|
Post by Jeff Melton on Jun 19, 2010 17:30:49 GMT -5
Without wanting to get too political, I don't think it was so much that only a crazy man would oppose communism as it was that the 50s stories were very much a product of the paranoia during the Red Scare. I could accept that if we weren't talking about Steve Englehart. His political ideology consistently bled through the pages of the books he wrote, particularly in the 1970's. He wasn't the only one, of course, but it was pretty telling that he had to go so far to ridicule the idea of a version of Captain America who was interested in fighting communism. As for the "red scare", communism is responsible for the murder of millions of people, and it was a very real threat at the time. I think minimizing it as a "scare" doesn't do justice to the period. One of the telling things for me is that there are so many people out there who prefer to push mythology over reality on the times as they existed in the 50's. There were actually plenty of communists in government, in the media, and in Hollywood. That's simply a fact. Exposing them and their intentions is certainly not a bad thing. I know that it has been said that there were many innocent people who had ruined lives. The problem I have believing that it who has been pushing that, and their agenda. There were certainly many guilty people who were punished for their actions--some of which had to go ply their trade elsewhere I do agree that there were innocent men who had their lives ruined. The best example was Whittaker Chambers, who the media went after with a fiery indignation after he exposed their golden boy, Alger Hiss. As for the truth of that period, there have been books that dealt with it, which pretty much speak for themselves-- The Verona Project, Blacklisted by History among them. I think politics are far darker today than they were in the 1950's. The point I was making concerning what Englehart did was that Englehart, being a staunch political ideologue, could not bring himself to accept that there was such a thing as an anti-communist patriot. Therefore, he had to create another Steve Rogers, and fill him with all the typical baggage. While it was an interesting idea, to bring in a 1950's version of Captain America to fill that hole, I think he lost it when he made the character a two-dimensional stereotype. He simply cannot see anyone as a hero who opposing a political system he agrees with. I don't have a problem with that, but unfortunately, that's not what's happened typically in the comics. Roger Stern made Cap basically a hero worshiper of FDR. Stan Lee had Cap and Spider-Man sympathize with left-wing student groups in the late '60's. Englehart had Nixon as the head of a criminal organization in the 70's (after a dead-ringer for Nixon was exposed as a crook during Lee's run on Spider-Man). More recently, Brubaker vilified the Tea Party movement, suggesting that it was "racist", etc. The list is pretty expansive, and there's a common theme that run through all of the examples. Personally, I think that comics should be fun, and I try to keep politics out of comics (and, given that I don't like either of the two major political parties, that's not difficulty for me). However, I certainly don't see a problem with heroes like Captain America going after the villains of history, such as Hitler, Stalin, and the ideologies that they represented. Jeff
|
|
Dino Pollard
Aspiring Loser
Former Writer of Just About Everything
Posts: 26
|
Post by Dino Pollard on Jun 20, 2010 5:04:11 GMT -5
I have to disagree with you there -- communism wasn't responsible for the murder of millions of people, Stalinism was. Communism is simply a philosophy and not one that calls for murder anymore than socialism in Hitler's Germany called for genocide or democracy prior to the Civil War in America called for slavery.
Again, communism is not synonymous with Stalin's Russia.
No he didn't. Nowhere in the script was the Tea Party even mentioned, the protest signs were blank and the letterer Googled images of current protests in America and just copied signs from actual Tea Party protests. Burnside and the Watchdogs were not the Tea Party movement and in fact it was a Tea Party member who teamed up with and helped the Falcon try to stop them.
Again, Hitler and Stalin were not representations of their supposed ideologies (socialism and communism). Nothing in those ideologies supports murder or genocide. If you say they were, then you can also make the argument that Catholicism is a religion of pedophilia because of the recent scandals.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Melton on Jun 20, 2010 14:32:25 GMT -5
The only problem with that assessment is that it wasn't just Stalin who was responsible for those murders. They existed in every country that adopted communism, and they existed in Russia prior to Stalin's reign. Lenin and Trotsky were certainly not known for their humanitarian commitment to the preservation of human life. You had murders in China, Cuba, North Korea, Viet Nam, etc. It's a common thread for any country that adopts communism.
Communism is a flawed philosophy that discourages achievement, legalizes theft by the government, and disallows private property rights. The way it has been implemented has certainly led to numerous other evil things, such as genocide.
Of course, I'm not sure where your reference to democracy comes from, as the original United States was never intended to be a democracy. It was actually a republic of sovereign republics. The States only delegated certain powers to the federal government.
This sounds like damage control. I generally like Brubaker, and think he has mainly done an interesting job on Cap. His political ideology has been obvious from early on, though, and it can be annoying. The truth is that the protests were clearly a slam on the Tea Party movement, and Marvel pretty much admitted their mistake in judgment. They corrected that mistake in the reprints and promised to not do it again. I don't know why Brubaker took such issue with freedom of speech. That's one of the more annoying things about socialism and communism. Neither philosophy is big on freedom of speech---unless the speaker is just echoing the state-supported lines.
As I stated earlier, Stalin wasn't the first, or only, mass murderer who used communism to promote his sick ideology. Hitler's socialism was little different from Mussolini's. In fact, he based it largely on Mussolini's system. And it's no mistake that FDR found much of Mussolini's system admirable, given his own socialist leanings. Of course, FDR had more than a little tyrant in him as well.
And yet, wherever they exist, you have this common problem. And, again, the whole point of this section of the discussion was that Captain America fought against communism, and specifically, these communist governments. Nothing wrong with that. But, Englehart is such a staunch ideologue that he couldn't accept that, and had to portray an anti-communist as a one-dimensional villain. That was the problem with the way he handled the 50's Cap storyline, and it was a common theme for him (as well as some of his other bizarre storylines directly attributed to his substance abuse).
I would actually say that the Roman Catholic hierarchy supports these things because of the way they have handled reports of pedophilia over and over again. Instead of reporting these criminals, they have merely hidden the truth and transferred them away from their current victims to other, unsuspecting victims. That says quite a bit about the way they have administered the system.
|
|
|
Post by rppowell66 on Jun 20, 2010 15:01:38 GMT -5
I think he should be called Bucky.
|
|
|
Post by rppowell66 on Jun 20, 2010 15:09:46 GMT -5
As for the communism debate, I have to agree with Jeff. Stalin butchered more people than Hitler, yet he's still treated with kid gloves. He was a monster.
|
|
|
Post by rppowell66 on Jun 20, 2010 18:22:46 GMT -5
I'm very much looking forward to your future issues of 70's CHAMPIONS,Jeff.
|
|
Dino Pollard
Aspiring Loser
Former Writer of Just About Everything
Posts: 26
|
Post by Dino Pollard on Jun 21, 2010 19:17:22 GMT -5
That doesn't mean that the philosophy itself encourages murder. Those other countries largely based their systems on Stalin's. Nothing I've ever seen in The Communist Manifesto says anything about murder or genocide.
A belief system can be twisted by anyone evil enough, but that doesn't mean the system itself promotes those actions. Virtually every single religion the world has ever seen has been done to promote genocide, slavery, bigotry, any number of evils. American democracy has been the source of a number of evils all over Central and South America as well as the Middle East and Southeast Asia, all in the name of fighting the evil empire of communism. And we've seen democratically-leaders viciously overthrown and violent dictators installed in its place.
Does that mean American democracy is a system that encourages genocide and murder?
As someone who was a very big part of a socialist movement in college, I can say that's completely false. You're basing your opinions about socialism on governments which have twisted those systems for their own benefit.
The idea that this is all damage control falls on deaf ears for me. I've been working in independent comics for a few years now and given the amount of time between when this scandal flamed up and when the next issue was released which showed Falcon teaming up with a Tea Partier tells me that there wasn't enough time to completely redo that issue and the storyline in time for the release. Especially given that the artwork was particularly well-done and didn't appear rushed in the least.
Also, how is Brubaker against free speech if he criticizes the Tea Party Movement? The Tea Party compares Obama to Hitler, carries around extremely racially charged signs, continues to hammer on extremely obvious falsehoods such as the birth certificate issue, and yet if anyone dares criticize them even one iota, then all of a sudden they become the Crybaby Party and start whining about how their freedom of speech is being stifled? And yet several years ago, these were the very same people who were screaming, "America -- love it or leave it!" These were the very same people who were calling anti-war protesters lunatics. These were the very same people who said you never criticize the President in time of war.
Freedom of speech doesn't work one way, Jeff -- if the Tea Partiers have the freedom to say whatever they want, then the rest of us have the freedom to criticize them.
Taking issue with what someone says is not tantamount to taking issue with their right to say it. If it were, then one could argue you're doing the same thing by taking issue with Englehart's portrayal of the Grand Director.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Melton on Jun 27, 2010 16:19:30 GMT -5
That doesn't mean that the philosophy itself encourages murder. Those other countries largely based their systems on Stalin's. Nothing I've ever seen in The Communist Manifesto says anything about murder or genocide. Karl Marx did call for a brutal, and bloody revolution, and casting out all of the bourgeoisie. Again, this did not start with Stalin. Lenin and Trotsky were murderers as well. The problem is that the call for a bloody revolution and a violent overthrow precipitates some murderous activities. The problem with socialism and communism is that they inherently take what rightfully belongs to individuals, steal it, and re-distribute it to other, often less productive individuals. This is the nature of those systems. However, in the United States specifically, the government has developed two types of re-distribution systems--both of which are not compatible with the governing structure that was put in place during the Constitutional Convention. Neither corporate welfare nor social welfare (each championed by the two main, opposing parties in the United States) can find Constitutional support. America has never had a system of democracy, so a discussion regarding America and democracy is irrelevant. America was deigned to be a republic of sovereign States, each delegating a portion of their otherwise sovereign powers to a common agent, the federal government. Over the years, of course, particularly in the past century and a half, the nature of the federal government has changed, fundamentally altering its relationship with the states, and with the people. Has the United States government been guilty of genocide and murder? Yes. This was done when they got away from their founding principles. Marvel caught some flack in the media (justifiable) for that little stunt, and they not only apologized, but they said that the scene would be eliminated/retooled in the reprints. Their explanations or excuses notwithstanding, that's clearly a case of damage control. Brubaker takes issue with the Tea Party and promotes ignorant suppositions about that movement. Suppositions that are not borne out by fact, and are promoted by other socialists. The fact is that the Tea Party is rather disorganized, and the only common theme they seem to have is opposition to things being done by the government--and (from what I've seen) by both parties (although the current spending by the Democratically-controlled Congress and president is perhaps the area that they take the biggest issue with). Personally, I think that such a movement is somewhat refreshing in that I agree with Jefferson concerning the need for the government to fear the people, and not the other way around. While I have no intention of getting into a Tea Party debate, I do see some of the problems you're having, in that you are promoting many of the same falsehoods being promoted by the media and the federal government. They made charges of racial slurs, but were unable to prove any of them. I haven't seen any "racially charged" signs, but obviously, when you get thousands of people together, you're going to get weird messages. I'm much more concerned with the extremely racially charged signs carried by those in the immigration movement, promoting open borders. Yet, the media seems unable to even notice that. As for comparisons to Hitler, I'd have to hear exactly who made those alleged comparisons and what exactly they were to comment on them. Again, the Tea Party is a loose organization, composed of all kinds of different people, with various viewpoints. The birth certificate issue could have been cleared up early on by the production of a birth certificate, couldn't it? I think it's disingenuous to lump them all together with the so-called "birthers". This is something that can't be shown by the evidence either. Many of the people I've actually talked to who are active in that movement have indeed criticized Republicans (although I would argue not nearly enough), and most say that they've never been involved in politics at all until recently, when they apparently woke up and realized what a mess the country has become. Personally, they should have made that realization a long time ago, as this is just a more rapid progression of the same problem that has existed in the U.S. for over a century. Criticizing and demonizing are two different things, Dino. The problem I had with Brubaker (and, again, I normally like his writing) was that he did not have any legitimate criiticisms of them. He just called them "angry" and implied that they were "racist". This is a typical tactic employed by socialists. It is the propaganda machine at work. We've seen the same thing under Hitler, Stalin, and others. When the government controls the media, as is increasingly the case, we have a significant problem. For the record, I also oppose these imperialistic wars and have for some time. Don't assume facts not in evidence. In fact, I support Washington's notion on foreign entanglements, and think the federal government should follow his example. I'm also annoyed with the "love it or leave it" mentality, and would take issue with them if and when I encounter them. I think your problem is that you're not able to see that the Tea Party movement is not all of the same stock. I think I would disagree with them on many things, but I do think it's refreshing that they are opposing expansion of federal government power. As for anti-war demonstrations, where are they now that the Republicans are out of power? If someone truly is anti-war, shouldn't they be consistent on that point? I oppose these wars, no matter who is in office. I think it's more of a case of the war protesters being anti-Bush than being anti-war. Again, if Brubaker made any legitimate complaints, that would be fine. He made sweeping, and inflammatory generalities, about the movement instead. That was my problem with it. My issues with Englehart's Grand Director (actually 50's Cap, as he wasn't called the Grand Director until later) have been stated. Englehart has also made his position clear in interviews. Again, if he had tried to actually write a compelling character with views that differed from his own, I'd have no problem with it. My problem with what Englehart did was that he hated anti-communists so much that he could not put them in a remotely positive light, so he condemned them all with a one-dimensional stereotype. A three-dimensional character with opposing views would have been much better writing, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by rppowell66 on Jun 27, 2010 16:31:31 GMT -5
I didn't like Brubaker's depiction of the Tea Party movement either.
|
|
Dino Pollard
Aspiring Loser
Former Writer of Just About Everything
Posts: 26
|
Post by Dino Pollard on Jun 28, 2010 4:33:06 GMT -5
A violent overthrow of oppression is completely different from genocide against your own people. To suggest they're the same is sloppy at best.
No, it's not. The nature of those systems is to ensure a more collective union where people take care of each other.
And don't be naive enough to suggest that capitalism can't also be used to steal money from those who work hard and distribute it to other, less-productive individuals. The past twenty or so years has seen exactly that happen as the middle and lower class are often working multiple part-time jobs and working 'round the clock while fat cats on Wall Street collect money through scams such as subprime mortgages or credit default swaps. All the while enjoying tax cuts which benefit them and taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code.
Okay, here you're just arguing semantics to avoid the key issue I was aiming for -- which is that communism didn't call for imprisoning and butchering the people of a nation than America's system of government called for enslaving its own people. Arguing about whether or not America is or isn't a true democracy is a distraction from that point.
Same with Russia. It was never truly a communist country.
Saying they'll remove it from reprints is not the same as altering the entire story to have a heroic Tea Party character, which is what you suggest they did. You claim this was a deliberate slam against the Tea Party and an attempt to defame and denigrate them and portray them as villains. And yet that's NOT what happened in the story at all. There were two depictions of the Tea Partiers in that entire story-arc. One was from the beginning of the first issue, the image of the protest. Which I'm surprised the Tea Party got all riled up about when it was practically a reconstruction of actual Tea Party protest images that showed up on Tea Party websites and Fox News. The second portrayal was of a Tea Partier who helped the Falcon stop Burnside's plan.
Your claim is that this portrayal was intentionally changed. You have zero proof to back that up. Unless you produce a quote from Brubaker, Marvel editorial or anyone who worked on that story-arc that said, "we changed the entire storyline after there was a backlash," then you are not arguing this point in good faith.
Do you not realize that you are doing the exact same thing you so vehemently criticize Brubaker for doing?
You are making ignorant suppositions about socialists everywhere, claiming they are all against freedom of speech. You make these claims that socialism is a system which promotes murder. And you're making suppositions that are not borne out of fact (such as your claims about Brubaker's story).
I've worked with socialists. I marched alongside them. And even though I'm no longer part of that movement, I still consider those people good friends of mine and they think the same of me. Whenever I return to Chicago, I usually go out drinking with them and we have some pretty interesting discussions.
Not once have they ever tried to silence me or anyone else. Not once has any socialist I have ever met tried to silence me. They've ALWAYS fallen on the side of freedom of speech.
Your accusation that socialists are against freedom of speech is an insult to everything these people stand for.
"We do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote... People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." -Tom Tancredo, Tea Party Proponent
"Illegals everywhere today! So many spics make me feel like a speck. Where's my gun?" -Sonny Thomas, Tea Party leader in Ohio
Carl Paladino, the Tea Party candidate for governor in New York, sent out many racially charged e-mails (http://wnymedia.net/paladino).
Rand Paul said businesses should be allowed to practice segregation.
Recall this interview between Anderson Cooper and Tea Party leader Mark Williams:
COOPER: What you're saying makes sense to me here when I'm hearing what you say but then I read on your blog, you say, you call the President an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's the way he's behaving. He's certainly acting like it. Until he embraces the whole country what else can I conclude.
During the health care votes, Representative Emanuel Cleaver was spat on by Tea Party protestors. Rep. John Lewis, who was a very prominent figure during the Civil Rights Movement, was called the N-word. Rep. Barney Frank was called faggot.
Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain and a pretty public figure in the Republican party, even said the Tea Party displays innate racism and that's why young people are turned off from the movement.
Once or twice is an isolated incident and a few bad apples. When it happens repeatedly, it's called a pattern.
Glenn Beck, one of the biggest voices in the Tea Party movement, does it practically on a daily basis on both his radio and television programs. Do a Google search and you'll find no shortage of links to articles and videos of Glenn Beck comparing Obama and his administration to Hitler and the Nazis.
There were birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers. The Hawaiian government has confirmed they have Obama's birth certificate on file. World Net Daily, a right-wing website, was the place where the birther argument was debunked (although when it became politically disadvantageous for them to take such a position, their article was suddenly removed and now they're beating the drum for the birther movement yet again).
So either Obama's parents and the Hawaiian government in conjunction with Hawaiian newspapers conspired together to fake evidence of their son's birth in Hawaii in the hopes that one day he'd grow up to usher in a socialist dystopia, or this is a completely ridiculous issue, borne out of supposition and not fact.
Prominent voices in the Tea Party Movement, such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, virtually every commentator on Fox News and others did indeed characterize anti-war protestors and anti-Bush protestors as un-American, unstable, loons, etc. No evidence to support that? C'mon, Jeff. Where were you from 2001-2008? Did you completely avoid any statements made by politicians or pundits?
Brubaker had some very subtle criticism of the Tea Party and suddenly he's demonizing them. But after everything the Tea Party has said and done, after everything people who represent them in public have said and done, you say that's all freedom of speech but Brubaker is infringing on that right? Come on, that's a double-standard if I've ever heard one.
You obviously don't pay much attention to the left. We have routinely criticized Obama for his actions, both at home and abroad. Keith Olbermann is a very prominent liberal pundit and he has issued a number of criticisms against Obama on everything from his continuation of Bush-era torture, his refusal to prosecute Bush-era officials for violation of the law, the health care debate, the handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Don't Ask Don't Tell, you name it.
Obama however, unlike Bush, has made strides in ending the war by setting timetables for our withdrawal. Anti-war activists aren't stupid, we know just pulling out immediately will cause an even bigger mess. Bush launched the wars based on faulty intelligence, which we took issue with. Bush bankrupted the nation funding these wars, which we took issue with. Bush had no exit strategy, which we took issue with.
You're oversimplifying a complex issue.
You've done the exact same thing with socialists. The Tea Partiers did the exact same thing with supporters of health care reform. The right as a whole did the exact same thing with the left during the Bush administration.
If you're going to bang the drum for freedom of speech and respectful discourse, you can't only do it for one side of the political spectrum. You can't overlook every off-color remark from the Tea Partiers as isolated incidents and say they're not indicative of the entire movement and then not do the same for socialist movements. You can't cry foul at others making sweeping generalities about Tea Partiers while you yourself make sweeping generalities about socialists. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Crosby on Jun 28, 2010 6:07:28 GMT -5
Wow, who knew stories about Captain America could be so politically charged? Far be it from me to examine such complex issues as Communism and the Tea Party movement, so I'll limit myself just to Captain America.
Yeah, maybe it would have been better to have Captain America disappear some years after the war rather than right before, but Stan Lee did what he did and the stories that happened happened. And now we're having a nice little Patriot mini coming out soon, so that's good. 50's Cap became nutty and a mouthpiece for the writer's political views, but I also see him as a good portrayal of victimization by the government. At the time this (already unbalanced guy) volunteered to work for the government, communism was considered the big threat so he was sent off to fight that. And there was nothing wrong with that because there were legitimate threats, but the problem became when his drug-addled mind led to violent attacks against innocent people using communism as an excuse. The government realized, "Hey this guy's nuts," that his overcompensating will create a backlash leading to sympathy that could likely help communism more than hurt it, so they stuck him on ice. 50's Cap's big problem is his violent tendencies and accepting any excuse to hit people, which is more a big soapbox on vigilantes in general I think.
The recent Tea Party story, I didn't see the big deal. As has been written, it's new and a bit disorganized, with some fringes casting a bad light on others. The militant and extreme Watchdogs saw an opportunity and infiltrated some of these fringes. Main objective was recruitment, but it also made them able to preach their more extreme views under the protection of a larger umbrella. Those signs I saw as more Watchdog than Tea Party.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Melton on Jul 9, 2010 18:22:49 GMT -5
Here's the bottom line: Every communist country has been marked by oppression against the people. There was genocide in the Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam, Korea, etc. These people are all followers of Marx. Is Marx personally a murderer? No, but every country that adopts the communist system resorts to those actions. That's simply a fact.
Oh, I agree. That's why the best of the founding fathers opposed a state bank, which is what we've had for over a century now. There was a reason why they opposed it, and we see the wealthy bankers controlling the common citizens--a deplorable system. However, we can trace that all back to the national bank and the fed, as well as oppressive taxation.
The founding fathers made it clear that the last thing they wanted was a democracy. They never set out to form a democracy (basically, mob rule), and that's very clear from their writings. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, sought to establish a collective society, as did China. They just couldn't get past that "short period of dictatorship" that Marx envisioned.
See, this is precisely what I'm talking about. Leftist writers are unable to just tell a story without putting their politics into it. The Tea Party issue, which has become a much larger segment of our discussion than I envisioned, just illustrates that point. He merely echoed the same nonsense that the media has said about the tea party and other protests. They forget that those people have a legitimate right to be mad at a government that has gotten out of control--again, not in just the past two years, but over a much longer period of time. It's just accelerated in the past two years, and fortunately, gotten people's attention.
Who are the biggest curtailers of free speech, Dino? Who has created silly "speech codes" in the colleges and government schools? Those are all socialist ideas, promoted by the left. And what countries are the ones who consistently try to curtail free speech? Look at what is going on in Europe, including the Netherlands? It's not ok to send someone to prison for saying things you personally don't like. I'm opposed to that. People say all kinds of things I don't like all the time, but I wouldn't send them to prison for it. Yet, in socialist counties, they do. This was also true of the communist countries. They were quite brutal at silencing opposition.
The Brubaker story is but one example of the many that I pointed out, yet you dwell on it. The truth is that Marvel admitted they shouldn't have been so heavy-handed in the story, apologized, and made changes in the reprint. Why do you think that was?
That's because you agree with them.
So they say, but only speech that they agree with. Otherwise, there would be no silly speech codes and other PC nonsense. Otherwise, preachers wouldn't be carted off to prison for preaching from Romans. Of course, I'm talking about governments and governing bodies here, not individuals (although both are composed of individuals), and I have known many socialists who support that nonsense.
Those who support such things are an insult to freedom of expression.
[/quote]"We do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote... People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." -Tom Tancredo, Tea Party Proponent[/quote]
I think people should understand more about what they are voting for, and I think it's a real problem that people know so little about the government they are voting for. That comment seems to be more about general ignorance (which I certainly agree is a problem) than about "racism". Why does it have racial overtones?
As for the rest, as I said before, the Tea Party is very disorganized, and I have seen many of them on TV who made it clear that they neither have nor want a centralized leader. I'm sure there are idiots who make all kinds of comments. Would you like for me to produce some of the doozies uttered by numerous socialists?
Actually, you're misquoting him (note that there was no quote there). What he believes is that the government had no business telling businesses who to hire and not to hire. That's his libertarian ideology. He's never personally made racially bigoted remarks. He only believes that's not a proper function of the government. This is what I'm saying. Just because people may disagree with what he says, that's no reason to twist around what he means by his comments.
She's made all kinds of inane comments, as has her father.
Which is precisely my point about socialist and communist governments.
Not sure what "it" is. Looks like we've shifted subjects. I don't agree with everything Beck says, and some of the things he says are just plain stupid. Still, there are valid comparisons to Obama's administration and various socialistic countries.
Did I not say that I did not support the "America--love it or leave it" nonsense? I thought we had some common ground on this issue. And when have I even remotely defended the Bush administration? The problem I have is that who protested the war under Bush have suddenly disappeared under Obama . The same war is going on. This leads me to the obvious conclusion that their protests were more against Bush than against the war. There are exceptions, of course. People like Pat Buchanan, one of Bush's biggest detractors, has been equally critical of both.
Really? Come on, Dino. He couldn't avoid throwing his own political view (which I could have done without knowing) into the thing, implying that those who disagreed with the government were "racists" and that they had no reason for their anger. I've heard other socialists make the same ignorant claims. There are numerous reasons why people would oppose Obama, Bush, and various other administrations.
Hannity, another idiot, once said that Buchanan specifically (and presumably others as well) wasn't a conservative because he was against the war, and apparently other things. But, he is basically a shill for the Republican Party. I don't have a problem pointing out idiocy wherever it may come from.
In other words, for not being a big enough socialist. I'm aware of those "criticisms". The thing is that media has been very much in the tank for Obama from the beginning, including the way they covered the inauguration, and the way they give him a pass for everything. But then, when you have obvious Obama supporters like Chris I felt this thrill going up my leg" Matthews, that really shouldn't surprise anyone. I can't recall the media give any administration such a pass as they give Obama's administration. I just think it's sad that people have such little understanding of how far the government has departed from its constitutional roots. None of those socialist ideas are keeping with the limitations on the federal government clearly placed in the Constitution.
It's hard to defend Olbermann, who has some really inane and just flat-out stupid comments, including:
"This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire."
Of course, I can supply plenty of other examples of stupid leftist quotes, such as Reid's comments about Obama from the campaign, where he said that US (voters) would be “ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’ ”
Oh, and for the record, I'd love to see not just Bush-era people, but also numerous other government officials prosecuted for breaking the law and blatantly violating their Constitutional oaths.
I'll go one step further. I don't think Bush cared about an exit strategy, or the intelligence. He did point to some intelligence by British sources that supposedly backed him up. However, the war in Iraq was never a Constitutional one. Then again, neither are most of the U.S.'s excursions into other countries, carried out by both parties over many years.
Quite the contrary actually.
And don't get into calling me a hypocrite because I don't defend stupid comments, or point out a clear agenda by leftists. I don't have any problem pointing out stupid things done by neocons like Sean Hannity either. The point of all this wasn't to get into a protracted debate on socialism. It was to point out the left-leaning agenda so obvious in various comics. And you've done nothing to dissuade those comments.
Again, I could care less what Stern, Englehart, or Brubaker believe. I just don't want to see it in the comics.
|
|
|
Post by rppowell66 on Jul 9, 2010 18:36:03 GMT -5
It's been my personal experience that it's always the left that curtails free speech. Leftist mods are always banning conservative points of view.
Kieth Olbermann is a damned raving idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Melton on Jul 9, 2010 18:42:41 GMT -5
Wow, who knew stories about Captain America could be so politically charged? Far be it from me to examine such complex issues as Communism and the Tea Party movement, so I'll limit myself just to Captain America. Yeah, you never know what you can get into in these places. Oh, I understand that. I just was giving some history of how it came about. I really think it's a shame that they did what they did, because it would have been interesting to see what the Patriot and Spirit of '76 were doing after the war otherwise. But, like you said, we play the hand we're dealt. Is it going to be Jeff Mace? And that was my main complaint about that. It is something Englehart has done many times, and it was clear what he was going for. Now, this is something I would have preferred to see more of. And I agree that 50's Cap could have easily been played that way. I would have certainly preferred it, and that's the angle I've taken when writing the character. I agree that communism was the problem at the time. The thing is, I've read those old stories and 50's Cap wasn't crazy. My problem with Englehart is that he twisted the old 50's comics into something bad because he's such an ideologue. If you read those old stories, Cap wasn't crazy in them. So, you would have to conclude that he became crazy after all of this happened. The same is true of Jack Monroe. I think 50's Cap can be a pretty compelling character if cured of his serum-induced insanity. I'd like to see them handle a character like that. He really has plenty of parallels with Winter Soldier/Bucky in that he was used by the government the way he was. Those would be interesting things to get into. That wasn't my problem. My problem was the way that Sam and Bucky both took issue with the protests, and Sam implied that they were a bunch of "racists". That was Brubaker letting his politics show in the story. He was called on it, and Marvel acknowledged the error. Like I said, I actually like most of what Brubaker has done, and I think he's done some good things, not just with Cap, but also with the supporting cast. His Sharon is much more likable than Mark Waid and I like what he's done with Bucky. There are some things I didn't care for, and this is one of them. I also didn't agree with killing off Jack Monroe.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Crosby on Jul 10, 2010 6:13:32 GMT -5
Yes, the Patriot mini-series starting in September will follow Jeff Mace's career, both as Patriot during the war and as Captain America after.
The death of Jack Monroe is the one thing that keeps me from declaring Brubaker's run the greatest thing ever. I loved that final issue, the last year of Nomad's life, but I'd hoped the bad guys had kept Jack in a recuperation pod like Steve 2.0 and the body in Philly had been surgically altered. Red Skull had come back from such a clear death, why not Nomad?
Also, I want the lowdown from Namor or Hammond on their last contacts with Nomad.
One thing I wonder about 50's Cap, is it ever actually seen why he was frozen? Or was it like Bucky's death where we just saw POV flashbacks and hearsay? Had he been too extreme, or just attacked an actual closet communist with too many connections and too little hard evidence?
Also, how long had he been awake in-between appearances, maybe a few months at the most? It seems that a good case could be made that he suffers from PTSD. Once Monroe was in custody and properly treated, he seemed fine until others intervened. '50s Cap has never had that chance.
|
|