Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Political Views of Tim Gratz


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

Thanks, Terry. I hope that Mr. Piper does not replace me as your "favorite fascist" although I do think he fits the fascist title closer than I do. I never cared much for Adolph Hitler nor do I think he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize! (Believe it or not, apparently the Barnes Review so advocates!)

I do try to admit when I have been proven wrong and do try to learn from history. I think back in 1964 I was correct that LBJ was a crook, although I never thought that he had murdered JFK, and I am still a sceptic on whether he was involved. But I do given LBJ credit for passing the civil rights legislation of the 1960s which were of great benefit to our society. (I think they helped pave the way for the economic gowth of the South, as LBJ foresaw.) And I therefore have also concluded that my "hero" BG was wrong in opposing the civil rights legislation, even though he did so on constitutional grounds (and those grounds were consistent with his views on the limited role of the federal govt in other issues as well).

The above is not the only political matter that I was wrong on, but perhaps the most significant.

And Terry I agree that many socialists do indeed care for the betterment of people of all races in all countries in the world, a noble concern that all should admire.

I do agree with Terry (as I know she knows I would) that we should do our best to get along with those with whose political views we disagree and we should attempt to learn from them. If nothing else we should learn their world view and how it influences their political background. I consider my own political views expanded by the membership on this Forum (even though it might be hard to see.) What I cannot tolerate is those who justify the murder of innocents, whether it be fascism from the right or totalitarian communist from the left. I was as opposed as I was to Communism because I saw how evil it was; I am confident that had I been twenty or so years younger I would have been as contemporaneously opposed to Nazi Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, Terry. I hope that Mr. Piper does not replace me as your "favorite fascist" although I do think he fits the fascist title closer than I do. I never cared much for Adolph Hitler nor do I think he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize! (Believe it or not, apparently the Barnes Review so advocates!)

I do try to admit when I have been proven wrong and do try to learn from history. I think back in 1964 I was correct that LBJ was a crook, although I never thought that he had murdered JFK, and I am still a sceptic on whether he was involved. But I do given LBJ credit for passing the civil rights legislation of the 1960s which were of great benefit to our society. (I think they helped pave the way for the economic gowth of the South, as LBJ foresaw.) And I therefore have also concluded that my "hero" BG was wrong in opposing the civil rights legislation, even though he did so on constitutional grounds (and those grounds were consistent with his views on the limited role of the federal govt in other issues as well).

The above is not the only political matter that I was wrong on, but perhaps the most significant.

And Terry I agree that many socialists do indeed care for the betterment of people of all races in all countries in the world, a noble concern that all should admire.

I do agree with Terry (as I know she knows I would) that we should do our best to get along with those with whose political views we disagree and we should attempt to learn from them. If nothing else we should learn their world view and how it influences their political background. I consider my own political views expanded by the membership on this Forum (even though it might be hard to see.) What I cannot tolerate is those who justify the murder of innocents, whether it be fascism from the right or totalitarian communist from the left. I was as opposed as I was to Communism because I saw how evil it was; I am confident that had I been twenty or so years younger I would have been as contemporaneously opposed to Nazi Germany.

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

"I do try to admit when I have been proven wrong and do try to learn from history. I think back in 1964 I was correct that LBJ was a crook, although I never thought that he had murdered JFK, and I am still a skeptic on whether he was involved. But I do given LBJ credit for passing the civil rights legislation of the 1960s which were of great benefit to our society. (I think they helped pave the way for the economic gowth of the South, as LBJ foresaw.) And I therefore have also concluded that my "hero" BG was wrong in opposing the civil rights legislation, even though he did so on constitutional grounds (and those grounds were consistent with his views on the limited role of the federal govt in other issues as well)."

I'm in total agreement with you there, T.G.

BTW, my Dad voted for Goldwater, but would have preferred Nelson. Yet, being an artist, he drew each of the presidents and sent them into D.C. until he passed away in 1983. He did a charcoal sketch of LBJ, and received a letter from Lady Bird's secretary that it would hang in a museum dedicated to his life, down in Texas.

And, no one could ever take your place as my favorite fascist, T.G. At least, you're a human being, which is alot more than I can say for any Hitler-loving looney tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argues facts not in evidence. Ex-counsellor, here's the way it works. When you make the assertion, you offer the proof. You don't get to simply pretend that the case has already been made, and then extrapolate from there. I have given you the name of the "main opponent" you claim was murdered by Arbenz. Perhaps from that first clue, you could actually Google up a prima facie case. Unless and until you can do so, please cease and desist from this hair-splitting bullxxxx about what constitutes a "legitimate" government. I mean, for God's sake, by your rule of thumb, Richard Nixon's election wasn't legitimate because somebody killed his "main opponent" Bobby Kennedy.

___________________________________________

Robert,

Great post. Unfortunately, this seems to be Gratz's modus operandi whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often.

FWIW, Thomas :ice

___________________________________________

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

"whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often."

But, seriously Thomas. I don't think T.G. exhibits any need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking. After all is said and done, I haven't really noted any vitriolic outbursts, nor any overly condescending verbal abuse coming from his quarter. In fact, I've learned quite a bit from reading the exchanges between T.G. and Robert Charles Dunne. They're both truly gifted in the art of debate. It's an education in, and of, itself. Wouldn't you agree?

___________________________________________________

Hi Terry,

OK, they are both "truly gifted in the art of debate," but they are different. Robert is a true debater whereas I would put Gratz in the category of a smooth-talking salesman. Gratz is always saying things like "Of course,..." or "Clearly,..." or "You do, do you not...?" or "You would agree, would you not...?" Jeez, reminds me of Joseph McCarthy asking someone on TV, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" LOL

I do think Gratz is trying to "convert" others to his way of thinking on this Forum. Otherwise, why would he post so goshdarn often?? Hell, I know when someone is trying to "convert" me. One of my relatives is a Bircher and when I was younger that person was continually trying to get me to "see the light," so I know what a "converter" does-- they just keep hammerin' away! It's their "mission" in life, their "calling," if you will.

I've never accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts" (that I can remember). I just don't like his slippery tendency of making an assertion without offering proof of that assertion modus operandi (see Robert's post #7 again, if necessary) coupled which the above-mentioned "McCarthey" style and the fact that he posts so damn often and, as John says in post #14, he often suggests or even claims that those who disagree with him on this Forum are anti-American or unpatriotic.

I think Gratz is here to stay, however. He seems to enjoy being on the defensive....

FWIW, Thomas :ice

___________________________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(8) Do you support the illegal occupation of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?

(9) Do you agree with holding people in prison without without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits? Do you agree with them being tortured?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

Report from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4722534.stm

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said the United States must shut down Guantanamo Bay prison camp "as soon as is possible".

Mr Annan backed a UN report calling for the closure of the camp where some 500 "enemy combatants" have been held without trial for up to four years.

He said he did not agree with all findings, but said detainees could not be held "in perpetuity" without charge.

The White House has dismissed the report as "a discredit to the UN".

The UN says the US should try the approximately 500 inmates, or free them "without further delay".

Mr Annan said bringing the detainees to trial would allow them to explain themselves.

Only a handful of detainees have been tried so far.

While he did not agree with all the findings of the report, Mr Annan said it was crucial to strike a balance.

"The basic premise, that we need to be careful to have a balance between effective action against terrorism and individual liberties and civil rights, I think is valid," Mr Annan told reporters.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected the call to close the camp.

Mr McClellan said the military treated all detainees humanely. "These are dangerous terrorists that we're talking about," he added.

"They are people that are determined to harm innocent civilians, or harm innocent Americans. They were enemy combatants picked up on the battlefield in the war on terrorism."

A senior British minister also called for the camp to be closed.

Speaking on the BBC television Question Time programme, Peter Hain said he would prefer to see Guantanamo Bay close.

He also indicated that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agreed with him.

The US has dismissed most of the findings of the report which include allegations of torture.

It said most of the allegations were "largely without merit" as the five investigators never actually visited Guantanamo Bay.

The investigators say they rejected an offer to go to Guantanamo, as they would not have been allowed to meet the prisoners.

The report will be presented to the UN Commission of Human Rights, which authorised the report, at its next session in Geneva on 13 March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas, I must be a masochist to take the vitriol from John and some others.

Thomas, despite what John says, I do not recall questioing the patriotism of those who disagree with my POV--or of calling anyone a Communist. John posted that I did so "repeatedly" but he could not cite a single instance of it.

I do believe that John's posts demonstrate a distinct anti-American bias and I am not the only one who has reached that conclusion.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I've learned quite a bit from reading the exchanges between T.G. and Robert Charles Dunne. They're both truly gifted in the art of debate. It's an education in, and of, itself. Wouldn't you agree?
I do believe that John's posts demonstrate a distinct anti-American bias and I am not the only one who has reached that conclusion.

An example of Tim's great debating skills? Provide examples of my anti-American as opposed to my anti-Bush views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, how many Americans have you accused of corruption starting in the middle 1940s? It is not just George Bush that you detest. Now I am sure you are right about some of them (I know LBJ was corrupt but I was against LBJ in 1964 when many of the leftists on this Forum probably supported him) but you are not right about most of those you have condemned. You even permit members to claim that JFK's close friend C. Douglas Dillon may have been one of his killers.

And you condemn "war profiteering" even though it was the capitalist American state that produced the ships, planes, tanks, etc that helped destroy the Nazi war machine. Of course under our American system businessmen will make profits when they produce products, including military products, for the US government. But from that you wrongfully infer that wars are started to line the pockets of businessmen. It is a very slanted world view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, how many Americans have you accused of corruption starting in the middle 1940s? It is not just George Bush that you detest. Now I am sure you are right about some of them (I know LBJ was corrupt but I was against LBJ in 1964 when many of the leftists on this Forum probably supported him) but you are not right about most of those you have condemned. You even permit members to claim that JFK's close friend C. Douglas Dillon may have been one of his killers.

And you condemn "war profiteering" even though it was the capitalist American state that produced the ships, planes, tanks, etc that helped destroy the Nazi war machine. Of course under our American system businessmen will make profits when they produce products, including military products, for the US government. But from that you wrongfully infer that wars are started to line the pockets of businessmen. It is a very slanted world view.

It is true that I have posted a great deal about corruption in American politics. It is one of my main interests in history. See my pages on people like Ulysses Grant, Orville Babcock, William Belknap, William Tweed, Richard Croker, Tommy Corcoran, Bobby Baker, etc.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgrantU.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbabcock.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbelknap.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtweed.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcroker.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcorcoran.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerB.htm

It is not of course anti-American to be against corruption. For example, see my pages on people who exposed this corruption: for example, Thomas Nast, Charles Parkhurst, Seth Low, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Ida Wells, Gerald Nye, etc.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnast.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAparkhurstC.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlowS.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jsteffens.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jtarbell.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWwells.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnyeG.htm

Although I believe that FDR was one of your best presidents, a great deal of corruption started during his administration. As I have pointed out, the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex started in 1940 with the blessing of FDR. I believe this is closely connected to the death of JFK and the fortunes of the MICIC definitely revived under LBJ with the Vietnam War. George Bush is only the latest front man for the MICIC.

The Democrats were responsible for a great deal of this corruption as they were the party of power for much of the 20th century. However, in recent years, the Republicans have taking over this role with Reagan and the two Bushes. Between them, they have sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in order to satisfy the needs of their financial backers. A large percentage of these lives taken were of young American soldiers. Am I being anti-American to be concerned about that? I would have thought it is criminals like George Bush who really deserve the label of being anti-American.

I have posted numerous accounts of the corruption of Tony Blair and his government. Does that make me anti-British? Blair leads a party that I was a member of for over 35 years. That does not stop me from exposing his corrupt government. I am against corruption wherever it takes place and whoever does it. We cannot build a democratic society until we root out all corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, I agree with you on political corruption.

However, in some cases I believe you posit corruption on very thin evidence or where none in fact existed.

And the absence of any information in your Forum on the evils of Communism and the KGB is interesting.

Without looking up the exaxt quote in another thread you stated you spent years fighting Communism. Although I was certainly a devout anti-Communist this is more than I can say. Can you elucidate how you did this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the absence of any information in your Forum on the evils of Communism and the KGB is interesting.

Without looking up the exaxt quote in another thread you stated you spent years fighting Communism. Although I was certainly a devout anti-Communist this is more than I can say. Can you elucidate how you did this?

When you were joining the Young Americans for Freedom I was joining Solidarity (a small Libertarian Socialist group). Libertarian Socialists believe the Soviet Communist Part betrayed the socialist cause. The Libertarian Socialists in Russia were first destroyed by Lenin after the revolution. Those that survived that purge were destroyed by Stalin in the 1930s.

As Libertarian Socialists we worked within the Labour Party in order to make it more “socialist”. I was also active in other pressure groups such as the Anti-Nazi League, Anti-Apartheid Movement, CND, etc. I still stand by those views. In fact, my politics have hardly changed since I was 18. My first political battles were against the Stalinists and Trotskyites in the Young Socialists.

It is true I have not posted much on the Forum about the KGB or Stalinism. After all, unlike George Bush and the CIA I do not consider them a serious threat to my liberty. However, I have written a lot about them on my website. For example, see the following:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnkvd.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpurge.htm

These two index pages will take you to the other pages on the evils of communism.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ColdWar.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Russian-Revolution.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Russia.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW some of ... My opinions on a choice to take the stance against Tim in general as any sort of credible argument against Tims stand on Piper and anti semitism fails to make a significant distinction or analysis that recognises that it's not unusual for reactionaries to take essentially progressive positions on individual issues. Where they do so it must be applauded.

Further applauding same should not be seen as a general endorsement.

BTW I have noted over time a gradual change in a number of people including myself that comes from participation here and should not be, sans evidence, written off as opportunism.

This episode has allowed Tim to do what I think is sane, and I am not surprised of Tim being capable of it, namely :

"The above is not the only political matter that I was wrong on, but perhaps the most significant.

And Terry I agree that many socialists do indeed care for the betterment of people of all races in all countries in the world, a noble concern that all should admire."

This is progressive and should be noted.

The ability to see the subtle distinctions are important in this investigation.(IMO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do try to admit when I have been proven wrong and do try to learn from history. I think back in 1964 I was correct that LBJ was a crook, although I never thought that he had murdered JFK, and I am still a sceptic on whether he was involved. But I do given LBJ credit for passing the civil rights legislation of the 1960s which were of great benefit to our society.

It is of course easy to admit to mistakes made 40 years ago.

I do believe that John's posts demonstrate a distinct anti-American bias and I am not the only one who has reached that conclusion.
And the absence of any information in your Forum on the evils of Communism and the KGB is interesting.

Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do try to admit when I have been proven wrong and do try to learn from history. I think back in 1964 I was correct that LBJ was a crook, although I never thought that he had murdered JFK, and I am still a sceptic on whether he was involved. But I do given LBJ credit for passing the civil rights legislation of the 1960s which were of great benefit to our society.

It is of course easy to admit to mistakes made 40 years ago.

I do believe that John's posts demonstrate a distinct anti-American bias and I am not the only one who has reached that conclusion.
And the absence of any information in your Forum on the evils of Communism and the KGB is interesting.

Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today?

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

"Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today?"

I'd pretty much call it a draw, so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...