As I said, and which you ignored, the only freedom that you fight for is that to accumulate wealth. It is central to every word you have ever written and guides your beliefs on American governance and taxation. Since unhampered wealth accumulation leads inexorably to accumulation of power as well, it naturally leads to loss of democratic functions. We live with that now, as we are surrounded by an imperial state and a poltiical system funded by bribes that hardly functions at all. We are struggling to hold on to the last of the remnants of Roosevelt’s legacy – security in old age.

Breaking up the wealth accumulation game is the essence of core democracy – it preserves all of the freedoms guaranteed under the bill of rights because it preserves democratic rule. Want me to list them? Best you could do was to dismiss it as “egalitarian”, which is nothing but a sideshow. The Bill of Rights is egalitarian in that it is meant to apply to all of us, regardless of status. If we follow your libertarian claptrap to its logical outcome, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. Hence, Roosevelt preserved personal freedoms. You, thinking the only freedom is wealth accumulation, cannot see that you are the enemy of personal freedom.

Naomi Klein dealt with the real world. As it plays out. Real dictators, real support given by free traders and free marketers. The IMF and imperialsim operate hand-in-hand, free trade and free markets prevent the developing countries from gaining any ground on teh already wealthy. In the real world free trade is a tool of imperialists – a way of overcoming democratic institutions and home rule. Free trade, free markets, enemies of freedom. I don’t doubt you dismiss Klein, threw the book aside with great force without reading it in total (10 pages?), while you accuse me of being a moron for only having read synopsis of Goldberg. What a f***** moron.

JAC – that’s tripe. If Mr. Natelson is Jewish, it’s news to me. Mr. Goldberg is Jewish I’ve not doubt, but that thought didn’t enter my brain until you brought it up. Hence my words, “Goldberg is probalby Jewish. Means nothing.” The conflict of interest I referred to was that Mr. Goldberg, being a member of the right wing, has it in his best interests to pursue every academic angle he can to hang it on the left. Get real. You’re witch hunting.

“If Goldberg, who wants to hang fascism on the left and exorcise it from the right, says otherwise, why should I care? He’s got a conflict of interest.”

I have noticed that he uses a similar accusation against Mr. Natelson and a few others and it seems that it always has something to do with an issue that relates to them being Jewish. It smells like a dead carp so I’m thinking there might be something dead. So I asked him the following:

“And what is this accusation you make so oftern about “conflict of interest” against those with apparent jewish surnames. Are jewish citizens now not allowed to reach academic conclusions that differ from yours without being discounted due to their heritage? ”

And Mark T’s response to my question was a trite:

“Goldberg is probalby Jewish. Means nothing.”

So you see, as usual Mark T’s response to me didn’ t answer the question I asked, it deflected it in a manner to make it look like I was raising it as an issue with the post. My issue is with what appears to be a habit of Mark T that seems to only apply to folks who he knows are jewish or who have jewish sounding names.

I ask again Mark T, whats up with that??

Let me just reiterate; critiquing a book you haven’t read makes you seem like a total moron. You want a debate, then start with facts as opposed to your typical leftist axioms. Otherwise I’ll have no choice but to think you’re an idiot.

I don’t know Dave was Castro, Chaves, Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Obama all rolled into one. Learn something every day.

Personal freedoms? I know how your mind works. the only freedom you think important is to accumulate wealth. From your narrow frame of reference, all other freedoms follow. From higher above, we can see more and better – that wealth inequality precedes loss of all other freedoms. Under Roosevelt we got progressive taxation and Social Security, and that introduces and preserves all the other freedoms.

hard for you to embrace, but your philosophy inexorably leads to tyranny, torture, dictatorship, and loss of democratic freedoms. I don’t blame yo for projecting it all on us. I’m going to write a book about you someday. It’s going to be called “My Own Private Pinochet”.

It takes a lot of balls to critique a work you haven’t read. And it’s completely obtuse of you to argue that which you obviously don’t understand.

Secondly, show me the “personal freedoms” that FDR’s policies brought. Name them. Don’t just tell me it’s true.

Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini despised communists (and socialism). There’s a very clear and bright line between right and left in communism and fascism, though people living under either system might dispute it.

I have not read the book. I said that I had in effect read it because JAC was spilling it all over the page here. My time is limited. (I did read the BlackBook of Communism – the last book to spark such a group-think phenomenon on the right.)

I disowned the 14 points, if you had read, thinking they were wisdom after the fact. I learn as I go, picking up on my own mistakes. Read a little closer.

Roosevelt was a wartime president, an excuse used by Bush to violate civil liberties. But in Roosevelt’s case, there was a real war going on, not a fictitious one, and price gouging and shortages were a real problem. You might think that the market might naturally resolve those problems, even in wartime, and you’d be wrong.

Civil liberties (and free pricing) were very quickly restored after the war. That has not yet happened in Bush’s wake. It’s important to note with Roosevelt that we inherited an era of personal freedom and prosperity. You must put him in his place in history, and not isolate the war years. Further, his hand was forced by popular movements of the time – the depression, like the Vietnam war, was a wellspring for popular organization. The country was more democratic back then.

I am not a fascist. Neither was Roosevelt. A good sophist can make a rational case for anything – usually such efforts are ignored, but Goldberg’s resonated on the right, which is why Natelson and JAC parrot him. He gave them the hammer they needed to go after us leftist nails. Roosevelt’s efforts led to more personal freedom and wealth, and decades of prosperity. Some fascist.

Sophistry.