By posting to this seed, you are  agreeing  to abide by the  Group's Rules .

I'll try not to delete anything, but if I have to... it's final.

You could have done those 4 choices as a poll to obtain a more accurate response by the NT members since it is totally confidential and even the one who posts the poll does not know the identity of the voters.  A  poll still allows for comments. 

Am I the only one who sees everything posted here in italics, and in my case bold as well?

No, I see it too. Not sure why, it's not like this on all articles.

Same here as well... keep saying it's the Russians I tell ya...🤣🤣

I've been a member of NT since the beginning and I've never seen this happen before.

The answer to the question is yes, emphatically.

Providing a definition is a good thing.  But that definition has been conveniently hidden behind a link.  Let's display it openly.

fascism : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

How does the Republican Party fit into that definition?  Republican politics is notable for favoring decentralized government and less intrusive government.  Republicans tend to oppose growth of an unelected Federal bureaucracy that imposes regulations in an undemocratic and authoritarian manner.  Republicans tend to select Presidential candidates from the private sector or state government.  Republicans do not tend to favor Presidential candidates with experience at the Federal level.  How would Republican politics result in an autocratic government? 

Republican attempts to weaken the Federal government doesn't fit into the definition of Fascism.    

IMNAAHO

Lol .... at least you are being honest about that.    

As Tex has noted, look at any grouping of people and you bound to find some true believers, fundamentalist as it were but trying to label entire parties as Fascist is partisan nonsense in my opinion but let’s expand with definition.

Authoritarian according to Merriam Webster:

Like an Administration trying to force vaccinations on people under false pretenses?    What party did that?

I'm not aware of any party that did that. 

Like taking direct action trying to restrict free speech or other enumerated constitutional rights like gun ownership?    What party does that?

One could write an entire book on both parties infringement to free speech and its implications - designated "Free Speech Zones" during the Bush II campaign to Democrats working to restrict hate speech. The Democrats aren't great on gun control. The Republicans have totally bailed on privacy. I'm sure if I did some searches I could find other things with both parties. All of it starts to look a little authoritarian. 

I will say only one party has influencers and lawmakers talking about installing an authoritarian presidency who makes all the laws, because democracy isn't working for them. I know... it's only a few people, obviously not enough to enact any real plan, but they continue to recruit and infiltrate positions of power within our institutions. Recently members of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote an opinion on the Appropriations Clause, that if upheld by the SCotUS, has the potential to totally upend Congressional spending and implement Rick Scotts spending ideas by fiat.

IMO there is little redeeming value in articles like this.    They serve only to divide and discourage cooperation.

I would like to see more articles that show people uniting to solve problems, but there is no debate necessary to know that Populism (from the Freedom Caucus to The Squad) is driving the political narrative today. 

I'm not aware of any party that did that. 

Then you were asleep through the entire COVID crisis or maybe it’s just COVID fog.

You’ll notice I didn’t defend either party.    I’m wary of anyone who does on topics like this.

Then you were asleep through the entire COVID crisis or maybe it’s just COVID fog.

No, I wasn't asleep through COVID. I was trying to avoid killing both my mother AND my father-in-law who were both immunocompromised. I'm confident you can provide the actual data to back up your claim though. 

You’ll notice I didn’t defend either party.

Which is why I engaged with a reply. We have that in common. Both parties are doing their best to destroy themselves by letting populists run the narrative. In the Republican party it's actually the populists in control and the Dems are very close to making the same mistakes when there isn't anyone better than Joe Biden to run the show...

How will this get fixed? I have no clue... I fear it might actually take a generation of authoritarianism to show people the error of their ways when they let it happen and we may end up looking more Democratically Socialist in the emergent.

No, I wasn't asleep through COVID. I was trying to avoid killing both my mother AND my father-in-law who were both immunocompromised. I'm confident you can provide the actual data to back up your claim though. 

No need to get emotional about it.    I did the same thing because of two aging parents and many fellow employees.     But that was my choice, not a mandate.    People lost their jobs because of vaccination mandates.    Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen were forced out of the military because of mandates.  Etc, etc.

Hard to believe you forgot that or have rationalized those weren’t vaccination mandates.    Mandates that falsely claimed vaccinations would significantly stop the spread of COVID.     Which studies show they did not.    At least not for earlier variants.

bmj

we may end up looking more Democratically Socialist in the emergent.

One hopes not.    At least this one.    Democratic Socialism would require a complete rewriting of this Constitutional Republic.    Not gonna happen, not without another civil war

 The Republican party is not fascist because it is not racist.

In my opinion, the Republican Party is not fascist because it is not racist.

That said, the republican party teeters or dips in and out of racists policies when it puts on full display its intention to promote a so-called, "color-blind" society through white majority rule or at present minority party rules.

(Remember the stated goal of this country has always SUPPOSED TO BE equal treatment and governance through, for, by, all of the people-majority and minority.)

What republicans are doing somewhat successfully is allowing minorities into its conservative party structure, while tightly and selectively controlling the party directions and ideology from varying forms of progress-if any. The effect being that people of color are okay to come and go in the republican "eco-system" as long as they conserve and display "whiteness" as the standard. That is, conservatives react to people of color in the party with indifference no matter what the question is being asked or that is in need of a/some specific/group solution/s. The party republicans-conservatives do the same with their sub-group, Log Cabin Republicans who are "in" the party, but the party preference is to see them without recognition or influence of a LGBTQ 'voice.' 

That said, the republican party teeters or dips in and out of racists policies when it puts on full display its intention to promote a so-called, "color-blind" society through white majority rule or at present minority party rules.

What's the problem with a 'color-blind' society?  If race can be used to establish unmerited disadvantage then race can also be used to establish unmerited advantages.  It would seem that using institutional authority to establish either disadvantages or advantages based on race would only elevate race as a determining factor in that institutional authority.

A color-blind society when it is properly installed is great. But, when it is just empty rhetoric "a front" without any walls and inner substances, then it is a façade.  By the way, a proper color-blind society can 'cooperate' to recognize good cultural realities in all people/citizens without pretentious elevating of one culture over another in a hierarchy. In our country, we have yet to understand this. This country will have achieved proper color-blindness when we recognize the beauty and the majesty not just of this land but its 'bejeweled' people/citizenry.

True color-blindness is 'ugly.' But color-blindness that recognized differences in color, hues, and shapes in the citizenry with appreciation of what is being beheld: PRICELESS.

“True color-blindness is 'ugly.' But color-blindness that recognized differences in color, hues, and shapes in the citizenry with appreciation of what is being beheld: PRICELESS.”

Agreed. We should not be ‘color-blind’ as that is a fallacy…as it ignores our cultural differences.

Only by understanding those differences, embracing our diversity and learning from them in acceptance will we finally begin to bridge the divide. 

True color-blindness is 'ugly.' But color-blindness that recognized differences in color, hues, and shapes in the citizenry with appreciation of what is being beheld: PRICELESS.

Color awareness can only see race as either a disadvantage or advantage.  Race is not a culture.  Establishing a cultural reality based solely upon race can only emphasize perceived disadvantages or advantages.  Which ultimately would result in a competition between races based solely upon race.

Why?!!

There was a time in the country when skin color did not signal stigmatization or stereotypes ("weaponization" by hue or affectations.")  We could/can just pick up where that early time period left off—today. What say you?

There are cultural variations which matter to the components apart from the whole, as it should be. Can't you think of anything culturally you would like to keep and not have 'sterilized' from your ethnic background?  By the way, "race" is a made up word, that can be retired from this line of discussion. Indeed, we are all of one race: HUMAN. Other than that, we have all these world of differences for which we bring to the 'table' to make us interesting and dynamic people!

“Race is not a culture…”

Of course it is.

To deny the cultural differences amongst us is the beginning of institutional policy based upon those differences…and all that leads to is oppression. Apartheid revisited. 

“Race is not a culture…”  Of course it is.

I think economic and educational status plays a larger role than race.

“I think economic and educational status plays a larger role than race.”

But aren’t economic and educational disadvantages race based? Let us not forget the judicial and policing biases as well.

Perhaps a definition of ‘status’ may be beneficial here. 

here was a time in the country when skin color did not signal stigmatization or stereotypes ("weaponization" by hue or affectations.")  We could/can just pick up where that early time period left off—today. What say you?

Race was 'weaponized' by politics to establish institutional authority over disadvantages and advantages based on race.  And history shows that establishing that institutional authority based on race has only created competition between the races.  The competition between races has resulted in so-called 'cultural traditions' based solely upon perceptions of disadvantage or advantage defined by race.  Race is not a culture.  The so-called 'cultural reality' is a culture of disadvantage or advantage defined solely by race.  The competition between races has resulted in an arbitrary and artificial cultural reality of 'white privilege' and 'Black disadvantage'.  Color awareness can only maintain and strengthen those arbitrary and artificial cultural realities based solely upon race.  By creating a culture based solely upon race, the white race will always be advantaged and the Black race will always be disadvantaged.  Altering that arbitrary and artificial cultural reality of disadvantage and advantage would do away with both whiteness and Blackness. 

So, eliminating the cultural reality of disadvantage and advantage would require color blindness.

There are cultural variations which matter to the components apart from the whole, as it should be. Can't you think of anything culturally you would like to keep and not have 'sterilized' from your ethnic background?  By the way, "race" is a made up word, that can be retired from this line of discussion. Indeed, we are all of one race: HUMAN. Other than that, we have all these world of differences for which we bring to the 'table' to make us interesting and dynamic people!

Of course there are traditions (cultural or not) that are important to me personally.  That's just blowing smoke to obscure rather than illuminate.  But none of those traditions are based upon racial distinction.  

“But none of those traditions are based upon racial distinction.”

Again, of course they are.

Any tradition we hold in remembrance is in respect for our past and is thus inherently tied to our specific racial culture.

To deny it is but an attempt to homogenize it to fit a rather bland and actually dangerous narrative 

 color blindness.

Nerm, black people are not in "competition" with white people, per se. Black people are striving to be free of oppression/s and repressive tendencies and policies being carried out by people who want a return to a former state of existence in this country. That is, a return to a time when "whiteness" was dominant culture beyond dispute. That "whitness" as a standard should never have been installed, but it was installed. And yes, as the country has done well for itself by a culture of whiteness, the country at the same time has suffered devastating lost of 'brand,' trust, and productive of its oppressed peoples-women, minorities, Native Americans, LGBTQ, and any other reasonably marginalized group.

Again, color blindness is ugly when it makes for blandness in people and a lack of diversity. Why? Because humanity thinks legitimately different and that has been our saving grace in this world-despite those who want us all to be dominated into being the same, simply for sameness sake. That is, in our politics, conservatives driving/whipping society to become all conservative or at least dominated by conservatives and otherwise 'silent' minorities.

But aren’t economic and educational disadvantages race based?

Some are but their are many poor, uneducated white people as well.  I think that socioeconomic status effects the culture that one adopts more so than race.  My experience is the upper middle class, college educated people have more similarities than differences regardless of race.  The ame can be seen between poor, uneducated.  

Nerm, black people are not in "competition" with white people, per se. 

I don't know what field you work in, but is ambitious, most people, regardless of race, are in competition with each other. 

“My experience is the upper middle class, college educated people have more similarities than differences regardless of race.”

As is my experience.

Let us use that as an example…giving every opportunity to those with an inherent disadvantage to overcome and succeed, but never at the cost of having to diminish their race or culture in order to fit in. A compromise too many face. 

I'm not sure what you mean practically. My experience is that large organizations in the workplace, tend to have a cultural spectrum that successful workers fall upon.  I think that true regardless of companies like IBM, Google, GM or the military.  We may be evolving to find divergence to be more valuable than previously thought. 

So in your field of endeavor AS PEOPLE: WHITE PEOPLE are in COMPETITION with BLACK PEOPLE. Speaks volumes. Explains why you writings seem to indicate ways to keep Blacks 'down' and defeated as a people, because. . . you are "in" the throes of seeing us as foes not as equals. Do you 'get' how bad this comes across?

In  my field of endeavor, people are in competition with people regardless of race.

We're citizens and part of the same community/ities. You are not my competition just to see you defeated and downtrodden. And most definitely, never would I, a black liberal, use the levers of government in any attempt to see white people/conservatives oppressed or repressed.  Now then, be clear: What are you really trying to state to me?

Incidentally, let's not waste time on generic discussion about competition and ambitiousness:  Way too much nastiness and tragedy has occurred between this nation's people, plural, to ignore the context of history just for the sake of making some general point! Talk about what historically occurred in context of what is!

After college, my work experience is Active Duty Army, Army Contractors, and now Army Civilians.  In each of those capacities, there was competition between applicants for positions.

“We're citizens and part of the same community/ities”

This is so often forgotten but it should be the ties that bind us. 

We all want the very best for our children. We care for our elders in appreciation of the lessons taught. We embrace our heritage. 

It is only in acknowledging this commonality and in the courage and commitment to it that will we be able to move forward. Such a simple concept and yet so unimaginably difficult to achieve. 

Again: This is not about you or me. Why can't you get that? What is the problem you're having processing that point alone? Recognize that being in the military insulated you against a lot of the public 'misery' of non-governmental civilians. Your "competition" was never bare-knuckled 'diplomacy' and likely all those years you were part of the dominant class-assuming you are Caucasian. Don't sit/stand/be here pretending that 'back in the day' being 'you' didn't count for something in and of itself!  We have too many books, novels, videos, and personal accounts which have told us all about our national past even up and touching the present. There were guidelines, rules, congressional regulations, and executive orders besides engaging that work history's every step!

It is difficult to achieve. Why? Because of ideology. We have people who prefer ideology over unity. Hierarchy over equality. And they do this deliberately, because they view themselves as having the power to possess and to control theirs and others surroundings.  And one more thing: Having had that mindset, and a taste of near 'absolute' power and control over others-the inclination is to fight to 'survive'-for nothing, I mean 'nothing' truly wants to die when the goal is to 'live.'

These people are holding on with their 'last gasp/breath' to what they think is theirs and theirs alone to wield as they see fit and give as they select.  Nevermind the inequality and the misery heaved upon. . . whomsoever it takes. . . SURVIVE!  Don't change.

I can't begin to tell you have many times I have researched a writer, from all ethnicities in this country, who have pointed to how conservatives see this country as theirs 'willed' to them by their forefathers (who trampled down and destroyed Native Americans to 'savage' it.)

Again: This is not about you or me. Why can't you get that? What is the problem you're having processing that point alone? Recognize that being in the military insulated you against a lot of the public 'misery' of non-governmental civilians.

Show me why you think that my experience is unique.

Don't sit/stand/be here pretending that 'back in the day' being 'you' didn't count for something in and of itself!  We have too many books, novels, videos, and personal accounts which have told us all about our national past even up and touching the present.

I was lucky, in 1993, the Army promo list to O-5 release was delayed 3 times.  This was during the “peace dividend” and Army appointed leadership wasn’t satisfied with the number of minority officers on the draft promotion list.  With the third redraw, the list got approved l.

You do realize you are talking yet again about your 'self-interest'? This is not about 'you' the individual, the man, the anecdote.  There were forces at work persistently which in society had a stream of consciousness that it was best to keep minorities locked out of advancing in society; that it was a national "good" to control minority placements and advancements and worse used diabolical acts, tactics, and strategies to see that advancement, hell even successes were limited or 'quenched' as in smothered in their 'infancy.'

Now when did you ever feel that the system was stacked against your advancement, simply because of 'what' you represented in the larger scheme to a white majority?

See, this is not about you?

“It is difficult to achieve. Why? Because of ideology. We have people who prefer ideology over unity. Hierarchy over equality. And they do this deliberately,”

And it is in the deliberations where true change languishes.

Keep fighting the good fight, CB…and though we may agree to disagree on theology, I never will discount your passion.

Peace, my brother. 

We have people who prefer ideology over unity.  

Do you not prefer ideology over unity?

Peace. I am a Christian. Yet, I recognize my faith has acted (and allowed malicious forces room to act in bad faith) to tarnish its own good name by its insistence on 'idiotic' indulgences from within itself. We have to blame "the body" for what it is doing to its own 'head' before we can look outside at the unbelieving world. After all, the unbelieving world have never lain claim to being. . .believers.  Even when I was an unbeliever, it never crossed my mind to persecute the Church, which begs the question that conservative Christians seem to live to think up ways to persecute unbelievers!

Peace to you, afrayedknot!

You do realize you are talking yet again about your 'self-interest'?

Shocker, are you talking against your self-interest?

This is not about 'you' the individual, the man, the anecdote.  There were forces at work persistently which in society had a stream of consciousness that it was best to keep minorities locked out of advancing in society; that it was a national "good" to control minority placements and advancements and worse used diabolical acts, tactics, and strategies to see that advancement, hell even successes were limited or 'quenched' as in smothered in their 'infancy.'

That certainly didn't apply to the O5 army promotion list in 1993.

Now when did you ever feel that the system was stacked against your advancement, simply because of 'what' you represented in the larger scheme to a white majority?

1993

Well, I can tell you this: It has been a saving grace for this nation that along with conservatives (whites) who have tried to 'own' this country for themselves outright. . .there have been almost an equal and opposite force of liberals (whites) who have stood in solidarity with minorities of every stripe coming to and being compelled to come to this country. It is to them I am thankful every day, because not only have they 'increased' my people, these liberal (whites) have helped me to dwell here as a LGBT individual too! 

Conservatives have generally speaking made life hell.

I reckon we are done here for now. Bye.

there have been almost an equal and opposite force of liberals (whites) who have stood in solidarity with minorities of every stripe coming to and being compelled to come to this country. 

What years are you looking at?

Conservatives have generally speaking made life hell.

I'm sorry that your California life is hell.

You can refer to those whites living at that time who considered it something of a 'bad American concept' to classify all black people as slaves and chattle in a country putting itself forward as the 'then' preeminent home of the free! You know, the pretentiousness of the 'case.' Your engagement here has degenerated to just retorts. But, I will stop here as we are digressing.

As is a frequent occurrence, your rhetoric leaves me confused.

Yeah, well, it's a two-way street kind of activity. But, I am not one to drone ceaselessly about implied moral superiority. This is not about you or me, nevertheless. I wish to return to the topic of discussion (not us) how about you?

1993

1980 for me.      When I missed a Naval Academy appointment due to racial and gender quotas.

Sure it sucked but I didn’t whine about it endlessly like a little bitch and found another way.

Embrace the suck right  .....

Again, of course they are.

Any tradition we hold in remembrance is in respect for our past and is thus inherently tied to our specific racial culture.

To deny it is but an attempt to homogenize it to fit a rather bland and actually dangerous narrative 

How so?  Why aren't those (cultural?) traditions geographical in nature?  Most traditions are associated with a place and not with a race.  A lot more is involved in the emergence of (cultural?) traditions than race.  

There are a diversity of (cultural?) traditions within each racial group.  That diversity of (cultural?) traditions seem to be more tribal than racial.

Sorry. Getting 'chopped' is hard. Over-representation is a 'bitch' that finally got corralled.  I hope the "racial and gender quota" personnel enjoyed good appointments and were a plus to their country (as much as yours). Now that would be a good thing!

It was.    It was also a time when they would give you the real reason.    No way that happens today.

Thx, I got past it quickly but doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.    

My problem with quotas like this is they tend to lower standards.    The best candidate should get the appointment.    Regardless of color or gender.    I’ll never have a problem with an equal or better qualified candidate.    That isn’t what happened.    Quotas tend to lower the bar.    At least back then they did.

Well, people have to be "in" to get experience and knowledge and build. That surely was not going to happen if people could not get out of the 'projects' and into the mainstream of society. The issue is being 'locked out.'  In those days, one type of candidate was severely over-represented and another was gravely underserved. Action was needed. The problem had festered too long.

Well, it is good conservatives don't know of any "perpetual victims today" in the ranks.  Just 'highly qualified, resilient, competence, self-reliant folks in need of nothing or anybody.  Conservatives can not get any more morally superior if they worked diligently at do so!  /s

My father ran into the same situation in the late 60's. He worked for the Atomic Energy Commission which then became the Department of Energy at a facility producing fabricated uranium fuel cores nuclear weapons production.  He was being forced to make hiring decisions based on quotas.  He left government work in 1969 and worked for a company that  manufactures fuel material for all naval nuclear reactors. He was much happier working outside of the government than in it.  

Wow. I'm bite. How well did it sit with your sense of moral superiority that a 'Black,' or a Native American, or an 'ethnic,' and/or a 'girl' got hired by government (of all places dedicated and tasked to treat its citizens with 'well-being' across the board) and compelled father (over-represented anyway) to seek "happiness" outside government? 

I thank the government for 'looking out' for the 'have-nots' because damn it all if it had not been for the "Gov'ment" no telling what Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, would be (underserved) doing today!

Can you tell me if the system failed after dad left his gov'ment position? Did those get any sense of how those quota-freaks fared over the duration? Did they 'peter out' and 'wash out' and end up back in the ghetto, tribal lands, or 'susie homemaker home economics,' or among the "mop bucket brigades of 'America'?  It would sure 'flesh out' this narrative if you could say a few words about their outcomes!

Only if you know their outcomes, that is.

How well did it sit with your sense of moral superiority that a 'Black,' or a Native American, or an 'ethnic,' and/or a 'girl' got hired by government (of all places dedicated and tasked to treat its citizens with 'well-being' across the board) and compelled father (over-represented anyway) to seek "happiness" outside government? 

I was 15 at the time and very liberal and as a teenager, I thought that my dad was wrong.

I thank the government for 'looking out' for the 'have-nots' because damn it all if it had not been for the "Gov'ment" no telling what Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, would be (underserved) doing today!

I have no issue with goals and support systems, but hard quotas are questionable and selectees should have a floor of standards that have to be met,  

Can you tell me if the system failed after dad left his gov'ment position?

Yes, in 1984 there was a nuclear emissions scandal resulting in the plant shutdown and it became a environmental superfund site.

Did those get any sense of how those quota-freaks fared over the duration? Did they 'peter out' and 'wash out' and end up back in the ghetto, tribal lands, or 'susie homemaker home economics,' or among the "mop bucket brigades of 'America'?

I have no way of know, I don’t have access to the Personnel files.

Yes, in 1984 there was a nuclear emissions scandal resulting in the plant shutdown and it became a environmental superfund site.

Who was found to be at fault? Do you think it had to do with 'recipients' of quotas? If it did, perhaps that would explain why it was unfair to lock citizens out of the proper running of the system in the first place for x number of years! Lots of training time and 'native' experience lost! After all, your family member got training and experience from somewhere it was not inherent, or do you think that it is?

As for standards, why do you think the gov'ment was lowering its standards of services just by opening up to let locked out folks "in"? What were the standards when your family member entered? Well, on the other-hand, your family member certainly had a lot more available to him in those 'early years' than any minority or homosexual or Indian, or female. 

Let me ask you something: When was it morally right for the gov'ment to permit entrance for disadvantaged groups into its 'ranks'?  Keep in mind, all that was aligned against those folks entering no matter their educational levels.

Who was found to be at fault? Do you think it had to do with 'recipients' of quotas?

I have no idea,

After all, your family member got training and experience from somewhere it was not inherent, or do you think that it is?

No he got it at college and then by working up the ladder at the plant.

As for standards, why do you think the gov'ment was lowering its standards of services just by opening up to let locked out folks "in"? What were the standards when your family member entered?

I didn’t say that they were.  As a 15 year old then, I don’t know.

When was it morally right for the gov'ment to permit entrance for disadvantaged groups into its 'ranks'? 

Permitting entrance or mandatory entrance!

Permitting entrance or mandatory entrance:Toss up.

Do you realize that politically, socially, and economically the government was the only (well nearly only) industry with the wherewithal and the responsibility to let minorities and women into its ranks 'first'?  Largely, private industry did not/could not afford to take the 'hit' to its employee base and customer base for letting "those people" in?

Thus, the government had a 'duty to lead' for the sake of the constitution and the good of the country.

Afterall, didn't you say your dad left his gov'ment position and (moved to the 'burbs' of private enterprise) when those people got hired on? I think you did. But, I am rushing right now so I can afford to look it up.

The desegregation of the Armed Services was a very big deal.

No shit, anyone say it wasn’t?

Permitting entrance or mandatory entrance:Toss up.

What are your metrics?

Afterall, didn't you say your dad left his gov'ment position and (moved to the 'burbs' of private enterprise) when those people got hired on?

Actually, my dad left the burbs for the small town country when he changed jobs.

8.1.43  Drinker of the Wry 

My father ran into the same situation in the late 60's. He worked for the Atomic Energy Commission which then became the Department of Energy at a facility producing fabricated uranium fuel cores nuclear weapons production.  He was being forced to make hiring decisions based on quotas.  He left government work in 1969 and worked for a company that  manufactures fuel material for all naval nuclear reactors. He was much happier working outside of the government than in it.  

Well, an implication, at least, is staring this room down that he 'abandoned' a perfectly decent and proper gov'mint position in protest. Am I, we, to understand so-called quota recipients were not the cause of your family member's departure in1969 from all gov'mint work? If he left for purely general reasons, that is morally good on him. Actually, good on him in any case. It's a free country!

I don’t think most people leave a job for one single reason but the quota system and a growing number of other government dictate was a big part of his list.

BTW, nice use of colors and underlining. 

It was and is a completely different thing than quotas.

Thank you for clearing that up. Color and underlining?  Sure! Where there is a will there is a way!

Actually, Integration of the services and the quota system fits together under a heading: Correction to the government systems of operation.

No, they do not.

Interestingly, the folks pushing for segregation these days are liberal.

firstthings

Safe spaces, dorms, events and graduations for people of color only.

You’ve already lost this integration debate.

Badly.

Do some conservatives even try to have a clue about anything liberals 'do'?  BTW, your article is not inline with integration of the service (1940's) and quota systems (1970).  Thus, "these days" were not even being discussed. Even though your comment is still out of touch. Who wants to be living close to people who are trying to politically 'pick 'em off' every day and night for centuries. Does/will it ever stop with you conservatives?!

File this under: Can't Live With Them; Better Live Without Them. (I guess.)

Your link does not work, but I am smart enough to do a work around. (You copied an image and not a link to the article!)

Do some conservatives even try to have a clue about anything liberals 'do'?

Excellent question. It isn't that they don't try to have a clue; it's that they already know. They know how and what liberals think and do. They don't need evidence. They don't need proof. They know. This is like "knowing" in a religious sense. This knowledge comes from their innards. A "gut feeling".

This is the source of "progessplaining": conservatives explaining liberalism to liberals... while knowing whatsoever about liberalism.

Hmmm I guess I’m smarter, since it worked for me.

My post and the working link speak for themselves.

See 8.1.61 .... apply liberally, lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.

Okay, I see what the issue is. Got it. Thank you for giving me a reason to look back at the 'problem.' The article does speak for itself and is not relevant to what was being discussed about military integration in the '40s or quotas in the 70s. And, my post speaks for itself!

One more thing: Your article is 'echo-chamber' crap. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As conservatives demonize (the article does it version of the same), denigrate, dismiss, "drive-by," any substantive meaning of liberal culture, attitudes with casual indifference - why wouldn't a small percentage of liberal college students just want conservatives to "go away"? Sometimes I have my 'fill' of conservative indifference and bombast in the virtual world of social media and just want to say 'fudge it!"

(But I won't!)

Of course, conservatives are causing the divide between white conservatives and other groups in our nation (always have been the ones doing so), and in typical fashion, are quick to exclaim (and point fingers) when liberals say - 'get utterly lost'!

Nobody, but conservatives, are buying this 'pig.' It will get fat, old and its whiskers dry and its meat tough as its going nowhere.

[Deleted]    Until then, see 8.1.61 .... apply liberally, lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.

[Deleted]

Why is everything bolded?

Actually, I'm not sure...I'll have to find out.

It's weird.  I didn't put my comment in bold.

And, in italics too!

It didn’t start that way.    Changed when some things got moderated so you might start there.

I think both parties have a tendency to authoritarianism. The USSR was left wing and authoritarian as hell. Same with China tho I don't know if you can call them left wing anymore.

Nazi Germany and Mussolin's Italy were right wing and they were authoritarian. Any political power that obtains absolute power will not be able to over come its authoritarianism. It's just too easy to lay down the law because that's what the dictator wants. And if he/she has the backing of the military and the majority of the people...well....the rest of you are fucked

A very interesting book is Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939" by Wolfgang Schivelbusch.  He lays out shared elements in economic policy, federal messaging and thoughts on citizenship.

Fascist, on the cartoon left, simply means something or someone they  disagree with.  That's as coherent as their philosophy gets.  It's a level of thinking most outgrow by their teenage years, when they realize the world is more complex than "fascists bad, therefore everyone I don't like is fascist." 

While all fascist governments were unique and often driven by circumstances and necessity rather than ideology, its best to look at what shared values fascists aspired to and generally agreed upon.

First and foremost, the most apt description of Fascism was provided by it's founder, Mussolini, “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” At it's core, fascism was anti-capitalism and anti-classical liberalism (libertarianism).  If fascists agreed on one thing, it's how much they hated capitalism.  Thus fascists want to socialize industries, expropriate profits and put the economy under direction of the government. Competition and free markets were bad, cooperation and central planning ideal.  Private property exists at the pleasure of the state. There was no independent right to own or use property. 

Fascist governments approached individuals the same way.  An individuals worth was derived from their membership in a group, not their individual ability  Fascism thrived on identity politics.  Governmental discrimination on the basis of race was the norm. 

To anyone with slightest bit of understanding, equating the modern Republican Party with fascism is the height of ignorance.   The party of capitalism, individual rights and opposition to race based discrimination by the government is what fascists fought against.  

individual rights and opposition to race based discrimination

That's laughable. The party member's walk in lock-step with one another as often as they can keep each other in-line. Just look at the RePUBLICANS forced out/locked out of the party and given phoney names like: "RINO."  The republican party has flipped its 'bottom up to its top and vice-versa.' Y'all are right now in the process of throwing out moderate republicans for extremist republicans as fast as you can get the mechanics and mechanisms to spit them far and away!

Come on, Sean - see the dirty underbelly of your party and talk about it too—especially, if you are going to try and belittle others.

And, a phony/pretentious call to recognition that hides the fact that all y'all better be CONSERVATIVE and not just conservative but conservatives of a peculiar stripe, does not give you license to say that republicans are for equality of the people. Fact: Republicans are for equality of conservatives. Liberals be damned.

party member's walk in lock-step with one another as often as they can keep each other in-line.

Lol.  You understand Democrats vote together on a party line basis much more often than Republicans right?  Sinema, who had to leave her party because she isn't a mindless drone, votes as often with Republicans as the AVERAGE Republican Senator votes with Democrats.  

It is a different kind of situation, and 'degrees' matter. BTW, I did not single any one republican out of the line-up of 'rejects' your party censures to aid the process of removal and allows to 'transition themselves away.'  And Sinema is an Independent politician and is still sitting and voting in the senate majority of democrats, nevertheless. Point that out in your sharing. 

I will ignore the irrelevant and provocative and repeated name-calling.  You don't have to 'do' anything—I've done it for you!

The republican party is 'canning' perfectly good conservatives for no other reason than the extremists are going to the forefront. . . and applying a popular 'boot' to moderate 'backsides' as they teeter on the political precipice.

Talk about yourselves (as the article does) and pick up a big political 'broom' with good intentions of putting your own 'front door' in order.

N

I don't think the republican party is racist. I think the republican party is Conservative and thereby use conservatism as a standard to check the caliber of party members and especially party leadership. Does the republican party use liberal policies as a means of rejecting, ejecting, or to create an 'unappetizing' well-spring of politics for others (usually and en-masse people of color). . . yes, of course!

No, the republican party is not fascist -at least not blatantly so, not yet anyway.