Baghdad house of Qusai Hussein, one of Saddam Hussein's two sons, that showed Saddam's government authorised six payments to Mr Galloway between July 1992 and last January.
snip
Mysterious Documents from houses Saddam's sons--seems similar to the Tennessan method

But those docs linking Galloway are consdiered forgeries


http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0700world/content_objectid=13089444_method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Galloway-documents-false---US-paper-name_page.html



:eyes:

[TLM]

20. I do not think so at all...

Even if 100% true, that piece would prove nothing more than there was someone in Saddam's crew that was charged with the job of dealing with Osama's group.

We've got peolple in this country with the same job, dealing with the info and whatnot about Osama's group... keeping tabs on them etc. doesn't mean they are partners with them.

[skip2mylou]

28. Good point...

But let's look at say Robert Hansen, the guy who was convicted of selling the secrets to the Russians for all those years.

He was supposed to keep contact with things, but ended up partnering with the Russians.

All I am saying is, it is not impossible.

[jpgray]

2. Let's widen that from Locke

Both French and English schools of Humanism and certainly some Classical thought as well were involved. Besides, they violated one of Locke's central arguments.

[redeye]

3. I know...

...but Locke is generally considered to be the father of liberalism, even if many of his views are reactionary by today's standards.

[jpgray]

4. Good post though

.

[redeye]

5. Thanks :-) (n/t)

[papau]

19. Perhaps Locke is not the father of Today's liberalism - given

much in his views are reactionary by Today's definition.

Perhaps Jesus’ idea of a community that shares - shares everything - sort of - partially fits Communism, socialism, and liberalism.

[goobergunch]

6. An additional note with point 4

Myth 4: Gore won Florida
Fact: Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida, but the election was certified with Bush winning the state nonetheless. While Katherine Harris' disenfranchisement of black people definitely goes against the spirit of the 15th amendment, it doesn't go against its letter because disenfranchisement was based on similarity in personal data with convicted felons rather than directly on race (in that sense, it's constitutional to disenfranchise all people whose family names are Cohen, Levy, Stein-something, Something-stein, Freedman, Freeman, or any Spanish name). Anyway, the Supreme Court decides whether something is constitutional, and for obvious reasons it decided that using this loophole in the 15th amendment is constitutional.

---

AMENDMENT XIV
* * * * * * *
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

---

Under this section, the Supreme Court should have docked Florida a congressional district or two. I agree that although Gore got more votes than * in FL, * is technically the winner because of certification and the fact that Congress aproved the returns.

---

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair now hands to the tellers the certificate of the electors for President and Vice President of the State of Florida, and they will read the certificate and will count and make a list of the votes cast by that State.

Mr. FATTAH (one of the tellers). This is the one we have all been waiting for.

We, the undersigned duly elected and serving Electors for President and Vice-President hereby certify that we have this day met in the Executive Offices of the Capitol at Tallahassee, Florida, and cast our votes for President of the United States and our votes for Vice-President of the United States, and that the results are as follows: Those receiving votes for President of the United States and the number of such votes were: George W. Bush, 25. Those receiving votes for Vice-President of the United States and the number of such votes were: Dick Cheney, 25. Done at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this 18th day of December, A.D., 2000.

Signed by the pertinent electors and duly attested.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Florida seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 25 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received 25 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection?
(To save time, I'll just note here that during the joint session various House members rose to make a point of order, object to the counting of the electoral votes from Florida, or to make a motion. The presiding officer and chair, Vice President Gore, held that each case required a writing signed by both a Member of the House and a Senator. None were signed by a Senator and none were received.
If there is no further objection, the Chair hands to the tellers the certificates of the electors for President and Vice President of the State of Georgia, and they will read the certificate and will count and make a list of the votes cast by that State.

---

Therefore, the votes of the state of FL were approved by Congress.

[redeye]

7. Good catch...

...I wonder whether those Southern states where 25%+ of the voting-age black people are disenfranchised because they either are or were convincted felons lose congressional districts accordingly. Anyway, IIRC Katherine Harris disenfranchised about 90,000 people, which is nowhere near the ~620,000 per Congressional district.

[Mountainman]

12. I have comments

If all the voters who intended to vote for Gore had had their votes counted Gore would have gotten the most votes in FL. For me that is enough to make up my mind that Bush did not win the election but was appointed to the Presidency by a right leaning SCOTUS who also said that their decision could not be used as president.

Basically it was Gore who was hurt by circumstances during the voting and Bush who gained by the actions of his supporters after the voting. Therefore I feel that Bush stole the election and is not the legitimate President of the US. I couldn't care less about the truthfulness of the myth.


Also, people with liberal leanings could come by them from their religious upbringing and may have never read Locke. I'm one of them.
I was raised to believe that we have a duty to take care of those less fortunate then ourselves. I still believe that, Locke or no Locke.

I know all this is not very scholarly but that's how I feel.

[skip2mylou]

14. Then taking what you believe,

should we be going to Liberia to help the people there in their civil war?

[papau]

17. Media recount showed FL votes - as cast - had more Gore votes.

There is no need go further than to note that the USSC stopped even one recount from occuring in Florida.

Florida law was not followed by Florida vote counters, and the Judge Lewis count of both over and under votes that showed clear intent, in addition to the recount of the other votes, would have been the first and only Florida recount.

The media recount shows that adding clear intent over and under votes, Gore wins in every senario - in every rule interpretation - there are NO BUSH WIN FLORIDA SENARIOS - and the media trys to hide this with ignoring the Judge Lewis in progress recount, and talking about recounts that might have happen had Gore just got the 4 county recount requested. Folks - the only recount was to be a statewide recount - and the USSC stopped it.

Bush is appointed - not elected. And Impeachment of certain USSC Justices should be on the table if we win in 04.

[rock]

27. Thanks papau, I was gonna correct him, but

you beat me to it. Apparently many Americans have bought into the conservative spin on this one, but the fact is many more people voted for Gore than Bush in Florida and the process to determine this was subverted by many officials that refused to do their duty and in many cases commited malfeasance (outright crimes). Gore won Florida. Handily, I might add. It wasn't even close.

I hold the media responsible for the propogation of this myth. Remember the headline was "Bush Wins";the text under the headline was "Gore Wins". Most people did not read past the headline.

[redeye]

34. I'm not saying why people are liberal...

...only that liberalism originates with the overly-libertarian Second Treatise on Government.

[sangh0]

16. Another myth

Myth: The Iraqi resolution gave Bush* a "blank check to wage war".

The Constitution makes POTUS the Commander-in-Chief (CINC) of the US military. As CINC, POTUS can order the military to do whatever he wants, as the Constitution places no limits on the CINC's authority. The only limit the Constitution places on CINC, is that CINC cannot "declare" war. HOwever, there is nothing in the Constitution to stop CINC from "waging" war. That's why there was no "Declaration of War" for the VietNam War, the Korean Wr, the invasion of Panama and Grenada, as well as several others.

Also, the resolution that was passed has no legal authority. It does not make any action legal or illegal. It merely communicates an opinion that managed to attract the support of a majority of those voting on it. It expresses an opinion, and does not change the law, or the powers of any govt office.

[Iverson]

30. hardly

An admittedly wrong act in the past does not justify an admittedly wrong act in the present. Unfortunately, large numbers of people do not realize this, and so we have the spectre of the Dangerous Precedent.

In the case of VietNam, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was the Dangerous Precedent. In terms of realpolitik, something on which centrists usually pride themselves in expertise, it was a way for Congress to actually approve war without technically approving war. It was an act of political timidity in its way.

Since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is generally well-known and in the not-too-distant past, Congress had even less excuse to pass their even lamer blank check for Bush.

Conducting most of our recent wars on the basis of semantic evasion doesn't of itself make that practice right, nor does it make insisting upon the Constitutional apportionment of responsibilities a myth.

[sangh0]

35. Are you feeling OK?

I said nothing about whether it was a "wrong" act or a "right" act. I only referred to whether or not it "gave a black check to wage war" to Bush*

I won't address the "straw man" of whether or not it was a "Dangerous Precedent". I only referred to whether or not it "gave a black check to wage war" to Bush*

I wont address the "strsw man" of whether or not "it was a way for Congress to actually approve war without technically approving war" I only referred to whether or not it "gave a black check to wage war" to Bush*

Since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is generally well-known and in the not-too-distant past, Congress had even less excuse to pass their even lamer blank check for Bush.

But of course you don't hesitate to delcare it a "blank check, even though you are without any explanation or support for the assertion that it *was* a "blank-check". Nope, none at all. But it was a "Dangerous Precedent", so it's OK (in your mind) to call it a "blank check"

Conducting most of our recent wars on the basis of semantic evasion doesn't of itself make that practice right, nor does it make insisting upon the Constitutional apportionment of responsibilities a myth.

The only "semantic evasion" going on here is when you call it a "blank check". The "Constitutional apportionment of responsibilities " was not changed at all by the resolution. That it's not right doesn't justify your distortion of the truth.

[Iverson]

38. This may help you.

You don't seem to have understood my reply. I was under the impression that you were bringing up arguments on principle, and so I replied in kind. VietNam was a convenient example.

While the justification for that war is fairly well known, I appreciate that you are loath to take my word for it. Here is a fairly mainstream source that deals with the text:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/documents/tonkin/

You will notice the phrase "all necessary steps" as the telling one. True, neither that resolution nor the recent one contains the phrase "blank check." That is my opinionated summary. It should hardly be controversial, though, when the net effect is to remove the Constitutional check on the executive branch by making a Congressional declaration of war something so easily sidestepped.

"The only "semantic evasion" going on here is when you call it a "blank check"."
You are incorrect. The semantic evasion is recounted for you above, and it is implicit any time that Congress votes for war and our country engages in war without technically establishing it as war.

Now, please unknot those knickers about my use of the term Dangerous Precedent. I think that it is quite reasonable to expect our representatives to have learned from (recent) history. If you don't, then we just have a difference of opinion. However, opinions not identical to yours are a poor basis for assigning them as "myths." That is what you've done.

[sangh0]

41. You are under the wrong impression

I was talking about the law, not principle. I'm sure you realize that they are not the same.

the net effect is to remove the Constitutional check on the executive branch by making a Congressional declaration of war something so easily sidestepped.

And you continue to argue principle, and not the law. Again:

A resolution is not legally binding. It changes nothing. It does nothing except communicate an opinion that's received the votes of a majority of Congress members. It does not, because it can not, change the Constitution, or any Constitutional requirements to wage war. It can not change those Constitutional requirements for two reasons

1) There is no Constitutional requirement for waging war.
2) Even if there were, a law can not overule the Constitution. Only a Constitutional Amendment can change the Constitution.

Now, please unknot those knickers about my use of the term Dangerous Precedent. I think that it is quite reasonable to expect our representatives to have learned from (recent) history.

WHile it may be reasonable to expect, it is irrelevant. Dangerous Precedent or not, it is not a "blank check". The CINC already has that. It's the result of the Constitution making POTUS CINC, and the establishment of a standing army.

When the Constitution was first ratified, there was no standing army. Therefore, it would be impossible for POTUS to unilaterally order the army to invade another nation, for the simple reason that there was no (standing) army to order around.

The Framers realized that POTUS would need the consent of Congress, in the form of a Declaration of War, in order to wage war because first Congress would have to vote to pay for the establishment of a military force. CINC cant pay for the establishment of an army because the Constitution clearly puts that power in the hands of Congress, and Congress alone. IOW, the combination of Congress holding the pursestrings, and the absence of a standing army, made it impossible for POTUS/CINC to wage war without Congressional approval. But that all changed with the establishment of a standing army.

[Iverson]

42. interesting

"I was talking about the law, not principle. I'm sure you realize that they are not the same."

Indeed I do, although I was talking about the practice of government.

It begs the question, then, as to the need for the resolution. You have advanced an argument that defines its relevance in terms of its legal necessity, which you say is zero.

However, even assuming that your points are completely correct (which I do not concede but will entertain for the sake of discussion), a resolution approving whatever the executive branch may want does indeed have a relevance. It is a political relevance rather than a narrowly defined legal one. It says, in both the present case and in the Gulf of Tonkin case, that waging war is just fine so long as the executive may want it.

Therefore, even if the blank check is not explicity legal, it exists as a political thing. Therefore, it is not a myth.

[Q]

22. You've distorted the facts about 'myth' 4...

...and only make mention of ONE of the many aspects of fraud in that election. It's too bad that you've fallen for the GOP mythology.

[redeye]

29. Read reply #7

As far as I understand, there are 4 issues regarding the Florida fiasco:

1. The Recount
2. Military ballots
3. Disenfranchisement of black people
4. The butterfly ballot in West Palm Beach

The Supreme Court had authority to stop the Recount, and while it ruled wrongly, its ruling is the law nonetheless. Even if you shoot someone in the middle of Times Square with DNA evidence and 500 witnesses declaring you guilty, if you're acquitted then for all legal purposes you're innocent. While some military ballots were counted against Florida law, they were posthumously declared legal (and AFAIK, the ex post facto provision in the Constitution only binds Congress, not the states). The disenfranchisement of black people was in accordance with the 15th amendment even though it broke its spirit. And the butterfly ballot in WPB was the result of a person with a low IQ in charge of the ballot (IIRC, the idea was to make the print large enough for the numerous elderly people in the county to read easily, and anyway the idiot had the legal authority to make the ballot in any way she saw fit).

[skip2mylou]

31. Was the Supreme Court

voting to stop a recount of select counties as opposed to the whole state? If you don't recount the whole state, is that not also a for of disenfranchisment?

[nannygoat]

39. Was that a slam against Al Gore?

If so, you need to do some reading on Selection 2000...

Blaming Al Gore - The Latest Crime of the Stolen Election
http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6543

15th paragraph down:
<snip>

"The allegation that Al Gore did not fight to have all of the votes counted is false. The Gore campaign asked for the votes to be counted in the counties where there were the most uncounted undervotes, since these were the largest number of votes that had not been counted."

"Under Florida election law in 2000, all statewide candidates had the right to file election protests in the counties where they disputed the vote totals and wanted a more accurate count. Florida law allows the campaigns 72 hours to file these protests with the county canvassing boards. There was no mechanism for a statewide count."

"Had the Gore campaign instead chosen to dispute the purging of legal voters who were illegally denied their right to vote on Election Day, this would not have added any votes to the vote totals. Rather, it would have blocked any attempt to count the legal votes that had been cast on Election Day and not counted because the 72 hour deadline would have passed - and once that deadline passed, the campaign had no recourse."

"The Gore campaign filed its election protests in order to enforce Florida's clear election law, which calls for hand counts when the number of uncounted votes would change the outcome of the election - which was clearly the case in this election dispute."

******************

The * campaign were the ones who went to Federal court to block the legal handcounts.

[soupkitchen]

43. well, I think the people who say that Gore won Florida

are aware of the Supreme Court decision. I think their point is that more people actually casted ballots, or intended to cast ballots for Gore than for Bush.
That the Supreme Court legally validated the result doesn't mean they morally validated them. If a innoncent man is put to death for a murder he didn't commit, that doesn't make him a murderer. If more people actually voted for Gore than for Bush, the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't change that reality. All the Supreme Court ruling did was decide that the tabulations favoring Bush would be the results accepted by the electoral college.

[redeye]

45. Morally, you're right...

...but many on DU think that Gore won legally as well as morally. I'm not doubting that if voting procedures in the USA had satisfied democratic standards, Gore would be the 43rd president. I am however sayign that given that the law is undemocratic, it's possible to legally ascend to power without being elected.

[Brian Sweat]

23. reply

Myth 1: Ariel Sharon is a fundamentalist

Who cares.

Myth 2: Darwinism is equal to Social Darwinism and is thus conservative and capitalistic

Anyone who thinks that "Darwinism" and "Social Darwinism" are the samething isn't paying attention.


Prescott Bush was a Nazi

Prescott Bush was a Nazi collaborator.

Gore won Florida

A plurality of the people who went to the polls to vote intended to vote for Gore. That is all that is important.

Liberalism is based on Christianity

I'm an atheists. I don't want to give religion anymore credit than necessary, but many liberal idea are attributed to this Jesus fellow in the bible. Granted, these ideas are stolen from eastern religions, but there can be no doubt that they enfluenced latter day thinkers like Locke.

[Iverson]

25. problem with myth #4

In order to accept your proposition, one must abandon the idea that getting more votes in a state amounts to winning in it.

This idea, most votes wins, is so obvious as to not need mention. In fact, democracy requires that we not abandon the idea that most votes wins.

[redeye]

33. Legal vs. principled...

...I don't say that I don't have any problems with the election. I think that the fiasco highlights several points in the Constitution and election procedures that violate democratic principles:

- The current mode of the Electoral College, and by extension, the Senate, violates the idea that all people are equal under the law. It wouldn't if the United States were a federation, but international bodies regard it as a nation (it has only one vote in the UN as opposed to each state having a vote), and thus it can't satisfy all democratic principels under its current electoral system. Mind you, I'm not voicing any opinion on the EC, only saying that giving each state 2 extra votes is undemocratic (the US might get away with trimming it to each state having a number of votes equal to the number of representatives, though).

- The system whereby the popular vote in each state is just a suggestion is even more undemocratic. I wouldn't say what I am saying were the number of EC votes in each state just a mathematical procedure, i.e. each candidate gets a number of votes equal to the number of congressional districts plus 2 in each state he got the most votes.

- The by-state vote discriminates on the basis of state and county. People who supported Nader, for example, couldn't vote for him if they lived in NC, OK, or SD. Democratic principles require that all federal elections be nationalized, i.e. have the same ballot in each state, district, or county, except that congressional elections obviously have different names on the ballot in different electoral districts.

Obviously, the law clashes with democracy here. However, the fact that the law is undemocratic doesn't make it illegal, only in need of change. All of Hitler's actions were legal, AFAIK, if undemocratic. I'm not saying that the people preferred Bush to Gore, only that according to the letter of the law, he is the president-elect.

[Iverson]

36. sure, but ...

All of your points are well-taken, but mine still stands.

Implicit in the laws to which you refer is the idea that the winner of a state's electors is the one that gets the most votes. This becomes true the moment that the state establishes a vote as the means of deciding the contest. That is the law as well as the principle. The presence of other competing results with their own legal justification does not negate the basic one.

Therefore, while there may be plausible counterarguments based on overturning every instinct toward common sense, those alone do not make the basic combination of law and principle a myth.

[nolabels]

32. Okay, if you say so

Here check out some of these links

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
http://watch.pair.com/default.html
(snip)
THE RISE OF THE FOURTH REICH

Part I
THE BUSH FAMILY OLIGARCHY
Funding the Hitler Project

the rise of the third reich
In 1933, shortly after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of Germany, the German Parliament was set on fire by the Nazis and the Communists were blamed for this act of terrorism against the German people. Following the Nazi-inspired arson, Hitler exploited the outrage of the German citizens to arrogate to himself dictatorial powers, which he promised would be used to rid Germany of Communists. The next day, Chancellor Hitler demanded from the German cabinet an emergency decree which would enable him to deal decisively with the domestic crisis. President von Hindenburg signed the decree "for the Protection of the people and the State." An account of this watershed event is found at The History Place:
(snip)

(snip)
The History Place:
The Reichstag Burns

Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, had no intention of abiding by the rules of democracy. He intended only to use those rules to legally establish himself as dictator as quickly as possible then begin the Nazi revolution.

Even before he was sworn in, he was at work to accomplish that goal by demanding new elections. While Hindenburg waited impatiently in another room, Hitler argued with conservative leader Hugenberg, who vehemently opposed the idea. Hitler's plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal.

(snip)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

37. Modern liberalism was heavily influenced by Christianity

Most people on DU, and most people on FreeRepublic, would disagree with the Founders about many things. The liberalism of Locke only went so far.

Our modern, progressive, FDR style liberalism is largely based on the Protestant Christian "Social Gospel" movement. This was regarded as common knowledge until the sexual revolution of the 1960s, where Liberalism and Christianity sharply diverged over issues like abortion and homosexuality.

In Central and South America, their worker's movements were heavily influenced by another "social gospel" style version of Christianity, this time a Catholic movement called "Liberation Theology".

Now, let's hear some of that acceptable anti-Christian bigotry against the majority of Americans that is so popular on DU!

[teryang]

40. Silesian mining company

Bush family had an interest in this company which employed slave labor after the nazi invasion. Other companies in which a Bush family member had an interest supported the nazis with funds. Anyone who aids and abets is responsible as the principal.

I've never read anywhere on DU where Darwinism and social Darwinism were confused.

Katherine Harris dereliction of duty involved conflict of interest as the State Campaign Director for Bush. Her actions as Secretary of State in certifying the election while protests and challenges were pending were arbitrary and capricious. In this respect her actions were unethical and a betrayal of the people's trust and her oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the State of Florida. That Constitution guarantees the right to vote.

[acerbic]

46. "Myth" 4: "not about race"... BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

t doesn't go against its letter because disenfranchisement was based on similarity in personal data with convicted felons rather than directly on race (in that sense, it's constitutional to disenfranchise all people whose family names are Cohen, Levy, Stein-something, Something-stein, Freedman, Freeman, or any Spanish name).

Blah blah... because African-Americans have the same last names more often than others, disenfranchising people based on similarity in personal data with convicted felons is more likely to disenfranchise African-Americans than others and the Jebpukes damn well knew that!

You may now continue your desperate spinning... :puke:

[redeye]

47. Not literally about race

I know that the idea was to disenfranchise as many blacks as possible. I think that it's obscene, but legal nonetheless. Besides, as I've tried to say here 1058563027.4 times, if the SCOTUS declares something constitutional, then for all legal purposes including determining who the legitimate president is that something is constitutional. The problem comes from the loopholes in the constitution, not from those who are using them.